Remember the guy with the shoe bomb?

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:13 pm

His trial is over, and the judge lit his ass on fire with a gallon of verbal gasoline.

Here is a transcript, i do not normally cut and oaste, but this man (The judge) has a way with words, and I like people who have ways with words.

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?

Did you know he was sentenced?

Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV or Radio?

Didn't think so.

Everyone should hear what the judge had to say;

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stating, "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be serve d consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

p; This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A specie s of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big deal."

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:17 pm

:yh_worshp :yh_clap :yh_worshp :yh_clap To that judge

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:19 pm

Oh that was good! That was real good!!

Thanks for posting that KB!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:21 pm

KB.;652524 wrote: [snip]

Well, the procedure and result may or may not be valid, but I hope never to read such a hsht-pit of verbal diarrhoea ever again. String the judge up by his 'nads, and give him the same, and the world will be happier.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:24 pm

What the heck?

Why Bill?

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:25 pm

Bill Sikes;652533 wrote: Well, the procedure and result may or may not be valid, but I hope never to read such a hsht-pit of verbal diarrhoea ever again. String the judge up by his 'nads, and give him the same, and the world will be happier.

Does it rain under your bridge?

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:26 pm

Bill Sikes;652533 wrote: Well, the procedure and result may or may not be valid, but I hope never to read such a hsht-pit of verbal diarrhoea ever again. String the judge up by his 'nads, and give him the same, and the world will be happier.

bill in a word ....why :rolleyes:

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:27 pm

KB.;652540 wrote: Does it rain under your bridge?

I do not live under a bridge.

Next.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:27 pm

RedGlitter;652538 wrote: What the heck?

Why Bill?

He's just a pussycat trying to be a lion. if he had actually given a reason why he responded the way he did, rather than just a generic yada yada troll attempt he might have made me laugh a bit.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:36 pm

KB.;652524 wrote: Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stating, "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:Come on KB, if you're going to quote in full then then stop censoring. Here's what Reid actually said immediately prior to sentencing, which itself is from CNN's "partial transcript". I suspect he said a great deal more. As far as "(The judge) has a way with words, and I like people who have ways with words" goes, I'm sure the judge spoke from notes. Reid spoke extempore. You'd expect a difference in polish in such circumstances:With regards to what you said about killing innocent people, I will say one thing. Your government has killed 2 million children in Iraq. If you want to think about something, against 2 million, I don't see no comparison.

Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons. I don't know, see what I done as being equal to rape and to torture, or to the deaths of the two million children in Iraq.

So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country. I'm at war with them not for personal reasons but because they have murdered more than, so many children and they have oppressed my religion and they have oppressed people for no reason except that they say we believe in Allah.

This is the only reason that America sponsors Egypt. It's the only reason they sponsor Turkey. It's the only reason they back Israel.

As far as the sentence is concerned, it's in your hand. Only really it is not even in your hand. It's in Allah's hand. I put my trust in Allah totally and I know that he will give victory to his religion. And he will give victory to those who believe and he will destroy those who wish to oppress the people because they believe in Allah.

So you can judge and I leave you to judge. And I don't mind. This is all I have to say. And I bear witness to Muhammad this is Allah's message.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:38 pm

That was the kind of intelligent response I was looking for. Now the conversation can carry on. Trolls beware, torches have been lit, and bridges can not hide you from the world.

Thanks Spot, I knew when I saw you lurking down below you wouldn't let me down.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:50 pm

KB.;652573 wrote: That was the kind of intelligent response I was looking for. Now the conversation can carry on. Trolls beware, torches have been lit, and bridges can not hide you from the world.

Thanks Spot, I knew when I saw you lurking down below you wouldn't let me down.You think I approve of the mirror-reflection of reality that the Judge handed down? The US has five times the proportion of its population behind bars compared to the world average. I don't think any American definition of "freedom" would satisfy any test of reasonable interpretation. I'm with Bill as far as the sugar-coated propaganda's concerned. You hold a quarter of the world's incarcerated and try to call your society free? It's laughable.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:54 pm

I'm taking some umbrage here.

Our imperfections and wrongdoings do not make what this judge bespoke to be unwarranted. The shoe bomber is nothing more than a sadsack wannabe who would have taken out a mess of innocent people.

The judge was right.

And it stands.

