[Vision2020] Detainees (was Donovan: Liar, Idiot, or both?)
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 17 18:28:58 PDT 2006
Here's the problem. We don't know if any of those detainees are
"guilty", "innocent", or merely "not-guilty". We can't, without a
trial. So it follows that it should be inhumane to keep them in custody
for years without the benefit of a fair trial because some of them may
be "innocent" in the true sense of the word. I would argue that we
shouldn't be torturing even guilty terrorists, because we lose the moral
high ground. Not to mention that the data gathered that way is usually
suspect.
You apparently trust the government, the military, and the individual
soldiers not to grab innocent people and detain them. I say that people
make mistakes - that's why we need trials.
And since when is "wanting to do real harm to the US" even illegal?
Planning an actual event, yes, but simply hating the US? These aren't
even our citizens we are talking about. We don't have the right to
arrest our own citizens for thought crimes, why would we think we have
the right to arrest citizens of another country for them?
In my opinion, we've botched this mess up so much that most movie
studios would throw out such a script as being too implausible. To say
nothing, then, is un-American.
I want our old values back. I want our government to reflect the true
worth I see in the most members of our country individually. To let our
great country go down this road any farther is truly unpatriotic, in my
view.
I don't know how we can get out of Iraq without causing even more unrest
there, but we need to find a way. Then we should be responding to
terrorism by making common-sense security upgrades that don't trample on
people's rights and working with the U.N. to identify hot spots and
training grounds and eradicate them. Most of all, we should get back to
"business as usual" and stop letting our politicians work us into
killing frenzies about the subject. We should rebuild the Twin Towers.
We should never forget, but we shouldn't let the memory of that event
paralyze us with fear, either.
Paul
Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Sunil,
>
> Both.
>
> Yes, Sunil, I am a liar. I do lie on an occasion. I do it to save the
> innocent from harm and in response to a question that is confidential
> or I am not at liberty to say. But I don't lie for a living.
>
> As to being an idiot, I am in agreement with you there too. I am a
> total idiot. I once locked my keys in my car, and another time I
> locked my keys in my apartment. How idiotic hey? Another time I was
> cleaning a sugar shaker, got so into cleaning it I tipped it to the
> side and made a huge mess all over the table.
>
> But as idiotic as I am, I can still see that your 20+ posts over the
> years regarding terrorists always have three things in common:
>
> 1) They always try to get the reader to agree to better conditions for
> the terrorists 2) They ask misleading questions
> 3) They never contain praise for the United States
>
> I think you are using a common tactic of many lawyers to get a jury to
> agree with you. This was outlined in the text, "Getting to Yes". I
> studied some of this in my undergraduate courses.
>
> Here is how it works;
>
> First ask a misleading question that nobody would say no to. For example,
>
> "You agree that the US should not be torturing its prisoners of war?
>
> Well obviously, Yes, no rational person would agree with torture. So
> they say, "Yes".
>
> Next, the negotiator asks, "Don't you believe that the accused
> deserves a fair trial?"
>
> Well, again, any rational true blue American would say "Yes" to that.
>
> Then you ask, "If someone is innocent they should not be detained
> correct?"
>
> Well, again, any rational person would say, "Yes".
>
> With getting your audience to say "Yes" three times, it is not a far
> cry to get the fourth "Yes" of letting most of the terrorists go
> because the government doesn't have resources and evidence to get a
> legal conviction, they may only have enough evidence to know that the
> person is an individual that may have intent on doing real harm to the
> US.
>
> The fallacy that Sunil engages here is that there is a difference
> between being found "Not Guilty" in court and someone actually being
> "Innocent" of wanting to do harm to the US. In domestic issues that
> difference is not as big of a difference. But, when it comes to
> national security issues, that difference is exaggerated to
> potentially include the deaths of thousands of US civilians, like in
> 9/11.
>
> The mere fact that many of these men go home and whop their wives is
> reason enough for me to want to detain them until we can find they are
> not a threat to lives in the US or anywhere for that matter.
>
> As to proving my points, Sunil, I believe I have made my case, and it
> is my opinion, so I don't need to prove my opinion. It is my opinion
> and I gave you my reasons, based on what you have presented to me over
> the last 3 and 1/2 years. You and others don't have to agree, that can
> be your opinion. You can call me an idiot, an asshole, or whatever
> makes you feel better or to relieve your uncontrollable rage. I feel
> the same towards lawyers that free convicted child molesters and say
> they were just doing their job.
>
> As to my comments that you defend convicted child molesters, well you
> already agreed to that being the case, so no need to prove that one.
>
> You say, "I wouldn't put you in charge of cleaning catboxes or diapers"
>
> Thanks Sunil. I appreciate that consideration. I am sure one of your
> friends would be more qualified for that position.
