Guess who scares the libs in `08?

[canyonman00]

Ok, take your time, read. The initial statement was about six African American males. I reeeeeally don't think terrorists would recognize them as a gang. But maybe they are more like you than I know.

Now, the next point was addressing the single race study that the good doctor performed. That does not cover other races in either part of the study. Nor does it cover different regional standards, age groups, experience levels, nor the effect of punishment possibilities. All of these factors should/must be evaluated prior to claiming that the survey is truly representative of the conditions for the military that existed at the camp.

I would argue that you, nor the doctor, have no evidence that African Americans, Asians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, or any other minority would behave as white males would. He did not address having mixed ethnic groups. His test group didn't cover gender analysis either. Therefore the statement covering "people" all reacting this way is flawed. He has no documented proof!

There is no argument that mixed ethnic groups cause different outcomes. Society can verify this daily. Black males think and operate differently when they are mixed in with other ethnic groups. This point you and the doctor must concede to me on. Generally, African American males in their 20's are different than in their 30's, and it changes again in their 40's.

Maybe white males in your circle are static (we know better), but experience matters in our outlooks and behaviors as we age. The survey did not address this factor either. I can poke holes throughout this flawed review. Especially if you add minorities. I believe I am more of an expert on minority behavior than your doctor. Care to wager?

Prisons in America experience similar abuse reports. Operations that do this normally have instances where it happens. It has nothing to do with the war or the military, it's about sick individuals. You will not get me to defend sick individuals. But you will not hear me saying that the military are misbehaving because they are the military unsupervised. You are going too far. What you have is/are a bad person(s), who was/were punished. It's not the military! Get over it!!!

As you say, your doctor predicted what would happen in a real, improperly supervised, white male managed facility. Are you saying there is some truth to his data when these conditions are met? What does that say then? I am willing to listen!

Quote from Matt8200:

Maybe not everyone, but like I said, terrorist are not the most intelligent people.

If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I said I learned it in high school, not that I am in high school. My point is that it should be somewhat common knowledge.

Maybe you should go back and read the link I posted again. It says:

"Q: What percentage of people can be expected to become abusive and sadistic when power is placed in their hands?

A: According to Dr. Zimbardo and others who studied the issue, the overwhelming majority of soldiers do not commit abuses or atrocities, but a few will cross the line of human decency in any war or conflict."

You do not have a leg to stand on since the study predicted exactly what actually occurred in the real world.

Please do, I would love to see a study that says improperly trained guards will never abuse power when they are left unsupervised.

Who do you think appoints these officers and decides the curriculum they teach? Who makes the decision to allow ordinary solders to guard prisoners?

Like I said, I learned in high school that you should not give unsupervised and untrained guards the power they were given and I would expect someone in our government/military's administration to know that.

 

[Arnie]

Well, this proves my point. Both of these individuals were engaged in warfare against the US. Again, show me one case where an average US citizen, going about their normal affairs, has been harmed by the PA? The examples you give are actually good arguments for the PA. If you go to war with the US, you give up any rights you may have had under the Constitution. Comon sense guys.

Quote from Matt8200:

Here are two:

Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan while fighting U.S. forces with the Taliban in 2001. He was named by the U.S. administration as an "illegal enemy combatant", and detained for almost three years without receiving any charges.

On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court issued a decision repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend constitutional protections of individual liberty.

"An interrogation by one's captor, however effective an intelligence-gathering tool, hardly constitutes a constitutionally adequate fact-finding before a neutral decision-maker," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion reasserted the rule of law in American society: "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."

Justice O'Connor added, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi

José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) of Puerto Rican descent, is accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in May 2002 and detained without charge for more than three years in a South Carolina military prison under orders of President George W. Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla

 

[acronym]

Arnie, if i read that correctly, one was actually fighting us forces, padilla was "accused of terrorism" by consorting, right?
How does that constitute "warfare", exactly?

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from canyonman00:
Now, the next point was addressing the single race study that the good doctor performed. That does not cover other races in either part of the study. Nor does it cover different regional standards, age groups, experience levels, nor the effect of punishment possibilities. All of these factors should/must be evaluated prior to claiming that the survey is truly representative of the conditions for the military that existed at the camp.

I would argue that you, nor the doctor, have no evidence that African Americans, Asians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, or any other minority would behave as white males would. He did not address having mixed ethnic groups. His test group didn't cover gender analysis either.

This is about prisoners and guards. It has nothing to do with race. You really have a hard time reading don't you?

"Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, who led the Stanford prison study in which two dozen college students were randomly selected to play the roles of prisoners or guards."

I must have missed where it said white males lol. I'm still waiting for you to find a study showing improperly and unsupervised guards will never abuse their power.

It has nothing to do with the war or the military, it's about sick individuals. You will not get me to defend sick individuals.