Again we may not be totally free but it beats what most of the rest of the world has.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:59 pm

Did I say you approved of anything? I posted what I did hoping someone would take the effort to find the other side of the story. You did that instead of just rambling on about verbosity. My opinion on the matter is not the issue, and neither is yours or Bills. I just wanted to see who would actually respond with something other than knee jerk reactions. I don't agree with either side; Allah and Islam would be just as ashamed of Reid as I am of the things we have done that are counter productive to peace, and resolution. I've read the Koran, more than once. I have also broken bread with many a Muslim, and I know the hearts of those Muslims. They are not just Muslim as I am not just Christian or American. They are human; and this thing makes their heart ache as much as it makes my own beat in an uncomfortable fashion. You brought out the other side; I was waiting on that, and that only. Too often only one side is seen as having a chance to be right; when in reality both sides as well as that third party all have things to learn and take from the other.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:05 pm

RedGlitter;652596 wrote: Again we may not be totally free but it beats what most of the rest of the world has.Seriously?Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.That depends on what you can afford and who you know, perhaps. What's the consensus view on OJ's trial, for example? How often does the President pull out the stops for the population at large the way he did this week for Scooter Libby? "The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged", sure, but if the Judge calls a spade a spade the President's always there to backstop people who took the fall for him. There's no route to justice as far as bringing any Administration to book's concerned.

Here's the final exchange in the courtroom, for completeness:JUDGE: See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down.

REID: That flag will be brought down on the Day of Judgment and you will see in front of your Lord and my Lord and then we will know.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:16 pm

Okay Spot, let me ask you this, is the UK any better? Not that it matters or I care about "bettering" the next country, but it seems to me America is not permitted to take pride in itself anymore and that doesn't work for me.

(Sorry KB if my reactions weren't the ones you were hoping for and I don't mean to knock this thread off its tracks!!)

I don't think I read about the US being the best or not having perversions. But that doesn't mean we should be hanging our heads in shame and failing to acknowledge the good of the US.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:43 pm

Every one is entitled to an opinion. That is what i was looking for; no matter if I said I wasn't. Spot is doing that, as are you. It is called conversation. It is good to hear the other side, and hopefully pay attention to it.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:58 pm

RedGlitter;652636 wrote: Okay Spot, let me ask you this, is the UK any better? Not that it matters or I care about "bettering" the next country, but it seems to me America is not permitted to take pride in itself anymore and that doesn't work for me.

There was a time when citizens of the USA would have cared very much about "bettering" the next country. I'm quite sure that the average citizen of the USA in the 1950s was a lot more optimistic about the country they lived in, and with far more cause, than those of the current decade.

Is the UK any better? We're talking about incarceration? As of 2006, the incarceration rate in prison and jail in the United States was 737 inmates per 100,000 population while the rate in England and Wales was 139 inmates per 100,000. I think both figures are too high but one's astronomical compared with the other.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:08 pm

spot;652679 wrote: There was a time when citizens of the USA would have cared very much about "bettering" the next country. I'm quite sure that the average citizen of the USA in the 1950s was a lot more optimistic about the country they lived in, and with far more cause, than those of the current decade.

Is the UK any better? We're talking about incarceration? As of 2006, the incarceration rate in prison and jail in the United States was 737 inmates per 100,000 population while the rate in England and Wales was 139 inmates per 100,000. I think both figures are too high but one's astronomical compared with the other.

I can't speak for the 1950s obviously, but back then we were expected to have civic and national pride. I doubt things were any better then than they are now relatively speaking; there was rape, murder, cannibalism, kidnapping, theft, embezzlement, torture, the Mafia, etc etc, then as there is now yet now, we have our pride slammed back down our collective throat any time we show it. By people who don't live here. Telling us what's wrong with our country. Like theirs is any better. Maybe in some ways it is. Maybe not.