>
> So I admit to both giving an occasional white lie for good intentions
> and definitely being an idiot. But, I don't advocate for the release
> of convicted child molesters and the release of terrorists, both bent
> on doing harm to other innocent people.
>
> Best to you Sunil,
>
> _DJA
>
>
> */Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> Donovan,
>
> First, you are a liar. You lie that you only attack those who
> attack you.
> You launched this recent character assassination, now joined by Dick
> Sherwin, after I asked you a simple question.
>
> You lie about my opinions and statements. Here, picked at random
> from the
> list of links you provided, is one of my posts:
>
> 'Dick,
>
> Is torture illegal? Is the President allowed to permit torture?
> Are he or
> those who torture in our name immune from prosecution?
>
> Sunil'
>
> Please explain, if you can, how this is support of terrorists or
> enemies of
> the United States. Of course you may be busy lobbying the Senate
> to support
> the Administration's bill to set up kangaroo courts and permit
> evidence
> obtaied by torture right now. Quick, attack Colin Powell too for
> opposing
> torture and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Even he can't
> stay on
> board with this stuff any longer.
>
> Dick, your statements simply show you cannot understand the idea
> that we
> have the right and duty to stand up for what we believe, and that
> people who
> love this country and its principles do not necessarily agree with
> you. The
> road to a totalitarian state will be paved by people who don't
> understand
> the need for honest dialog and criticism of government.
>
> Donovan, I can see how your maturity and breadth of life experience
> qualifies you to give career advice. I shall give it all the
> attention it
> deserves. For my part, I wouldn't put you in charge of cleaning
> catboxes or
> diapers, work for which you seemed qualified earlier. You would
> eat the
> shit and then spew it on this listserve as you have been doing.
>
> When you are no longer a fool, it will show in your posts. When
> you can
> attack my ideas by analysing what I've actually said, I'll be
> surprised.
> It's easier for you to lie and proclaim your idiocy than it is to
> actually
> do any work.
>
> Prove your points or shut up, windbag.
>
> Sunil
>
>
> >From: Donovan Arnold
> >To: Sunil Ramalingam , vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sunil and His Defense of Terrorists and
> >ConvictedChild Molesters
> >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Sunil,
> >
> > I don't disagree with defending the rights of the accused. I
> disagree
> >with giving any rights at all to convicted and self admitted child
> >molesters over the rights of others. If someone is accused of child
> >molestation, they should get the best defense possible. But after
> that,
> >shy of a mistrial or rigged trail, lawyers shouldn't be arguing,
> in court
> >or on-line that they should be free to go to another city,
> unsupervised,
> >that is FUBAR. To me, that is supporting Child Molesters over the
> rights
> >of children and other potential victims. I don't care your logic,
> that
> >self admitted and convicted child molesters should have those
> rights.
> >PERIOD.
> >
> > Second, I would never support putting you in charge of the nation's
> >security. I listed plenty of emails that indicate your position on
> >terrorists. It is my opinion, Sunil, that the tone and language
> of your
> >emails combined, over time, indicate you sympathize with the
> plight of
> >the majority of these individuals that wish real harm to
> Americans and
> >Westerns. Others are entitled to look at those 20+ emails over
> the last 3
> >years and think otherwise. It is my opinion that any foreigner
> that states
> >they wish real harm to the United States, its elected leaders,
> its people,
> >or its property, and has the ability to act on that statement, the
> >military has the duty to detain that foreigner until her/she is
> no longer
> >poses a threat. It is called National Security. National Security
> and the
> >prevention of an immediate harm and death of the innocent take
> precedence
> >over that of individual freedom of movement of US enemies.
> >
> > Nobody is putting a gun to your head to represent convicted and
> >self-admitted child molesters. That is your choice, and yours
> only. Nobody
> >is forcing you to sympathize with the rights of people who say
> "Death to
> >America". You could choose to represent the elderly, disabled, or
> millions
> >of other poor children that are wronged everyday in this country
> with no
> >shortage of work and just as little pay.
> >
> > You spend way to much time on Vision2020 defending these people.
> >
> > But again, I am not going to argue with you. As you could argue the
> >number of the dimples on a golf ball only number two, that is
> what you do.
> >I am not good at legal argumentation, I cannot even spell half
> the time.
> >But I can tell you my opinion is that convicted child molesters
> should not
> >go anywhere unsupervised and that terrorists wish harm and can
> will bring
> >harm to the US should be set free because of some legal argument,
> tell
> >that to victims of 911. Your statements, so frequently and
> intensely, as
> >you do on a public forum, in my opinion, is defending them, not
> their
> >actions, but them.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > _DJA
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
> rates starting at 1¢/min.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060917/ff928e15/attachment.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list