Once again you failed to read:

"Q: How can ordinary people commit brutal, humiliating acts like what we saw from the Abu Ghraib pictures?

A: According to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School who has studied Nazi doctors and Vietnam veterans, everyone has the potential for sadism. He says that sadism is a reaction to the atrocities occurring in one’s environment. “The foot soldiers, MPs and civilian contractors are all caught up in the atrocity-producing situation. They end up adapting to the group and joining in.”...

Dr. Zimbardo says that everyone has the potential to be good or evil. The human mind can guide us toward anything imaginable, to create heavens or hells on earth. It depends entirely on the special situations in which we might become enmeshed. These young men and women mistreating prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison pictures were embedded in an evil barrel, says Zimbardo."

As you say, your doctor predicted what would happen in a real, improperly supervised, white male managed facility. Are you saying there is some truth to his data when these conditions are met? What does that say then? I am willing to listen!

I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time. It says that someone in our government/military's administration should have had enough competence to realized what was bound to happen at Abu Ghraib and should have enacted measures to prevent it from happening.

 

[Arnie]

Quote from acronym:

Arnie, if i read that correctly, one was actually fighting us forces, padilla was "accused of terrorism" by consorting, right?
How does that constitute "warfare", exactly?

Splitting hairs. How else would you charcterize "terrorism".

And again, show me where an average US citizen has been harmed by the PA? Not one of you has answered this. All 2 of the examples given are clearly of people who's goal is to harm America and it's citizens.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from Arnie:

Both of these individuals were engaged in warfare against the US.

Who is to decide that? How can you be sure if they are not proven guilty in court of law? Is there some reason why our judicial system won't work suspected terrorist?

What has been happening in our government, is exactly what our founding fathers feared.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." -- James Madison, Federalist no. 51.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams, 1788

 

[achilles28]

Quote from hapaboy:


To say that the Constitution has been done away with as a result of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo is a gross misrepresentation.

I'm going to ignore the obvious here and assume you knew he was employing hyperbole for effect.

Regardless, his point isn't THAT far from the truth.

Almost every clause in the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 seriously weaken and erode fundamental provisions in the Constitution that protect free speech, warrantless searches, due process, right to trial by jury. etc.

To cast these erosions as nothing more than 'reasonable sacrifices' would GROSSLY MISREPRESENT the egregious threat this legislation poses to our rights.

Quote from hapaboy:

And if you are going to mark a questionable situation like this as proof of erosion of the Constitution, there are far better examples that are illustrated every day in this country.

Then why bother contesting his point??

You agree with the fundamental point our Constitutional rights are under serious attack by out-of-control legislators, but vigorously defend one of this countries most Draconian bills, simply because - in your opinion - its not Americas MOST Draconian bill.


This mentality is pure idiocy. Another name for it is 'partisan hackery', of which you, and many lefties on this board are clearly a part.


Instead of framing the debate in terms of left versus right. Try the paradigm of freedom versus slavery.

When you do, you'll find both sides of the aisle are fucking you just as hard - just in different ways.

The net effect is the same - loss of freedom and hugely expanded Government. Everytime.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from Arnie:

Splitting hairs. How else would you charcterize "terrorism".

And again, show me where an average US citizen has been harmed by the PA? Not one of you has answered this. All 2 of the examples given are clearly of people who's goal is to harm America and it's citizens.

Well Bush defines terrorism as anyone who is not with us, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So by that definition, I'm a terrorist along with a lot of other Americans.

Rather or not any 'average US citizens' have been harmed or not is irrelative.
The point is that Patriot Act gives government too much power that could harm the 'average US citizen' in the future.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

According to Al Gore, its a living, breathing organism.

Thank you for bringing much needed perspective to the debate.

Both sides are fucking us.

But since this country is stuck in a phoney left-right paradigm, it matters not if the Government eviscerates our rights or grossly expands federal power - just as long as its 'our side' thats doing it.

Sheer idiocy.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from Arnie:

And again, show me where an average US citizen has been harmed by the PA?

Ok, just did a quick search and found what you are looking for:

Published on Monday, July 21, 2003 by the New York Times

Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
by Philip Shehon


A report by internal investigators at the Justice Department has identified dozens of recent cases in which department employees have been accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations involving enforcement of the sweeping federal antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

The inspector general's report, which was presented to Congress last week and is awaiting public release, is likely to raise new concern among lawmakers about whether the Justice Department can police itself when its employees are accused of violating the rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants and others swept up in terrorism investigations under the 2001 law.

The report said that in the six-month period that ended on June 15, the inspector general's office had received 34 complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations by department employees that it considered credible, including accusations that Muslim and Arab immigrants in federal detention centers had been beaten.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm