subject:"Gulags"



On 3 Aug 2005, at 12:24 am, Dave Land wrote:


On Aug 2, 2005, at 3:35 PM, William T Goodall wrote:


I don't think it's easily eradicated. I didn't say that. I said,  
and you

quoted it, that 'religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to
eradicate.'



True.



Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than
changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of
evil.



You formerly held that religion is evil and should be eradicated.  
You

now seem believe that religion is merely a cause of evil. Is that
progress, or are they about the same thing in your mind?



I suspect English is not your native language. Causing evil is evil.



The fact is, I think we will always have to contend with evil.  
Learning

to live in a world that contains things that hurt us (gravity, storms,
poisonous plants, certain forms of religion, certain forms of atheism)
is one of the major purposes of life.




We should just put up with as there is nothing we can do? I'm more  
optimistic than you.


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience  
and Hubris - Larry Wall



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags



On 3 Aug 2005, at 4:29 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:


William wrote:


Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than   
changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes  
of  evil.




I would argue that a need to explain the unexplainable _is_ human  
nature and that religion provides those explanations.  The more we  
are able to understand our universe, the less we will need the  
imaginary explanations provided by religion.  Indeed, outside of  
the U.S. and less developed nations, the need for religion seems to  
be waning.


The degree to which the people of U.S. cling to religion baffles me.


ShrubMoron is speaking out on behalf of intelligent design again:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na- 
creation3aug03,0,3586432.story?track=tottext


http://tinyurl.com/8zgqu

Advocates of an alternative to the theory of evolution took heart  
Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that both sides ought to be  
properly taught in public schools.


In an interview with several Texas newspapers Monday, Bush was asked  
about the growing debate over the idea of intelligent design, which  
holds that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the  
universe and of life. I think that part of education is to expose  
people to different schools of thought, Bush said. And I'm not  
suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be  
exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.


This new American Lysenkoism, based on ridiculous religious ideas,  
will decimate a generation of potential life-scientists in the USA.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Maybe Windows is good for people who *think* they're geeks, but are  
not very good at it.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Warren Ockrassa


On Aug 3, 2005, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

This new American Lysenkoism, based on ridiculous religious ideas, 
will decimate a generation of potential life-scientists in the USA.


I'm at least as disturbed by this as you are, but it's a bit of a leap 
to go from ID-iocy to to suggesting that the reason there's so much 
prison rape is religion. Not that I expect you to see that it's such a 
leap; I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\



--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags



On 3 Aug 2005, at 4:26 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Aug 3, 2005, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote:


This new American Lysenkoism, based on ridiculous religious ideas,  
will decimate a generation of potential life-scientists in the USA.




I'm at least as disturbed by this as you are, but it's a bit of a  
leap to go from ID-iocy to to suggesting that the reason there's so  
much prison rape is religion. Not that I expect you to see that  
it's such a leap;


It's perfectly obvious; no leaping (or levitating) required. A  
country riddled with primitive superstition is bound to show an equal  
lack of advancement in other areas.




I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\



Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience  
and Hubris - Larry Wall



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Dave Land


On Aug 3, 2005, at 8:42 AM, William T Goodall wrote:


I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\


Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :)


A rut that prevents critical thinking is a rut that prevents critical
thinking, whether it is based on belief in pink unicorns or just your
lonely little self.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags



On 3 Aug 2005, at 7:15 pm, Dave Land wrote:


On Aug 3, 2005, at 8:42 AM, William T Goodall wrote:



I've begun to realize you're kind of in a rut here. :\



Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense :)



A rut that prevents critical thinking is a rut that prevents critical
thinking, whether it is based on belief in pink unicorns or just your
lonely little self.



Well, you've taken the first step to seeing what's wrong with your  
worldview anyway, although perhaps you are being a bit harsh on 'your  
lonely little self' :)


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool  
me -- you can't get fooled again.
 -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn.,  
Sept. 17, 2002


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

 William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip 
 Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense
 :)

gigantic yawn  B-O-R-I-N-G...

Do you really think that the Broken Record technique
(which is what you're applying here) is going to
accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are? 
If you want to be interesting, *please* use some
creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak.

Debbi
Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad Maru   :P




Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags



On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote:


William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



snip


Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense
:)



gigantic yawn  B-O-R-I-N-G...

Do you really think that the Broken Record technique
(which is what you're applying here) is going to
accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are?


To educate and enlighten?


If you want to be interesting, *please* use some
creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak.


LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up. - John Carmack

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Warren Ockrassa


On Aug 3, 2005, at 1:50 PM, William T Goodall wrote:


LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week :)


Hmm, so far you're 0 for 2.


--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Gautam Mukunda

--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of
 the week :)
 
 -- 
 William T Goodall

I note (for historical interest, if nothing else) than
Henry Clay once said I'd rather be right than
President.  To which Andrew Jackson (I believe)
immediately replied, Senator, you'll never be either.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

 William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote:
snip 

  If you want to be interesting, *please* use some
  creativity instead of monotone, monochrome
 sheepspeak.
 
 LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of
 the week :)

So this is obviously a bad week, hmm?
wicked little smile

Debbi
You Knew That Was Coming! Maru

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Designer Genes (was: Gulags)

 William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip 
 ShrubMoron is speaking out on behalf of intelligent
 design again:
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
 creation3aug03,0,3586432.story?track=tottext
 
 http://tinyurl.com/8zgqu
 
 Advocates of an alternative to the theory of
 evolution took heart  
 Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that both
 sides ought to be  
 properly taught in public schools.
 
 In an interview with several Texas newspapers
 Monday, Bush was asked  
 about the growing debate over the idea of
 intelligent design, which  
 holds that intelligent causes are responsible for
 the origin of the universe and of life...

While I personally find most of Nature so complexly
gorgeous as to suggest a Designer, let us consider
merely one facet of anatomy:  the proximity of the
procreative organs to eliminatory orifices.

Need I say more?

Debbi
Tymbrimi Humor, Or Tytlal? Maru




Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Designer Genes (was: Gulags)

2005-08-03 Thread Gautam Mukunda

--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 While I personally find most of Nature so complexly
 gorgeous as to suggest a Designer, let us consider
 merely one facet of anatomy:  the proximity of the
 procreative organs to eliminatory orifices.
 
 Need I say more?
 
 Debbi
 Tymbrimi Humor, Or Tytlal? Maru

At MIT, this is usually held to be proof that God is a
civil engineer, because who else would run a waste
disposal line through a recreational area? :-)

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com




Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Dave Land



On Aug 3, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:


--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of
the week :)

--
William T Goodall


I note (for historical interest, if nothing else) than
Henry Clay once said I'd rather be right than
President.  To which Andrew Jackson (I believe)
immediately replied, Senator, you'll never be either.


Gautam wins 1000 points!

500 for bring the first interesting post in this thread
since it fell into WTG's rut, historicity, 350 for
historicity and 150 bonus points because I think I owe
him from an earlier round.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Ronn!Blankenship


At 03:25 PM Wednesday 8/3/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote:


Debbi
Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad Maru




Whoever said that size doesn't matter . . . .


-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Ronn!Blankenship


At 03:50 PM Wednesday 8/3/2005, William T Goodall wrote:


On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote:


William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip


Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense
:)


gigantic yawn  B-O-R-I-N-G...

Do you really think that the Broken Record technique
(which is what you're applying here) is going to
accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are?


To educate and enlighten?


If you want to be interesting, *please* use some
creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak.


LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week



Most of the people who read your posts on this topic would be happy with 
either one.  :D



-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Designer Genes and Gulags

 Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  While I personally find most of Nature so
 complexly
  gorgeous as to suggest a Designer, let us consider
  merely one facet of anatomy:  the proximity of the
  procreative organs to eliminatory orifices.
  
  Need I say more?

 At MIT, this is usually held to be proof that God is
 a
 civil engineer, because who else would run a waste
 disposal line through a recreational area? :-)

Ouch!  Hadn't heard that version before.  ;}

And keeping with the theme, Ronn! wrote:

Debbi
Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad Maru

Whoever said that size doesn't matter . . . .


Hey, *I* didn't bring horses into this discussion...

Debbi
who is having to suppress a laughing fit brought on by
the Freudian transposition of c and s in that last
word (Really!  Caught it just before tapping Send!);D




Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags



On 3 Aug 2005, at 11:18 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 03:50 PM Wednesday 8/3/2005, William T Goodall wrote:



On 3 Aug 2005, at 9:25 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote:



William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



snip



Better than the rut of evil superstitious nonsense
:)



gigantic yawn  B-O-R-I-N-G...

Do you really think that the Broken Record technique
(which is what you're applying here) is going to
accomplish your goals - whatever the heck they are?



To educate and enlighten?



If you want to be interesting, *please* use some
creativity instead of monotone, monochrome sheepspeak.



LOL. I'd rather be right than interesting any day of the week




Most of the people who read your posts on this topic would be happy  
with either one.  :D




They must be delighted to be getting both every time then! Now that's  
value!


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Maybe Windows is good for people who *think* they're geeks, but are  
not very good at it.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Designer Genes and Gulags

2005-08-03 Thread Julia Thompson


Deborah Harrell wrote:

Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




While I personally find most of Nature so


complexly


gorgeous as to suggest a Designer, let us consider
merely one facet of anatomy:  the proximity of the
procreative organs to eliminatory orifices.

Need I say more?




At MIT, this is usually held to be proof that God is
a
civil engineer, because who else would run a waste
disposal line through a recreational area? :-)



Ouch!  Hadn't heard that version before.  ;}

And keeping with the theme, Ronn! wrote:



Debbi
Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad Maru



Whoever said that size doesn't matter . . . .


Hey, *I* didn't bring horses into this discussion...


How about zebras?  The male zebra I see on a regular basis is reasonably 
endowed


Julia

depending on where I am, if I hear hoofbeats, the logical thing is 
actually to think zebra  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread Warren Ockrassa


On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than the 
UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours across the 
board  - more murder, more rape and so  on. A country mired in 
primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine on respect 
for human rights.


Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil 
that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion?



--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread William T Goodall



On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote:


My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than  
the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours  
across the board  - more murder, more rape and so  on. A country  
mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to  
shine on respect for human rights.




Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY  
evil that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion?




Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread Warren Ockrassa


On Aug 2, 2005, at 10:37 AM, William T Goodall wrote:


On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:59 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than 
the UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours 
across the board  - more murder, more rape and so  on. A country 
mired in primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine 
on respect for human rights.


Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY evil 
that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion?


Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :)


Heh, indubitably. But I still think it's rather naive to suggest that 
*all* behavior we judge as atrocious can be attributed to one root 
cause. The argument that it's all because of religion is as simplistic, 
I think, as the argument that we're innately a violent species, that 
it's somehow in our genes to perpetrate violence. Hubbard tried 
something similar in attributing all negative behavior to engrams and 
founded a cult of lunatics in the process.


One-sided monochromatic thinking tends to lack subtlety and doesn't 
often see that *some* validity for *some* points of view does not equal 
100% rectitude in all situations. That's a long way around suggesting 
the outlook it's all religion's fault is not only monotonous but 
possibly obsessive. It's also patently false. I can think of quite a 
few evils not perpetrated in the name of religion.



--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread William T Goodall



On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:50 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Aug 2, 2005, at 10:37 AM, William T Goodall wrote:



On 2 Aug 2005, at 6:14 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


Well, it *had* been a compelling post until this graf. Is EVERY  
evil that exists ANYWHERE attributable in your mind to religion?




Stupidity and ignorance have roles too :)



Heh, indubitably. But I still think it's rather naive to suggest  
that *all* behavior we judge as atrocious can be attributed to one  
root cause.


I don't suggest that. But I do think that religion is one of the  
easiest causes of evil to eradicate.



The argument that it's all because of religion is as simplistic, I  
think, as the argument that we're innately a violent species, that  
it's somehow in our genes to perpetrate violence. Hubbard tried  
something similar in attributing all negative behavior to engrams  
and founded a cult of lunatics in the process.


One-sided monochromatic thinking tends to lack subtlety and doesn't  
often see that *some* validity for *some* points of view does not  
equal 100% rectitude in all situations. That's a long way around  
suggesting the outlook it's all religion's fault is not only  
monotonous but possibly obsessive. It's also patently false. I can  
think of quite a few evils not perpetrated in the name of religion.


Maybe if you looked closer?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much  
prefer it to Linux. - Bill Joy.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Gulags, Ghost Prisons and Torture

2005-08-02 Thread Gary Denton

Excerpts

For two and a half years US authorities moved Benyam Mohammed around a
series of prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, before he was
sent to Guantánamo Bay in September last year.

In an statement given to his newly appointed lawyer, Mohammed has
given an account of how he was tortured for more than two years after
being questioned by US and British officials who he believes were from
the FBI and MI6. As well as being beaten and subjected to loud music
for long periods, he claims his genitals were sliced with scalpels.

He alleges that in Morocco he was shown photos of people he knew from
a west London mosque, and was asked about information he was told was
supplied by MI5. One interrogator, he says, was a woman who said she
was Canadian.

Drawing on his notes, Mohammed's lawyer has compiled a 28-page diary
of his torture. This has been declassified by the Pentagon, and
extracts are published in the Guardian today.

The lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, says: This is outsourcing of
torture, plain and simple. America knows torture is wrong but gets
others to do its unconscionable dirty work.

It's clear from the evidence that UK officials knew about this
rendition to Morocco before it happened. Our government's
responsibility must be to actively prevent the torture of our
residents.

Mohammed was arrested in Karachi while trying to fly to Zurich - and
thus entered a ghost prison system in which an unknown number of
detainees are held at unregistered detention centres, and whose
imprisonment is not admitted to the International Committee of the Red
Cross.

His brother and sisters, who live in the US, say the FBI told them of
his arrest in summer 2002, but they were unable to find out anything
else until last February. In recent days the Bush administration is
reported to have lobbied to block legislation, supported by some
Republican senators, to prohibit the military engaging in cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment, and hiding prisoners from the Red
Cross.

Mohammed alleges he was held at two prisons in Pakistan over three
months, hung from leather straps, beaten, and threatened with a
firearm by Pakistanis. In repeated questioning by men he believes were
FBI agents, he was told he was to go to an Arab country because the
Pakistanis can't do exactly what we want them to.

The torture stopped after a visit by two bearded Britons; he believes
they were MI6 officers. He says they told him he was to be tortured by
Arabs. At one point, he says, they gave him a cup of tea and told him
to take plenty of sugar because where you're going you need a lot of
sugar.

He says he was flown on what he believes was a US aircraft to Morocco,
while shackled, blindfolded and wearing earphones. It was, he says, in
a jail near Rabat that his real ordeal began. After a fortnight of
questioningand intimidation, his captors tortured him with beatings
and noise, on and off, for 18 months. He says his torturers used
scalpels to make shallow, inch-long incisions on his chest and
genitals.

Throughout, he was accused of being a senior al-Qaida terrorist and
accomplice of Padilla. He denies these allegations, though he says
that while tortured he would say whatever he thought his captors
wanted. He signed a statement about the dirty bomb plot.

Mr Stafford Smith was first allowed to see him two months ago. He said
there were marks of his injuries, and he is pressing the US to release
the photos taken in Morocco and Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1540550,00.html

From his diary

They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut.
Maybe an inch. At first I just screamed ... I was just shocked, I
wasn't expecting ... Then they cut my left chest. This time I didn't
want to scream because I knew it was coming.

One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did
it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my
reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in
maybe two hours. There was blood all over. I told you I was going to
teach you who's the man, [one] eventually said.

I was in Morocco for 18 months. Once they began this, they would do it
to me about once a month. One time I asked a guard: What's the point
of this? I've got nothing I can say to them. I've told them everything
I possibly could.

As far as I know, it's just to degrade you. So when you leave here,
you'll have these scars and you'll never forget. So you'll always fear
doing anything but what the US wants.

Later, when a US airplane picked me up the following January, a female
MP took pictures. She was one of the few Americans who ever showed me
any sympathy. When she saw the injuries I had she gasped. They treated
me and took more photos when I was in Kabul. Someone told me this was
to show Washington it's healing.

But in Morocco, there were even worse things. Too horrible to
remember, let alone talk about. About once a week or even once every
two weeks I would be

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread Dave Land


On Aug 2, 2005, at 11:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

I don't suggest that. But I do think that religion is one of the 
easiest

causes of evil to eradicate.


Which is why tyrants throughout the centuries have had so much luck
doing so?

I think you'll find that it is only in your narrow little I hate
religion and you should, too view of the world that religion is easy to
eradicate. Call it charlatanry, foolishness, stupidity or whatever
insult you may want to hurl at it, but the persistence of religious
belief across virtually every society in the history of the world
suggests that your belief that religion can be easily eradicated puts
you in a miniscule minority.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread William T Goodall



On 2 Aug 2005, at 11:21 pm, Dave Land wrote:


On Aug 2, 2005, at 11:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote:


I don't suggest that. But I do think that religion is one of the  
easiest

causes of evil to eradicate.



Which is why tyrants throughout the centuries have had so much luck
doing so?

I think you'll find that it is only in your narrow little I hate
religion and you should, too view of the world that religion is  
easy to

eradicate. Call it charlatanry, foolishness, stupidity or whatever
insult you may want to hurl at it, but the persistence of religious
belief across virtually every society in the history of the world
suggests that your belief that religion can be easily eradicated puts
you in a miniscule minority.



I don't think it's easily eradicated. I didn't say that. I said, and  
you quoted it, that 'religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to  
eradicate.'


Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than  
changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of  
evil.


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Maybe Windows is good for people who *think* they're geeks, but are  
not very good at it.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread Dave Land


On Aug 2, 2005, at 3:35 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

I don't think it's easily eradicated. I didn't say that. I said, and 
you

quoted it, that 'religion is one of the easiest causes of evil to
eradicate.'


True.


Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than
changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of
evil.


You formerly held that religion is evil and should be eradicated. You
now seem believe that religion is merely a cause of evil. Is that
progress, or are they about the same thing in your mind?

The fact is, I think we will always have to contend with evil. Learning
to live in a world that contains things that hurt us (gravity, storms,
poisonous plants, certain forms of religion, certain forms of atheism)
is one of the major purposes of life.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-02 Thread Doug Pensinger


William wrote:

Eradicating religion isn't an easy project, but it is easier than  
changing human nature or one of the other hard to eradicate causes of  
evil.


I would argue that a need to explain the unexplainable _is_ human nature 
and that religion provides those explanations.  The more we are able to 
understand our universe, the less we will need the imaginary explanations 
provided by religion.  Indeed, outside of the U.S. and less developed 
nations, the need for religion seems to be waning.


The degree to which the people of U.S. cling to religion baffles me.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-08-01 Thread William T Goodall



On 11 Jun 2005, at 11:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 04:28 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:



At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the  
regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.




For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.



For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would  
that be?




Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course.




While the redneck side of me may agree (and in fact suggests that  
the chemical method ought to involve something like pouring a  
liter or so of concentrated H2SO4 in their lap), my real opinion as  
to what should be done is to get the correction officers back in  
control of the prisons (and not in an abusive or sadistic way,  
either).  If what it takes is keeping the inmates locked in their  
cells so they can't get to each other to rape each other or kill  
each other, so be it.  If it involves a return to the practice of  
making little ones our of big ones so that when they return to  
the cell block they are too exhausted to commit mischief, so be  
it.  Perhaps someone else has a better idea of how to fix the  
problems in the regular prisons . . . ?




http://www.spr.org/en/academicarticles/odonnell.html

Why is it that an aspect of prison life that appears to be so  
tightly woven into the prisoner's experience in the United States is  
not to be found in any concentrated form in the UK?


Ian O'Donnell a1, Prison Rape in Context, 44 Brit. J. Criminology  
241 (March 2004)
Fear of sexual violence is a defining characteristic of the prison  
experience in the United States. Rape has been a key theme in the  
literature on imprisonment since at least the 1930s. There is  
evidence--from prison argot and epidemiological studies in  
particular--that this problem is not as ingrained in the UK. Clearly  
there is more at play here than sexual deprivation and the pains of  
confinement, which know no jurisdictional boundary. It is suggested  
that the answer may lie, to some extent at least, in the poisonous  
history of race relations in the United States: prison rape can be  
seen as a legacy of slavery and the lynch mob. The particularity of  
the US situation may also be explained in part by higher levels of  
violence in society more generally and a cynical attitude on the part  
of prison staff.


Introduction

In today's world the judge who sentences a young person to reform  
school or prison passes male rape on him as surely as the sentence.  
Every inmate has a very short time, once inside, to pick a 'wolf' (a  
tough protector) or face gang rape, becoming the 'girl' of the  
institution, or death. Many of the prison suicides we read about can  
be traced to this choice. Worse, prison officers might even have sold  
the boy to aggressive inmates in order to keep the institution quiet.  
(Scacco 1982: vii)


The above quotation encapsulates several of the main themes to be  
addressed in this paper. First, the notion that prison rape is a  
quotidian experience, that it is an inevitable secondary effect of  
incarceration. Second, that this is a recent development, peculiar to  
'today's world'. Third, that the existence of this practice is so  
firmly rooted in prison life that it has generated its own argot.  
Fourth, that there is an intimate connection between the fear of  
sexual assault and violence (whether directed inwardly as suicide or  
at other prisoners in self-defence or retaliation.) Fifth, that  
prison staff may be complicit in the continuation of this practice.  
Scacco presents in stark form an argument that is found throughout  
the literature on imprisonment in the United States.


Prisoner biographies and litigation, academic treatises, popular  
'entertainment' and reform groups (such as Stop Prisoner Rape) are at  
one in their emphasis on the subculture of sexual violence that  
permeates prison life. Penal institutions are shown as crucibles of  
masculinity; places where distorted--and destructive--forms of male  
identity are forged. In this bleak view, those who do not fit the  
mould are destroyed. Only 'real men' can survive the unrelenting  
struggle for domination that marks the passage of time behind bars.  
According to Smith and Batiuk (1989: 30):


the threat of sexual violence actually dominates the prison  
environment and structures much of the everyday interaction that goes  
on among inmates. In fact, the threat of sexual victimization becomes  
the dominant metaphor in terms of which almost every other aspect of  
'prison reality' is interpreted.


To give one example of this reality, consider the following account  
from a terrified eyewitness in Terrant County Jail in Forth Worth,  
Texas. This prisoner escaped rape when a 17-year-old youth, admitted  
to the same communal

Re: Gulags

2005-08-01 Thread Doug Pensinger


William wrote:

My own take on this is that a country that is more religious than the  
UK is bound to exhibit more depraved and bestial behaviours across  the 
board  - more murder, more rape and so  on. A country mired in  
primitive religious superstition is hardly likely to shine on respect  
for human rights.


IMO, if they started putting the white collar criminals in with the rest 
instead of in country club prisons it might provide incentive to change a 
few things.



--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags L3

2005-07-08 Thread Gary Denton

Just as note that while I did do a lot of thought and research into it
it was posted at nearly 5 AM and there are some things I would not
have written or at least written better with more sleep.

Gary D
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags L3

2005-07-07 Thread Gary Denton

On 7/1/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Answering your thoughtful post.

 Then it would seem that all AQ has to answer is name rank and serial
 number, right?

I don't think so.  What is prohibited is usually considered, based on
article 130: grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates
shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed
against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful
killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to
body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of
the hostile Power, or willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the
rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

That would mean things that are not torture and is not causing great
suffering or serious injury to body or health might be permitted
depending on how far you go.  A lot of the debate within officials
with long experience and the new political appointees based on leaked
memos are explorations as to what extent techniques like water
boarding (drowning without killing) and sleep deprivation and long
periods of times in uncomfortable positions (that actually do cause
long-term damage) and techniques that are extremely painful but leave
no permanent damage (electrodes anyone?) are lawful. Do we really want
to explore this?  You want to interrogate someone - should you have
the guards rough up the prisoners for several days before the
interrogation as long as they leave no permanent physical scars? 
Several of the people released after over a year and never charged
have long-term disabilities now.

   No carrot, no stick at all, is the way I read the Geneva Conventions on
   POWs.  Is that what you think should be the case?

I think that must come from the controversial Article 17 - No
physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any
kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind.   This does not preclude classic plea
bargaining - that is, the offer of leniency in return for cooperation
- or other incentives. Plea bargaining and related incentives has been
used repeatedly with success to induce cooperation from members of
other violent criminal enterprises such as the Mafia or drug
traffickers.

 
  Unpleasant results...  I am opposed to using torture in the name of
  democracy.
  I am wondering if you are minimizing or are truly unaware of some of
  the things classified under unpleasant results which in places
  outside of Gitmo have included torturing people to death.
 
 No, I'm not doing that.  I'm trying to obtain first and understanding of
 what has been going on, and then trying to form a reasonable opinion about
 it.  I don't think that when the Geneva Convention talks about
 unpleasantness that they were using a euphemism for torture.  I took it as,
 well, unpleasantness.  For example, you could not interrupt the sleep of
 people who aren't talking.  You couldn't change their diet from a tasty one
 to one that is nutritious, follows their dietary laws, but is rather
 tasteless and bland.  You couldn't impose solitary confinement for refusing
 to talk.  You couldn't shine lights in their cell.

1st - I think historically article 17 has not been interpreted
strictly.  2nd - Who do you want to cause unpleasantness to and why? 
3rd To what degree do you want to cause unpleasantness?  4th - Is
there any evidence this unpleasantness is effective?  5th Aren't there
undesirable consequence to using these techniques, in the reliability
of information obtained, in brutalizing our guards as well as the
prisoners, in our standards of decency, in the world's opinion of us,
in God's eyes? 6th A long history of research in torture and brutal
interrogation techniques shows it is not effective.  What might be
called plea bargaining deals and a long process of extracting
information in a relatively cooperative atmosphere has been shown to
be much more accurate.

 Basically, it appears that prisoners should be as well treated as one's own
 soldiers until the war is over.  You can't even refuse them cigarettes as a
 means of getting them to talk. That's what I'm referring to when I write of
 unpleasantness.

And where did you find this interpretation? I eventually found article
17 in looking through the articles.

 The killing of prisoners who are not engaged in life threatening activities
 (e.g. an armed prison riot) is not acceptable.  Torturing prisoners is not
 acceptable; particularly ones that are not likely to have information that
 can save hundreds or thousands of lives.  The actions depicted in the Time
 report looks to be on the borderline to me.  That's why I copied the
 details of that and asked

I will have to think about your reply more for a fuller answer. Right
now I am convinced we are in the early stages of admitting the
invasion was a tragic mistake and plunged us into an unwinable war.
The issue of how we treat prisoners should be resolved to restore the
good name of the United States while also protecting the U.S. from
real terrorists.

I will also have to reread the Time article. You do know that Time
has a long history of presenting some foreign policy and intelligence
information in ways that the CIA and other conservative policy leaders
wanted out? Time Magazine was tied to the CIA and a loosely organized
group that evolved into the neo-cons and had some of the closest
editorial connections. In the 70's it came out that hundreds of US
journalists were also on the payroll of the CIA. The opinion of the
owners of much of the so called liberal media was expressed by
Washington Post's owner Katharine Graham at CIA headquarters, There
are some things the general public does not need to know and
shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take
legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide
whether to print what it knows. She didn't admit to not only
covering up but actively pushing a CIA story numerous times.

On the Democrats lack of organized widely supported alternative plans
- they have a much more complicated political job.

Reeves editorial quoting Thomas Mann:

Republicans have to defend a war that was very badly planned and is
costing much more in blood and treasure than the public was led to
believe. Democrats struggle to define and agree on alternative policy
that doesn't simply write off the sacrifices already made by our armed
forces and accept defeat.

In other words, the die has been cast; we have crossed both the
Tigris and the Euphrates. But if history is our guide, it will take
six more years to declare peace with honor, one more time. As if most
of us, Iraqis aside, did not already know that this war is over. We
tried the impossible again, with the usual result -- and it will take
time to craft a noble rationale for what we have done to ourselves.

http://tinyurl.com/9ahgw
or
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=123e=1u=/ucrr/20050624/cm_ucrr/timetablesixmoreyearsiniraq

On 7/1/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a very
thoughtful reply.
--
Gary Denton
http://www.apollocon.org June 24-26

Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags L3

2005-07-01 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: Gulags

 The stance of the experts I cited seems to be all prisoners, POW or
 not, are entitled to the standard of care specified in the Geneva
 Conventions except for communications between governments regarding
 the prisoners.

Then it would seem that all AQ has to answer is name rank and serial
number, right?

.
  No carrot, no stick at all, is the way I read the Geneva Conventions on
  POWs.  Is that what you think should be the case?

 Unpleasant results...  I am opposed to using torture in the name of
democracy.
 I am wondering if you are minimizing or are truly unaware of some of
 the things classified under unpleasant results which in places
 outside of Gitmo have included torturing people to death.

No, I'm not doing that.  I'm trying to obtain first and understanding of
what has been going on, and then trying to form a reasonable opinion about
it.  I don't think that when the Geneva convention talks about
unpleasantness that they were using a euphemism for torture.  I took it as,
well, unpleasantness.  For example, you could not interrupt the sleep of
people who aren't talking.  You couldn't change their diet from a tasty one
to one that is nutritious, follows their dietary laws, but is rather
tasteless and bland.  You couldn't impose solitary confinement for refusing
to talk.  You couldn't shine lights in their cell.

Basically, it appears that prisoners should be as well treated as one's own
soldiers until the war is over.  You can't even refuse them cigarettes as a
means of getting them to talk. That's what I'm referring to when I write of
unpleasantness.

The killing of prisoners who are not engaged in life threatening activities
(e.g. an armed prison riot) is not acceptable.  Torturing prisoners is not
acceptable; particularly ones that are not likely to have information that
can save hundreds or thousands of lives.  The actions depicted in the Time
report looks to be on the borderline to me.  That's why I copied the
details of that and asked questions.

There is a wide range of possibilities for what has happened at Gitmo,
which strongly influences my understanding of Bush's approach to the
handling of prisoners.  If the Time story gives a good feel for the limits
set by the Bush government for the treatment of prisoners that they
consider the most likely to provide critical information, then we can make
some conclusions.  Worse treatment of less important prisoners(importance
measured in terms of
intelligence potential)  would probably not be directly ordered.  Instead,
one would
look to not providing proper oversight, clear guidelines, the proper
atmosphere, etc. as culprits in the worsening of the US treatment of
prisoners.

If this understanding is false, and the full range of torture techniques
are used at Gitmo, then things are different.  One would have to assume
that Time magazine was given a record that ignored the instances of real
torture.  But, one would also expect that there would be deaths at Gitmo
under very suspicious circumstances...as there were elsewhere.  I think
that the data are vague and uncertain enough to be consistent with a range
of hypothesis, but I think that the majority of the data does support
something along what I outlined.

I realize that there are testimonials about horrid mistreatment of people
we have released.  But, one has to take these with a grain of salt.  A
person who stood up to torture by Americans is a hero.  One who really had
nothing to admit, was a cooperative prisoner, got along OK with the MPs,
played soccer regularly, etc. is not quite as heroic.  In short, just
because one should take the administration's claims with a grain of salt
doesn't mean that one swallows competing claims whole.  It is possible for
more than one person to lie. :-)

 BushCo. had to make a decision how to treat those who attacked the
 US.  They went along like the overage frat boys they are saying what
 they would like to have done to them and then got their lawyers to
 come up with reasons and ways they could ignore the military justice
 system and our prisoner system and use rogue agent CIA rules.

While that is certainly an emotionally satisfying explanation, I think a
cold examination of the facts show something a bit more subtle.  One of the
problems that came out in the testimony of the 9-11 commission was the
uncertainty the CIA had as to whether they could kill Bin Laden if/when
they had them in their sights.  A picture of the CIA as a risk avoiding
bureaucracy came out, in the testimony, as well as from other information.
One example of this is the fact that someone who has no contact with the
rest of the world has a far easier time getting high security clearances
than someone who has had extensive contact and experience.  Yet, the latter
are far more useful for work in intelligence than

Re: Gulags

2005-06-28 Thread Gary Denton

On 6/23/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
replying to me
snip 
 If they did not have a clear sign, recognizable at a distance, if they were
 determined to be AQ, then the US could say they didn't have a doubt and no
 tribunal was needed.  That may be a bit lawyerly, but it seems to match the
 plain sense of article 5.  I don't think that Bishop Berkley style doubts
 count, either.
The administration correctly argues that AQ are not POWs.
(I'm back from ApolloCon and recuperating.)
 
  Before getting to the clinchers let's check with some experts.
 
  The Administration is applying the wrong part of the Conventions.
  They have invoked the provisions for irregular combatants not under
  Article 4-1, but under Article 4-2. They are treating them as though
  they are guerrillas or partisans who were fighting for a party to the
  conflict. And that's wrong in my view, said Robert Goldman, professor
  of law and co-director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian
  Law at the Washington College of Law, American University.
 
 I'm a bit confused as to what point he was making.  That AQ was not party
 to the conflict with the US?  I'd argue that they were the senior party and
 that the Taliban were the junior party...who harbored them and gave them a
 safe base from which to stage attacks.
It's hard to say what particular action of the administration he is
responding to. The administration has lumped previous Afghanistan
government forces, narcotics traffickers, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi
insurgents, anti-American religious fanatics and AQ into one group -
terrorists.
 
  We don't have the facts. We don't know to what extent these people
  had a proper command structure, wore some sort of distinguishing
  features and complied with the laws of armed conflict. We just don't
  know, said APV Rogers, OBE, a retired major general in the British
  Army and recognized expert on the laws of war.
 
 Who's we?  I think it is reasonable to assume that that is a
 determination that can be made in the field of whether they had a
 distinguishing feature recognizable at a distance.

If that is your requirement the most modern elements of the US Army,
the different ranger and ranger type units, are not entitled to POW
status.  I believe he has a better grasp of the Geneva protocols as to
what is a recognized military which does include more than uniforms.

  The Bush Administration, by contrast, is claiming that there is no
  doubt. In its view, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are eligible for
  POW status because they did not wear uniforms or otherwise
  distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan
  or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
  of war—an argument that is disputed by the majority of our experts.
 
 IIRC, they got back a legal review and grudgingly accepted that the Taliban
 probably qualified.

It is not clear this grudging acceptance applies operationally, we are
still shipping prisoners out to other states for torture and
interrogation.

  Some of our experts said they feared the Administration's decision
  could come back to haunt US soldiers should they ever be captured by a
  foreign enemy, particularly special forces who usually don't wear
  uniforms. I think we may have set a bad precedent. The drawback is
  that we have given the other side some ammunition when they capture
  our people, said H.Wayne Elliott, a retired US Lieutenant colonel and
  former chief of the international law division at the US Army's Judge
  Advocate General's School.
  From an article on POW's or Unlawful Combatants
  http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html
 
  You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the
  International Red Cross has to say:
 
The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants'  In it
  the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined
  by the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the
  Treatment of Prisoners of War), they still deserve more limited
  protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention
  relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and
  the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
 
 That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of
 protection do they deserve..  Do they deserve protection against
 unpleasantness, as do real POWs?  Is anything that could be called
 undignified unacceptable.  Take the case in Time magazine.  If this is the
 extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value prisioners
 (like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must
You trailed off but I get the gist. To what extent do you want to give
the protectors of the state a free pass on what they do to the most
well known political prisoners?  There have been numerous accounts of
abuse of Gitmo and other prisoners.  If you read the tales and did not
know where they occurred you would think they did

Re: Gulags

2005-06-24 Thread Dan Minette


  That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of
  protection do they deserve..  Do they deserve protection against
  unpleasantness, as do real POWs?  Is anything that could be called
  undignified unacceptable.  Take the case in Time magazine.  If this is
the
  extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value
prisioners
  (like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must

 Or must what, Dan?

we be resigned to asking only polite questionswithout even the leverage
available to police working with common criminals?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-23 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags

 On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions.  I will
  repeat what I have above.

  Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional
  Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal
  standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to
  government clashes with armed insurgent groups.

  In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find.

  quote

  Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not
protected
  by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the
territory of
  a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not
be
  regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are
nationals
  has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they
are.
 (The competent
 individual tribunals for determination of status is from the 1st
 protocol to the Geneva Conventions as well as Article 5 of the 3rd
 Convention.  If you point to article 4 would you agree the
 administration should have to follow article 5?.)

Lets see what Article 5 says:

quote

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4
from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final
release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the
protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has
been determined by a competent tribunal.

end quote

If they did not have a clear sign, recognizable at a distance, if they were
determined to be AQ, then the US could say they didn't have a doubt and no
tribunal was needed.  That may be a bit lawyerly, but it seems to match the
plain sense of article 5.  I don't think that Bishop Berkley style doubts
count, either.

 Before getting to the clinchers let's check with some experts.

 The Administration is applying the wrong part of the Conventions.
 They have invoked the provisions for irregular combatants not under
 Article 4-1, but under Article 4-2. They are treating them as though
 they are guerrillas or partisans who were fighting for a party to the
 conflict. And that's wrong in my view, said Robert Goldman, professor
 of law and co-director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian
 Law at the Washington College of Law, American University.

I'm a bit confused as to what point he was making.  That AQ was not party
to the conflict with the US?  I'd argue that they were the senior party and
that the Taliban were the junior party...who harbored them and gave them a
safe base from which to stage attacks.

 We don't have the facts. We don't know to what extent these people
 had a proper command structure, wore some sort of distinguishing
 features and complied with the laws of armed conflict. We just don't
 know, said APV Rogers, OBE, a retired major general in the British
 Army and recognized expert on the laws of war.

Who's we?  I think it is reasonable to assume that that is a
determination that can be made in the field of whether they had a
distinguishing feature recognizable at a distance.

 The Bush Administration, by contrast, is claiming that there is no
 doubt. In its view, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are eligible for
 POW status because they did not wear uniforms or otherwise
 distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan
 or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
 of war—an argument that is disputed by the majority of our experts.

IIRC, they got back a legal review and grudgingly accepted that the Taliban
probably qualified.

 Some of our experts said they feared the Administration's decision
 could come back to haunt US soldiers should they ever be captured by a
 foreign enemy, particularly special forces who usually don't wear
 uniforms. I think we may have set a bad precedent. The drawback is
 that we have given the other side some ammunition when they capture
 our people, said H.Wayne Elliott, a retired US Lieutenant colonel and
 former chief of the international law division at the US Army's Judge
 Advocate General's School.

 From an article on POW's or Unlawful Combatants
 http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html

 You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the
 International Red Cross has to say:

   The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants'  In it
 the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined
 by the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the
 Treatment of Prisoners of War), they still deserve more limited
 protections under the Fourth

Re: Gulags

2005-06-23 Thread Julia Thompson

Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags

From an article on POW's or Unlawful Combatants
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-intro.html

You might claim that is a liberal source so let us see what the
International Red Cross has to say:

 The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants'  In it
the Red Cross argues while these detainees may not be POWs as defined
by the Third Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War), they still deserve more limited
protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and
the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

That is a reasonable arguement. But, the question is, what sort of
protection do they deserve..  Do they deserve protection against
unpleasantness, as do real POWs?  Is anything that could be called
undignified unacceptable.  Take the case in Time magazine.  If this is the
extreme treatment that was only authorized for a few high value prisioners
(like the probable 20th hijacker) is that acceptable, or must

Or must what, Dan?

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-20 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Gulags

Dr. Cole is correct, what you are arguing is that a class of people should
be held indefinitely without trial. This is known as a bill of attainder
and is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Actually, it's known as habius corpus. A bill of attainder is a law that is
aimed at punishing a single person, IIRC.   When in the past did we either
try
prisoners taken in wars or quickly release them?  Aren't such prisoners
usually kept for the duration of hostilities.

OK, you do recognize the problems with this. However, your dismissal of
the courts, not even recognizing the difference between military justice
and the right demonized liberal court system is troubling to me.

I was discussing the often repeated argument I've heard from members of
the left wing of the Democratic party that I know that we need to treat AQ
like any other criminal, with warrants for arrests, evidence presented in
public, etc.  I was referring to the problems with that

Also, according to a recent AP story, all but about 12 of the people at
Gitmo have been before a tribunal that either declared them enemy
combatants or ordered their release. I have absolutely no idea how many
have been charged with war crimes.  So, in a real sense, they have been
before at least some sort of military tribunal.

But, remember, I'm not defending Gitmo.  I think it has done more harm than
good to the US; I think that the administration handing of prisoners has
caused tremendous problems.  I think that the blurring of the bright line
between torture and good treatment by the ambiguous inclusion of High
Stress has contributed to the tremendous failure of the military to live
up to the standards they have set in the previous decade.

But, I do not think it represents the start of the end of civil liberties
in the US.  I don't think it represents one of the most significant risks
to civil liberties in the US.  I don't believe it is one of the most
significant risks to the liberty of a randomly selected American today.

I'm discussing that in more detail later in this post.  But, I'd just like
to point out here that the bar I have set for defending Gitmo is rather
low.  If it is immoral, stupid, and counter-productive, if Bush has hurt US
interests by torturing people that are at Gitmo simply because they had the
wrong personal enemies in Afghanistan, then I could still defend Gitmo as
not being one of the most serious risks to the liberty of Americans in
history.  It could still be horrid without posing a significant risk to the
liberty of  American citizens.

Many wars are not between governments with fixed boundaries.

That is true.  And, prisoners taken during such a war can be held until the
war has ended. That is Bush's argument.  We're in a war and have the right
to hold combatants that we capture until hostilities have ceased.  My
argument is more restrictivesince the war on terror is a war that
has unusually unclear boundaries, it is not reasonable to hold prisoners
until there is no more terror.

The actions by the administration violate the laws of the
 military justice system and are legal and constitutional systems and
have
 only been possibly matched at the worst times in our history.

 I'd be curious to see examples of the established laws of military
justice
 system has handled captured combatants that have not been covered by
 treaty
 on this. I think part of the challenge for the Supreme Court is that this
 is new legal groundso they are being careful where they step.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol
II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal standing of
their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to government clashes
with
armed insurgent groups.
In addition the 4th Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) lays out separate
protections for civilians, including so-called unlawful combatants.
Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention sets out six distinct categories of
prisoners whom the convention defines as POWs.
The Constitution states that all treaties that the United States have
signed have the full status of law.

I would not call the administration being careful.

(Just curious - are you like John getting your news and analysis from
Scaife's NewsMax or Murdoch's Fox News?)

Let's see.  I tend to get my news from internet sources, particularly
articles and opinions from:

The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Christian Science Monitor
The AP
Reuters
The Los Angeles Times

Of all the columnists on world affairs, I think that Tom Freedman is my
favorite; he tends to be closest to my viewpoints.

He has written a scathing criticism of the Administrations handling of
prisoners, which I agree with.  (He has

Re: Gulags

2005-06-16 Thread Warren Ockrassa


On Jun 13, 2005, at 2:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]



At 08:28 PM Sunday 6/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How does procreation have to do with homosexual rape among prisoners 
and how to prevent it, which is what this discussion was originally 
about?


We are animals (I mean that in no pejorative way). Our sex drive is an 
adaptation that insures that we will procreate. Men don't have sex to 
have babies directly but the drive for sex is founded in procreation.


Initially, maybe, but all along our evolutionary branch there are 
abundant examples of penile play and penetration used to do many things 
*other than* procreate. Some are pleasant and probably reinforce social 
bonds. Some are not so much so and seem to reinforce social 
*hierarchy*. Reducing sex to something as simple as a drive to 
procreate (in humans) seems as sensible to me as attributing sexual 
orientation to a gene.


So the persons the men who want sex most are young men because this 
makes for more babies and they want to have sex with young women. With 
gay sex the object of diesire is changed but the diesire for youth is 
not


Oy. Not quite sure where to start on this one...

For most of our evolutionary history, few of our species ever made it 
past 30 or so. If there's any inherited component to sexual attraction, 
this is surely a factor that cannot be overlooked.


But I think you might be overlooking something significant, in much the 
same way that a fish doesn't notice water: Culture. In the US for 
certain, a LOT of value is artificially placed on youth. In the midst 
of our look-young-or-die culture, drawing conclusions about sex 
partners that claim to be anchored solidly in biology seems a tad 
risky. We'd need a major longitudinal study of many cultures before we 
could look for something like biological causes to behaviors as complex 
as sexuality.


But all of this is apart from prison rape, which doesn't seem to be 
about social bonding; it seems more like a way of enforcing superiority 
on others, doesn't it? So the procreative aspects of sexuality are 
completely abrogated here; it's the social enforcement aspects of 
penetrative intercourse that are coming into play.



--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-16 Thread Ronn!Blankenship


At 01:25 PM Thursday 6/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


[snip]

But all of this is apart from prison rape, which doesn't seem to be about 
social bonding; it seems more like a way of enforcing superiority on 
others, doesn't it? So the procreative aspects of sexuality are completely 
abrogated here; it's the social enforcement aspects of penetrative 
intercourse that are coming into play.



Yes.  Right now, we have a prison system where the inmates are in charge 
and do pretty much whatever they want to other inmates.  How do we get 
things back(?) to where the ones who should be in charge are in charge, and 
the weaker inmates or those who happen to be the wrong color or who don't 
belong to the right gang are protected from the other inmates?



-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-16 Thread Warren Ockrassa


On Jun 16, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 01:25 PM Thursday 6/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


[snip]

But all of this is apart from prison rape, which doesn't seem to be 
about social bonding; it seems more like a way of enforcing 
superiority on others, doesn't it? So the procreative aspects of 
sexuality are completely abrogated here; it's the social enforcement 
aspects of penetrative intercourse that are coming into play.


Yes.  Right now, we have a prison system where the inmates are in 
charge and do pretty much whatever they want to other inmates.  How do 
we get things back(?) to where the ones who should be in charge are in 
charge, and the weaker inmates or those who happen to be the wrong 
color or who don't belong to the right gang are protected from the 
other inmates?


For some reason it seems castration isn't considered a viable response. 
That leaves us with more intense enforcement and control on the parts 
of guards; and possibly with some kind of counseling or therapy 
sessions attended by the prisoners themselves, I suppose.


Reducing crowding would probably help too; crowding can cause stress, 
and that gets vented in lots of unhealthy ways. And of course doing 
away with Draconian federal guidelines regarding mandatory minimum 
sentencing -- particularly on drug charges -- might also be of merit.


How to deal with ex-cons socially is probably another factor. What do 
we do for them on release to help ensure they don't offend again? Those 
caught in the stupid overzealous web of drug hysteria can't even get 
federal student assistance for higher education, which helps ensure 
they end up with fewer future options. That doesn't make much sense to 
me, nor does the way ex-cons are required to expose their histories 
when applying for jobs. At what point do we decide it's OK for them to 
aim higher than dead-end minimum wage soul-sucking employment?


Frankly the mess is probably intricate and sourced in several problems. 
Without really having a background in the way prisons are run and 
operated, I don't think I can comment in depth about how to fix 
anything. All I've got are vague notions, and that's not really enough 
to base serious suggestions upon. I have a sense that increased 
awareness might help; I have a sense that reducing the number of 
incarcerated might help as well. But that's about it.


Some time ago I somehow got the idea that it might be useful to set up 
prison farms. Each con gets maybe two acres, and he gets his own 
one-bedroom house as well. He farms the soil organically and is 
responsible for seeing to it that his plot of land thrives. The idea 
was, I suppose, that the prisoner would be doing something productive, 
would be in an environment probably completely other than the one in 
which he'd learned to be a criminal, and would have ample opportunity 
for reflection and soul-searching without having to deal with the 
constant pressure of living in a dense population of hardened 
criminals.


It's probably a seriously fuzzy-headed idea, but there's something 
about it that I find appealing as well. Can't say for sure if it would 
work or not, but we know there are lots of things we're doing right now 
that do *not* work.


What the heck; we aren't really using Kansas or Iowa for much right now 
anyway... ;)



--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-15 Thread Gary Denton

On 6/14/05, Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 What REALLY bothers me about all this is this:  If the United States
 wants to hold itself out as a paragon to the rest of the world,
 shouldn't we hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than we'd hold
 other countries?  If we want other countries to look up to the US,
 shouldn't we follow the spirit not just the letter of the law?

Absolutely. 

Quoting scripture and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hinson suggested the
nation is greedy and morally bankrupt and warned that America's fear
of terrorism is excessive and unhealthy. Denouncing fear that
immobilizes, fear that causes you to lash out mindlessly, fear that
prompts a nation to launch a preemptive strike against an imagined
enemy, fear in excess, Hinson said, Only God's love can bring that
kind of fear under control.

- Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Professor Glenn Hinson:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/11888623.htm 

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-15 Thread Gary Denton

Seems to belong here - a long article on the US interrogation system
this past Sunday.

Perm link

http://tinyurl.com/7rmhr
http://www.bugmenot.com

Only after a new commanding officer had arrived and official
inquiries had issued their reports did we learn that 40 percent of
those penned up at Guantanamo never belonged there in the first place.
At Abu Ghraib in Iraq, the record was even worse: two-thirds of the
detainees were eventually said to have been innocent of terrorist
links. At least when they were picked up. Who knows what leanings they
developed or links they forged during and after their interrogations?

...uncomfortable with both absolutist positions -- the trusting ''do
what you have to do in secret'' carte blanche versus the pure ''no
coercive force ever'' position held by those who are strict
constructionists when it comes to laws against torture lite as well as
torture -- and equally dubious about the feasibility of a decent
middle ground, I set out with notebook in hand several months ago to
speak to politicians on Capitol Hill, spymasters, interrogators and
legal experts. My hopes were that their experience and conclusions
would shed light on the ingredients of a successful interrogation,
whether these included coercion and, if so, how much, and whether
there was anything that ordinary citizens could safely be told about
what goes on in the shadows. My itinerary wasn't arduous. It involved
traveling to Washington for conversations on Capitol Hill; then to
Cambridge, Mass., to talk to law professors with a range of strong
views on my subject; and finally to Israel, a country whose Supreme
Court had asserted its jurisdiction and declared in 1999 that not only
torture but all forms of ''cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' --
the term for torture lite used in the Convention Against Torture --
were illegal under Israeli law. At least there, it seemed, the
security services that conduct interrogations had adapted themselves
over many years to the idea that some legal standards might actually
apply on the dark side. That was more or less the American view until
just after 9/11.

Even when clear evidence of the effectiveness of torture lite is hard
to come by, democracies threatened by terrorism shrink from laying
down the weapon. Should the threat ever pass, we can be expected to
repress any memory of its use as we now try to do in daily life while
it persists. Then we'll discover how much gratitude or resentment has
accrued to us in the places where we've operated, among the
descendants of those we've detained.
 
-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-15 Thread Dave Land


On Jun 15, 2005, at 1:09 PM, Gary Denton wrote:


http://www.bugmenot.com


It's ironic that a New York Times columnist recommended bugmenot in a
column (http://tinyurl.com/5hvqc) last month on minor annoyances, given
that folks have probably used bugmenot to bypass the NYT's forced
registration more than just about any other site.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-14 Thread Gary Denton

On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions.  I will
 repeat what I have above.
 
 Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional
 Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal
 standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to
 government clashes with armed insurgent groups.
 