As far as incarceration, maybe I am not understanding your angle on that. Are you saying America imprisons too many criminals? Too many innocents? Or that we have too much crime? I don't see how imprisonment cancels out our being a free society. With the exception of innocent people in the brink, which happens as far as I know in any country, what does our incarceration rate have to do with the basic freedom of law abiding citizens?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:29 pm

RedGlitter;652683 wrote: I don't see how imprisonment cancels out our being a free society. With the exception of innocent people in the brink, which happens as far as I know in any country, what does our incarceration rate have to do with the basic freedom of law abiding citizens?Isn't it at least clear to you that you're immediately having to qualify the word "free", or the concept of "freedom", in order to allow the US to qualify? It's no longer a matter of freedom once you start to look at the facts, it becomes the "freedom of law abiding citizens". It goes further. In order to justify the nature of incarceration in the US, those who are in jail are demonized. Nothing's too bad for those scum. It relieves the country of any need to rehabilitate:The assumption of rehabilitation is that people are not natively criminal and that it is possible to restore a criminal to a useful life, to a life in which they contribute to themselves and to society. Rather than punishing the harm out of a criminal, rehabilitation would seek, by means of education or therapy, to bring a criminal into a more normal state of mind, or into an attitude which would be helpful to society, rather than be harmful to society.That's scarcely an aspect of imprisonment which springs to mind when reading posts on the subject by American contributors here. Retribution, yes. Rehabilitation? You have to be joking. Further, the fact that the majority of your prisoners are criminalized by the current nature of your laws rather than through any aspect of natural justice is simply laughed at.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:35 pm

spot;652693 wrote: Isn't it at least clear to you that you're immediately having to qualify the word "free", or the concept of "freedom", in order to allow the US to qualify? It's no longer a matter of freedom once you start to look at the facts, it becomes the "freedom of law abiding citizens". It goes further. In order to justify the nature of incarceration in the US, those who are in jail are demonized. Nothing's too bad for those scum. It relieves the country of any need to rehabilitate:The assumption of rehabilitation is that people are not natively criminal and that it is possible to restore a criminal to a useful life, to a life in which they contribute to themselves and to society. Rather than punishing the harm out of a criminal, rehabilitation would seek, by means of education or therapy, to bring a criminal into a more normal state of mind, or into an attitude which would be helpful to society, rather than be harmful to society.That's scarcely an aspect of imprisonment which springs to mind when reading posts on the subject by American contributors here. Retribution, yes. Rehabilitation? You have to be joking. Further, the fact that the majority of your prisoners are criminalized by the current nature of your laws rather than through any aspect of natural justice is simply laughed at.

I can't buy that, Spot.

Freedom is for LAW BIDING/NON CRIMINAL HUMANS. Not for perps who bludgeon, rape and kill. Etc.

Why would you think otherwise?!

Rehabilitation? For what? Thieves? Ok. Arsonists? Maybe. Killers. Nada. Rapists? Hell no.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:39 pm

Your honour, the prosecution rests its case with regard to semantic mindwashing.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:55 pm

RedGlitter;652695 wrote: I can't buy that, Spot.

Freedom is for LAW BIDING/NON CRIMINAL HUMANS. Not for perps who bludgeon, rape and kill. Etc.

Why would you think otherwise?!

Rehabilitation? For what? Thieves? Ok. Arsonists? Maybe. Killers. Nada. Rapists? Hell no.
Let me have a quick try at defining rehabilitation.

What you have in the US is a system of privatised prisons. The country pays for each prisoner held. The longer the prison holds them, the more money the prison shareholders are paid in dividends. That's true? I think so.

What is the incentive on the prisons? To maximize their dividend. Under the current rules of payment, that means holding the maximum number of prisoners. What incentive is there to return them to society in an improved condition? None whatever.

Here's an alternative. I wouldn't let a single prisoner out of jail, even if he were there for non-payment of a parking ticket, until the prison declared him to be less likely than the average citizen to commit another offence. Every sentence of every court to every guilty verdict on every case would be "up to and including life".I'd pay the prison for releasing prisoners, not for their upkeep.I'd fine the prison for every offender they'd released who was subsequently found guilty in another court.Do you suppose the prisons would focus on rehabilitation then? I'm sure they'd research the hell out of it and that prisoner numbers would end up far lower than they are at the moment. There would be less crime on the street. Everyone would benefit. All it takes is the will to do it and an acceptance that retribution has no place in the justice system, that anyone who is less likely than the average citizen to commit a crime should be in society and not in jail.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:59 pm

Rehabilitation and the US prison system are about as far apart as it gets.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:50 pm

what a good thread

KB your open mind and willigness to talk and debate ,says more about you and your country than a bind bigoted knee jerk person ever could :-6

spot the points that you have made will keep my brain cell thinking all day ,great fair posts as always :-6

me what do i think ?? the points you guys have made have me still thinking ,well done guys :-6

red glitter :-6 why ?? ...........why not (i ran out of smileys insert grin here )

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:13 am

RedGlitter;652695 wrote: Rehabilitation? For what? Thieves? Ok. Arsonists? Maybe. Killers. Nada. Rapists? Hell no.I think RG is confusing rehabilitation with forgiveness. Forgiveness has no place in the justice system. Society at large has neither the ability nor the right to forgive anyone, that's solely a matter for individuals who suffered loss. Determining a sentence by the forgiveness of the offended family is an element of, for example, some branches of Sharia rather than, for example, Roman law.Qesas-e nafs (retribution in kind)

In cases of qesas, where a victim is killed or injured, the sentence is retaliation or "retribution in kind". This means that in cases of murder, the family of the victim has the right to ask for their relative’s killer to be put to death. The family can also choose to forgive the culprit and accept payment of diyeh [blood money] instead.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130592007

[Blood money has a long-standing history in early Western legal systems as well. It formed the basis of Anglo-Saxon and Viking justice, when it was called Weregild]

Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is an objective term describing the steps taken to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. It has nothing to do with forgiveness.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:15 am

RedGlitter;652596 wrote: I'm taking some umbrage here.

Our imperfections and wrongdoings do not make what this judge bespoke to be unwarranted. The shoe bomber is nothing more than a sadsack wannabe who would have taken out a mess of innocent people.

The judge was right.

And it stands.

Again we may not be totally free but it beats what most of the rest of the world has.

I wonderwhat 'most of the rest of the world' would think of that sweeping statement.

I've noticed this before about Americans (as a whole not individuals), you seem to lump the rest of the world into one - either 'free' like the US or not 'free' like? Like Europe whose history and society goes back centuries before yours? Like the Middle East who have some of the most ancient civilisations known to man? Like the Far East with their traditions dating back millenia?

It seems to me that sometimes the US is like a slightly aggressive adolescent who needs reminding now and again that their elders have seen it all before, it's not new and it'll be seen again.

Part of this 'ignorance' of other countries is due to the size of your own, you have enough news every day to fill the tv bulletins without looking elsewhere, this seems to foster the idea that nothing of note goes on anywhere else .

This is not the fault of the individual, our schools don't teach much American history and I'm sure yours don't teach much European history. Through the media of films and tv we see a lot about your culture and society but not much gets sent back the other way, a few good tv shows, films like Notting Hill or Four Weddings but as a whole you see little of the world except what you choose to see.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:41 am

Imladris;652830 wrote:

I wonderwhat 'most of the rest of the world' would think of that sweeping statement.

I've noticed this before about Americans (as a whole not individuals), you seem to lump the rest of the world into one - either 'free' like the US or not 'free' like? Like Europe whose history and society goes back centuries before yours? Like the Middle East who have some of the most ancient civilisations known to man? Like the Far East with their traditions dating back millenia?

It seems to me that sometimes the US is like a slightly aggressive adolescent who needs reminding now and again that their elders have seen it all before, it's not new and it'll be seen again.

Part of this 'ignorance' of other countries is due to the size of your own, you have enough news every day to fill the tv bulletins without looking elsewhere, this seems to foster the idea that nothing of note goes on anywhere else .

This is not the fault of the individual, our schools don't teach much American history and I'm sure yours don't teach much European history. Through the media of films and tv we see a lot about your culture and society but not much gets sent back the other way, a few good tv shows, films like Notting Hill or Four Weddings but as a whole you see little of the world except what you choose to see.

i'd like to say what a great post that was immy ,but if i did every one would think if jimbo likes it the post must be crap there for i will say the post is total rubbish and every one will see it for the great post it is :-3 :-3

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:46 am

spot;652829 wrote: I think RG is confusing rehabilitation with forgiveness. Forgiveness has no place in the justice system. Society at large has neither the ability nor the right to forgive anyone, that's solely a matter for individuals who suffered loss.

I'm not sold on this one. Supposedly every citizen has the potential to be valuable to society. If one goes astray and trespasses against another member of society, then society as a whole needs to either forgive or avenge.

I do think forgiveness has its place in our legal system.

As for rehabbing convicts, that only works if they want to change. Too many go on to repeat offenses. As I said prior, I can bend and see rehabbing a thief or a convict of lesser crimes but when it comes to crimes against one's person, such as rape, murder, dismemberment, torture; no way should someone receive rehabilitation for any of those.

Once again, I said America was a great country because of the freedom(s) we have. I still do not understand your correlation between that and felons.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:53 am

Imladris;652830 wrote:

I wonderwhat 'most of the rest of the world' would think of that sweeping statement.

I've noticed this before about Americans (as a whole not individuals), you seem to lump the rest of the world into one - either 'free' like the US or not 'free' like? Like Europe whose history and society goes back centuries before yours? Like the Middle East who have some of the most ancient civilisations known to man? Like the Far East with their traditions dating back millenia?

It seems to me that sometimes the US is like a slightly aggressive adolescent who needs reminding now and again that their elders have seen it all before, it's not new and it'll be seen again.

Part of this 'ignorance' of other countries is due to the size of your own, you have enough news every day to fill the tv bulletins without looking elsewhere, this seems to foster the idea that nothing of note goes on anywhere else .

This is not the fault of the individual, our schools don't teach much American history and I'm sure yours don't teach much European history. Through the media of films and tv we see a lot about your culture and society but not much gets sent back the other way, a few good tv shows, films like Notting Hill or Four Weddings but as a whole you see little of the world except what you choose to see.

And what does your antiquity have to do with freedom??

I've heard this before about how America knows nothing and other countries know so much more about America (and the world at large) than we do. I'd like to see that. Because so far all I've had are words.

I did not say anything to imply that "nothing of note" goes on anywhere else or that we were not aware of what goes on.

I think someone got their nose bent out of shape because they heard an American saying what they don't like to hear.

And as for elders....well you know what they say about that.

I am always amazed at the upset caused by a comment like what I made.

It's almost as if non-Americans hear us say or think we imply "Don't you wish YOUR country could be as good as OURS?!" And there's a big difference in that and what was said.

As far as those countries that have been around for millenia- you mean like the middle eastern countries who have slain each other for millenia? Gee, I feel like making that sweeping statement all over again.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:11 am

Something else I want to say.

Somewhere on FG someone wrote about how a country thinking it's the best is the cause of war and grievances, etc. Not those exact words but that was the gist.

I disagree.

Is America the best country in the world?

No.

The free-est?

No.

A lot of other adjectives meaning the same thing?

Probably not.

But to me it is the best because it's my home.

You in the UK- you ought to feel the same about your home. And judging by your reactions to my previous comment, I bet you do.

Everyone everywhere ought to think their country is the best because that is what you represent and where you hail from.

There isn't any arrogance in this as far as I can see nor should there be.

So today is American Independence Day. I'm not going to be cowed or slagged on on this particular day. Today I'm not going to have my country trashed.

Thanks.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:43 am

RedGlitter;652844 wrote: I'm not sold on this one. Supposedly every citizen has the potential to be valuable to society. If one goes astray and trespasses against another member of society, then society as a whole needs to either forgive or avenge.

I do think forgiveness has its place in our legal system.

As for rehabing convicts, that only works if they want to change. Too many go on to repeat offenses. As I said prior, I can bend and see rehabbing a thief or a convict of lesser crimes but when it comes to crimes against one's person, such as rape, murder, dismemberment, torture; no way should someone recieve rehabilitation for any of those.

Once again, I said America was a great country because of the freedom(s) we have. I still do not understand your correlation between that and felons.

"I said America was a great country because of the freedom(s) we have. I still do not understand your correlation between that and felons" makes sense if felons aren't Americans. Perhaps in your opinion they aren't? If they are, and given they don't have freedom, Americans as a class aren't free. Law abiding Americans are free. I'll argue against "Law abiding Americans are free" as well if you like, but that's a different issue.

Why does the American judicial system ever allow a felon back into society at all? He's demonstrated, to a jury's satisfaction, that he's more likely than the average citizen to commit a crime. Incarceration hasn't reduced his tendency to offend. Putting him back into society, regardless of how long he's served, is putting the population at large at increased risk of suffering further crime at his hands. Isn't the purpose of locking him away to improve the safety of the public?

Regarding forgiveness, are you saying that "society as a whole" has forgiven an offender at the point where he's released back into the community? I'm sure you're using the concept of forgiveness in an alien manner. I take forgiveness to involve no longer resenting, or to pardon, to cease to harbour wrath against a person. Is that what happens to ex-convicts?

