"...give him justice, which would be death..."? did i hear that correctly? this equation is a little 3rd worldly don't you think? this person was given AIRSPACE?
the us has 2 wars open right now (kind of like two books out of the library except we dont seem to learn anything from them) and a relatively serious problem with its own citizens shooting at other unarmed citizens in publc places: the biggest problem, in my opinion, seems to be a complete disrespect for the law and its application.
You're opposed to the death penalty? Or the two (plus) ongoing wars? Or the argument that we should try these people to demonstrate how rule of law works? Or the continued striving to achieve a more perfect union, while recognizing we remain imperfect? Or all of it?
Also what exactly is the "third world" that we are trying not to emulate?
1. yes, of course, i am opposed to the death penalty 2. and was against the wars before they started and will be against those to come 3. a more perfect union meaning cultural, political and economic hegemony over the rest of the world? well, no, im not in favor of that either. although im not sure where citing the constitution (like a lay bible) comes into this. [making a list of things im "for" or "against" isnt very productive or critical thinking in my opinion, but we can play if you want]
the us is the only 1st world country to still have the death penalty. correct me if im wrong.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't "oh god forbid we still put people to death in the U.S." but rather we have a justice system for a reason--let's use it and not subvert it for any reason, since it is our respect for the law and our own institutions that makes us who we are.
Whether you like it or not, the death penalty does exist in the U.S. and is a part of our justice system. Arguing that we shouldn't try the folks in Gitmo because they might recieve the death penalty is absurd, because the existence of Gitmo and the military tribunals is a far bigger stain on our moral character than the fact that we still employ the death penalty.
It's better not to confuse the arguments for what we are for/against into a muddle--better to be specific so that the importance of those things arne't lost. Sure, the death penalty is bad and working to end its utilization in the U.S. is great. Is this really the best situation to argue that point? I don't think so.
And citing the Constitution, and our continual striving for a more perfect union is just a way of saying that as a nation, we have always and continue to try to make ourselves better, by fashioning ourselves into a more just, meritocratic and equitable society. Some times we take awhile, sometimes we fall behind and sometimes we sprint ahead. Regardless, in this experiment we remain lightyears ahead of almost every other nation on earth.
let's clear one thing up: i am in favor of putting them on trial. im not in favor of calling them "fuckers" or saying that justice equals the death penalty. (and after this previous period, tangent)
In other news, the legal system itself has little to do with my personal moral character.
the idea that the us is the best, no criticism could ever be valid (or applied), and no one has anything on us, like nationalism were some football game, is, in my opinion, ridiculous. and a bad position from which to argue a point because it instantly starts to smell religious: your choice of the word "experiment" insinuates that slightly scientific utopia.
that said, id fix all sorts of things in the us and im not gonna stop feeling like they need to be fixed or saying they need to be fixed because of extenuating circumstances (since those, sadly enough, will always, always, be there). for starters, i think universal health care might be a nice step in the right direction and, hate to break it to you, happens to be yet another 3rd world tendency most other (so called first world and not so first world) countries have addressed and moved on with. And, Ilan, a country with a growing (you heard right) gap between rich and poor is not more equitable.
But we've left our main argument and headed out into other waters i fear...
Posts
"...give him justice, which would be death..."? did i hear that correctly? this equation is a little 3rd worldly don't you think? this person was given AIRSPACE?
ReplyDeletethe us has 2 wars open right now (kind of like two books out of the library except we dont seem to learn anything from them) and a relatively serious problem with its own citizens shooting at other unarmed citizens in publc places: the biggest problem, in my opinion, seems to be a complete disrespect for the law and its application.
Not sure I follow your logic Ellison.
ReplyDeleteYou're opposed to the death penalty? Or the two (plus) ongoing wars? Or the argument that we should try these people to demonstrate how rule of law works? Or the continued striving to achieve a more perfect union, while recognizing we remain imperfect? Or all of it?
Also what exactly is the "third world" that we are trying not to emulate?
1. yes, of course, i am opposed to the death penalty 2. and was against the wars before they started and will be against those to come 3. a more perfect union meaning cultural, political and economic hegemony over the rest of the world? well, no, im not in favor of that either. although im not sure where citing the constitution (like a lay bible) comes into this. [making a list of things im "for" or "against" isnt very productive or critical thinking in my opinion, but we can play if you want]
ReplyDeletethe us is the only 1st world country to still have the death penalty. correct me if im wrong.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't "oh god forbid we still put people to death in the U.S." but rather we have a justice system for a reason--let's use it and not subvert it for any reason, since it is our respect for the law and our own institutions that makes us who we are.
ReplyDeleteWhether you like it or not, the death penalty does exist in the U.S. and is a part of our justice system. Arguing that we shouldn't try the folks in Gitmo because they might recieve the death penalty is absurd, because the existence of Gitmo and the military tribunals is a far bigger stain on our moral character than the fact that we still employ the death penalty.
It's better not to confuse the arguments for what we are for/against into a muddle--better to be specific so that the importance of those things arne't lost. Sure, the death penalty is bad and working to end its utilization in the U.S. is great. Is this really the best situation to argue that point? I don't think so.
And citing the Constitution, and our continual striving for a more perfect union is just a way of saying that as a nation, we have always and continue to try to make ourselves better, by fashioning ourselves into a more just, meritocratic and equitable society. Some times we take awhile, sometimes we fall behind and sometimes we sprint ahead. Regardless, in this experiment we remain lightyears ahead of almost every other nation on earth.
let's clear one thing up: i am in favor of putting them on trial. im not in favor of calling them "fuckers" or saying that justice equals the death penalty. (and after this previous period, tangent)
ReplyDeleteIn other news, the legal system itself has little to do with my personal moral character.
the idea that the us is the best, no criticism could ever be valid (or applied), and no one has anything on us, like nationalism were some football game, is, in my opinion, ridiculous. and a bad position from which to argue a point because it instantly starts to smell religious: your choice of the word "experiment" insinuates that slightly scientific utopia.
that said, id fix all sorts of things in the us and im not gonna stop feeling like they need to be fixed or saying they need to be fixed because of extenuating circumstances (since those, sadly enough, will always, always, be there). for starters, i think universal health care might be a nice step in the right direction and, hate to break it to you, happens to be yet another 3rd world tendency most other (so called first world and not so first world) countries have addressed and moved on with. And, Ilan, a country with a growing (you heard right) gap between rich and poor is not more equitable.
But we've left our main argument and headed out into other waters i fear...