Your "no way should someone recieve rehabilitation for any of those" still sounds very like confusing rehabilitation with forgiveness. To rehabilitate is to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. It's an educational process. Why would you prefer to leave some classes of convict despicable and unchanged? You don't suggest they're incapable of change, you say they shouldn't be offered lessons in change. There's evidence that rehabilitation can be effective on those classes of criminal that you would withhold it from, if it's provided.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:57 am

spot;652866 wrote: "I said America was a great country because of the freedom(s) we have. I still do not understand your correlation between that and felons" makes sense if felons aren't Americans. Perhaps in your opinion they aren't? 1) If they are, and given they don't have freedom, Americans as a class aren't free. Law abiding Americans are free. I'll argue against "Law abiding Americans are free" as well if you like, but that's a different issue.

Why does the American judicial system ever allow a felon back into society at all? He's demonstrated, to a jury's satisfaction, that he's more likely than the average citizen to commit a crime. Incarceration hasn't reduced his tendency to offend. Putting him back into society, regardless of how long he's served, is putting the population at large at increased risk of suffering further crime at his hands. Isn't the purpose of locking him away to improve the safety of the public?

Regarding forgiveness, are you saying that "society as a whole" has forgiven an offender at the point where he's released back into the community? I'm sure you're using the concept of forgiveness in an alien manner. I take forgiveness to involve no longer resenting, or to pardon, to cease to harbour wrath against a person. Is that what happens to ex-convicts?

Your "no way should someone receive rehabilitation for any of those" still sounds very like confusing rehabilitation with forgiveness. To rehabilitate is to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. It's an educational process. 2) Why would you prefer to leave some classes of convict despicable and unchanged? You don't suggest they're incapable of change, you say they shouldn't be offered lessons in change. There's evidence that rehabilitation can be effective on those classes of criminal that you would withhold it from, if it's provided.

1) First I accept/admit that there are innocent people in prison. Just to acknowledge that fact.

The way I see what you are saying, the point is moot because those convicts are not free presumably for a good reason. This will probably sound very bad to you but the shortest way I can say it is "they don't count," They screwed up, stepped off the fringe of society, so in no way should they or would they cancel out the fact that America is a free nation. I'm not sure if I'm being clear with how I'm trying to explain my views here but if not I will keep trying.

2) I don't feel the absolute scum of our society (pedophiles, rapists, cold blooded murderers (as opposed to defense and accidental killers) should warrant an opportunity to change. They are lost to society as I see it. Does this sound too harsh? Do we really want to let out another rapist or murderer and see if our rehabilitation in fact, worked?? Putting countless people at risk?? I don't.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:30 am

RedGlitter;652869 wrote: 2) I don't feel the absolute scum of our society (pedophiles, rapists, cold blooded murderers (as opposed to defense and accidental killers) should warrant an opportunity to change. They are lost to society as I see it. Does this sound too harsh? Do we really want to let out another rapist or murderer and see if our rehabilitation in fact, worked?? Putting countless people at risk?? I don't.

your 1) I take "they don't count" to mean they're no longer American in your eyes, I think. It's a point of view, certainly.

your 2) As for "Does this sound too harsh?", it's definitely unchristian. It is an absolute contradiction of the central plank of the Christian faith. On the other hand it doesn't sound surprising.

"Do we really want to let out another rapist or murderer and see if our rehabilitation in fact, worked"? No, never, it would horrify me if that were tried without a proven track record in the technique employed, working up incrementally from lesser to more serious crimes. Putting countless people at risk would be a criminal act in its own right.

Your society, however, does currently release unrehabilitated rapists and murderers, which does put countless people at risk. I think that's appalling. The only reason you do it is that your prisons have no financial incentive to rehabilitate them prior to release. What you rely on instead is parole boards which decide whether or not to believe a prisoner's assurance that, without any help from the prison, he's no longer a danger to society. I'd much rather put it on a scientific footing. I still quite like my earlier suggestion for prison reform, it still sounds to me like a workable approach. You've not talked about that yet.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:44 am

spot;652887 wrote: your 1) I take "they don't count" to mean they're no longer American in your eyes, I think. It's a point of view, certainly.

No...they may still be American...but to me they stopped counting as *citizens* when they committed their crimes. Some of them may even be less than human but that's not really what we're arguing here.

Saying the US isn't a very free country because its prisoners aren't free is like saying they *should* be! To me that's how it sounds.

your 2) As for "Does this sound too harsh?", it's definitely unchristian. It is an absolute contradiction of the central plank of the Christian faith. On the other hand it doesn't sound surprising.

Perhaps you should have said it sounded uncharitable as I am not christian so that would not be applicable. And why is it not surprising?

"Do we really want to let out another rapist or murderer and see if our rehabilitation in fact, worked"? No, never, it would horrify me if that were tried without a proven track record in the technique employed, working up incrementally from lesser to more serious crimes. Putting countless people at risk would be a criminal act in its own right.

Agreed.

Your society, however, does currently release unrehabilitated rapists and murderers, which does put countless people at risk. I think that's appalling. The only reason you do it is that your prisons have no financial incentive to rehabilitate them prior to release. What you rely on instead is parole boards which decide whether or not to believe a prisoner's assurance that, without any help from the prison, he's no longer a danger to society. I'd much rather put it on a scientific footing. I still quite like my earlier suggestion for prison reform, it still sounds to me like a workable approach. You've not talked about that yet.

Agreed on the fact that our prison system sucks. In many ways. I was once close to two individuals who had been in prison and I do have an idea of where our system goes wrong. Prison reform; we need to talk more about that. Prison is a world of its own with rules of its own just by the very nature of what it is. I am not sure *how* it could be reformed. I am talking about the whole societal infrastructure from guards on up. I just don't know if I can see it. Are we discussing the same thing here or am I off on another tangent?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:17 am

RedGlitter;652894 wrote: they may still be American...but to me they stopped counting as *citizens* when they committed their crimesYou've just invented an entirely new class of person, an American who isn't a citizen. Scary thought, it's like suggesting that the insides of prisons aren't American soil. I can imagine governments which would jump at that notion.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:30 am

spot;652931 wrote: You've just invented an entirely new class of person, an American who isn't a citizen. Scary thought, it's like suggesting that the insides of prisons aren't American soil. I can imagine governments which would jump at that notion.

Why does this surprise you, Spot? Convicts can't vote or own guns in prison or once paroled and those are citizens' rights so how is it that much more of a stretch?

I'd like to hear some of what you think about how you think a prison ought to be run, how the legal system should operate and how you would want to see hard criminals (the scum) treated and dealt with...?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:59 am

RedGlitter;652943 wrote: Why does this surprise you, Spot? Convicts can't vote or own guns in prison or once paroled and those are citizens' rights so how is it that much more of a stretch?

I'd like to hear some of what you think about how you think a prison ought to be run, how the legal system should operate and how you would want to see hard criminals (the scum) treated and dealt with...?

There's currently a wide jump between a suspension of specified civil (as opposed to human) rights and what happens when people are stripped of citizenship. They each become either a stateless person or a slave, depending on time and place. The words that most often follow the expression nowadays are "stripped of citizenship and deported". Even during the worst excesses of the British Empire, when we transported them as forced labourers to the colonies, convicts retained citizenship as British nationals and could return if their sentence expired before they did.

The essence of my thinking is that prisons should improve those sentenced there if they exist at all. I'd be quite content for America to execute every criminal on the spot when apprehended without so much as a trial, though Americans would presumably need an improved recruitment policy among those granted power of arrest if that were enacted. What I find deplorable is that prisons degrade both guards and incarcerated, simply because that's mistakenly considered a cost-effective solution. How shall we persuade people to stay on the right side of the law is answered by instilling a terror of jail in the general population. How shall we recruit cheap guards is answered by allowing thugs and sadists full license to exercise their unsavoury habits among those with no effective means of redress. Either close the prison system down completely or reform it so it becomes a means of reclamation.

There's a movie which addresses all these issues, it's called A Clockwork Orange and it was made by Stanley Kubrick. None of its concepts have become dated, it's as relevant today as it was when it was made. It argues forcefully against everything I've written here by showing the consequences of prison reform. It argues that the problem of social integration has to be solved outside of prison before rehabilitation will ever have a positive rather than punishing effect. It's worth taking out of a video library and watching.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:46 pm

spot;653024 wrote: There's currently a wide jump between a suspension of specified civil (as opposed to human) rights and what happens when people are stripped of citizenship. They each become either a stateless person or a slave, depending on time and place. The words that most often follow the expression nowadays are "stripped of citizenship and deported".

Ok, Spot, I am seeing your point here on this part. I don't have an answer for it, or better offer but I see the point.

Even during the worst excesses of the British Empire, when we transported them as forced labourers to the colonies, convicts retained citizenship as British nationals and could return if their sentence expired before they did.

The essence of my thinking is that prisons should improve those sentenced there if they exist at all. I'd be quite content for America to execute every criminal on the spot when apprehended without so much as a trial,

Now how would that be fair or correct or just?

though Americans would presumably need an improved recruitment policy among those granted power of arrest if that were enacted. What I find deplorable is that prisons degrade both guards and incarcerated, simply because that's mistakenly considered a cost-effective solution. How shall we persuade people to stay on the right side of the law is answered by instilling a terror of jail in the general population. How shall we recruit cheap guards is answered by allowing thugs and sadists full license to exercise their unsavoury habits among those with no effective means of redress. Either close the prison system down completely or reform it so it becomes a means of reclamation.

There's a movie which addresses all these issues, it's called A Clockwork Orange and it was made by Stanley Kubrick. None of its concepts have become dated, it's as relevant today as it was when it was made. It argues forcefully against everything I've written here by showing the consequences of prison reform. It argues that the problem of social integration has to be solved outside of prison before rehabilitation will ever have a positive rather than punishing effect. It's worth taking out of a video library and watching.

I have heard of A Clockwork Orange...have seen the book but never pickedi t up. But if you think it's a good deal I will look into the film or at least read the book. I'm more a book person. Thank you for your reply.

However my next question is do you really think prison isn't a terrifying place as it is now? I know they have a lot of "cushy" perks but I also know a bit of the hard side too and it's not all fun and games.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:32 am

RedGlitter;653565 wrote: FONT=Arial Black]COLOR=DarkRed]

I have heard of A Clockwork Orange...have seen the book but never pickedi t up. But if you think it's a good deal I will look into the film or at least read the book. I'm more a book person.

I should read the book, the UK version if possible, before seeing the film, which it is somewhat easy to miss the point of.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:53 am

*yawn*

this is really getting tiring. :rolleyes:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:21 am

sunny104;653741 wrote: *yawn*

this is really getting tiring. :rolleyes:

Jump in and contribute something worthy then anytime, Sunny. :-6

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:35 am

RedGlitter;653887 wrote: Jump in and contribute something worthy then anytime, Sunny. :-6

I just meant that any thread about America or any comment we make about our country always turns into a crap-on-America thread. It gets tiring.........

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:39 am

sunny104;653900 wrote: I just meant that any thread about America or any comment we make about our country always turns into a crap-on-America thread. It gets tiring.........

Oh I agree! Very much. I just meant join in with your thoughts any time is all.

No sarcasm meant.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:18 pm

sunny104;653900 wrote: I just meant that any thread about America or any comment we make about our country always turns into a crap-on-America thread. It gets tiring.........

Surely you aren't saying that my advice re. the book "A Clockwork Orange", to read the UK version, was a slight on the USA? Unbelieveable, if so.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:21 pm

Bill Sikes;654006 wrote: Surely you aren't saying that my advice re. the book "A Clockwork Orange", to read the UK version, was a slight on the USA? Unbelieveable, if so.

no, I was speaking more in general.........

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:23 pm

sunny104;654010 wrote: no, I was speaking more in general.........

Oh, OK, great. There was a good reason for my suggestion.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:20 pm

KB.;652524 wrote: His trial is over, and the judge lit his ass on fire with a gallon of verbal gasoline.

Here is a transcript, i do not normally cut and oaste, but this man (The judge) has a way with words, and I like people who have ways with words.

[...]

The sentencing is very reasonable, but the judge's rhetoric about flags and freedom are out of place in the courtroom. Justice is supposed to be blind, and patriotism is a bias. And one with no known positive outcomes in any situation, much less a courtroom.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:50 pm

Bored_Wombat;655506 wrote: The sentencing is very reasonable, but the judge's rhetoric about flags and freedom are out of place in the courtroom. Justice is supposed to be blind, and patriotism is a bias. And one with no known positive outcomes in any situation, much less a courtroom.

How one earth do you figure? If he had rambled on about God and religion, I could see where he would be out of line as we don't all share the same views on that but I think if you are an American living in America, those ideals about flags and freedom should rightly be mentioned in the courtroom.