 In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find.
 
 quote
 
 Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected
 by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of
 a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be
 regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals
 has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
 
 end quote
 
 That excludes virtually all of the members of AQ.  I think if they were
 Iranian, they might be covered, so that's a reasonable point.  I see the
 same clause in the 4th Geneva convention, so the protected person status
 there appears to be the same.
 
 If you see a contrary definition of a protected person from the one I
 listed, I'd like to know where it is.  I tried to go to the obvious place
 to find these definitions, but I realize treaties can have things in not so
 obvious places.

Number 1.  Simply put the Bush administration has classified Al Qaeda
members,  the Taliban and anyone it suspects of being a terrorist as
non-protected combatants not entitled to the Geneva Conventions.  This
includes many captives from Afghanistan sometimes turned in for the
reward money or to settle old grievances.  They have even applied this
definition to two US citizens

Number 2.  You agree with the Bush administration and point to the 3rd
Convention article 4 which defines POWs as a particular type of
combatant.  There is disagreement as to rather the Al Qaeda combatants
would meet the definition there but near unanimity that the Taliban
and other prisoners don't.  In all cases a tribunal must be called to
determine their status which has not been done.  (The competent
individual tribunals for determination of status is from the 1st
protocol to the Geneva Conventions as well as Article 5 of the 3rd
Convention.  If you point to article 4 would you agree the
administration should have to follow article 5?.)

Before getting to the clinchers let's check with some experts.

The Administration is applying the wrong part of the Conventions.
They have invoked the provisions for irregular combatants not under
Article 4-1, but under Article 4-2. They are treating them as though
they are guerrillas or partisans who were fighting for a party to the
conflict. And that's wrong in my view, said Robert Goldman, professor
of law and co-director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Law at the Washington College of Law, American University.

But even according to the criteria specified for irregular forces,
most of our experts believe the Taliban detainees, and possibly Al
Qaeda as well, although there is less agreement on this point, would
be entitled to POW status. They cited Article 5 of the Third Geneva
Convention, which says that if there is any doubt as to whether or not
the detainees meet the conditions, then they should be granted POW
status until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.

We don't have the facts. We don't know to what extent these people
had a proper command structure, wore some sort of distinguishing
features and complied with the laws of armed conflict. We just don't
know, said APV Rogers, OBE, a retired major general in the British
Army and recognized expert on the laws of war.

Curtis Doebbler, Professor of Human Rights Law at American University
in Cairo, who served as an advisor to the Taliban government on the
laws of war and believes that the Taliban, unlike Al Qaeda, do meet
the criteria enumerated in Article 4. But he agreed that we do not
have all of the facts. The first thing is to determine the status of
the detainees, and until a competent tribunal declares that they are
not POWs, then they are. After that, you can have legal wrangling over
the criteria in the Geneva Conventions, he said.

The Bush Administration, by contrast, is claiming that there is no
doubt. In its view, neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban are eligible for
POW status because they did not wear uniforms or otherwise
distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan
or conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs
of waran argument that is disputed by the majority of our experts.

Some of our experts said they feared the Administration's decision
could come back to haunt US soldiers should they ever be captured by a
foreign enemy, particularly special forces who usually don't wear
uniforms. I think we may have set a bad precedent. The drawback is
that we have given the other side some ammunition when they capture
our people, said H.Wayne

Re: Gulags

2005-06-14 Thread Russell Chapman


William T Goodall wrote:

Instead of the present incredibly wasteful and expensive prison  
system just transport all serious criminals to a tropical resort  
island and give them free booze, drugs and hookers for life. This  
would be far cheaper than the present prison system, more humane, and  
have a 0% recidivism rate since transportees don't get to return.


Less serious criminals can do tagged house arrest and community service.


Hey - it worked for us (though a few of us convicts occasionally sneak 
back to Mother England..)
(the booze is not free, and our wonderfully friendly and co-operative 
young ladies would object to the term hookers...)


Russell C.
Convict descendant on the world's largest and most tropical prison island.


---
This email (including any attachments) is confidential
and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the
content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this
email does not bind the School and does not necessarily
constitute the opinion of the School.

If you have received this email in error, please delete
it and notify the sender.
---
GWAVAsig
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gulags

2005-06-14 Thread Horn, John

 Behalf Of Gary Denton

 This is pretty basic stuff and trying to argue that none of the
Geneva
 Conventions apply just lowers the standing of the United States in
the
 world.

What REALLY bothers me about all this is this:  If the United States
wants to hold itself out as a paragon to the rest of the world,
shouldn't we hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than we'd hold
other countries?  If we want other countries to look up to the US,
shouldn't we follow the spirit not just the letter of the law?

  - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread William T Goodall



On 11 Jun 2005, at 11:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:



While the redneck side of me may agree (and in fact suggests that  
the chemical method ought to involve something like pouring a  
liter or so of concentrated H2SO4 in their lap), my real opinion as  
to what should be done is to get the correction officers back in  
control of the prisons (and not in an abusive or sadistic way,  
either).  If what it takes is keeping the inmates locked in their  
cells so they can't get to each other to rape each other or kill  
each other, so be it.  If it involves a return to the practice of  
making little ones our of big ones so that when they return to  
the cell block they are too exhausted to commit mischief, so be  
it.  Perhaps someone else has a better idea of how to fix the  
problems in the regular prisons . . . ?




Instead of the present incredibly wasteful and expensive prison  
system just transport all serious criminals to a tropical resort  
island and give them free booze, drugs and hookers for life. This  
would be far cheaper than the present prison system, more humane, and  
have a 0% recidivism rate since transportees don't get to return.


Less serious criminals can do tagged house arrest and community service.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.'  
There is no evidence that people want to use these things.

-John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread Gary Denton

On 6/11/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 At 03:38 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:
 Dan Minette wrote:
   - Original Message -
   From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
   At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:
 [snip]
 
 One of the things that is done with regularity at Gitmo (according to
 one our Congresspersons who was *allowed* to visit there), is tying a
 prisoner down till he defecates and urinates on himself and then
 leaving him there for 18 - 24 hours.
 
 This is supposed to deliver intelligence to our Mil/Int services.
 
 But I see no valid comparisons between the abuses of our penal system
 and the way political prisoners are handled at Gitmo and the other
 places where Americans are paid to leave their humanity at the door.
 
 
 Without making excuses or attempting to justify any abuses in either prison
 system, I did make a point in a post to another list earlier today in
 response to a reference to the alleged desecration of the Qu'ran at
 Gitmo:  whatever else we may have done there, we at least have made
 provision for Muslim prisoners we are holding to exercise their religion by
 allowing them to have copies of their holy book, by giving them something
 to use as a prayer rug and allowing them to pray, by giving them meals
 which meet their religious dietary restrictions, etc.  I have not heard
 that the Muslims have, frex, provided captured Christians with Bibles or
 captured Jews with yarmulkes, or otherwise facilitated them in their
 exercise of their religions.  (If I am incorrect in that, I would
 appreciate correction.)  And whatever we may have done as far as abuse or
 mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo, I have not heard of us kidnapping known
 non-combatants such as aid workers and posting video of their decapitation
 on the Internet . . .

I am sure you are not meaning to say that our standard of treatment
only has to meet the standard of barbarians.

So by this standard as long as we don't torture people to death or
take pictures of it we are doing OK.

As it is the incident I posted, one of several available, of torturing
people to death.  Part of the humiliation interrogation technique was
taking photos. We are outsourcing some cases to places where torture
is more practiced.  Surprisingly one of those was Syria which tortured
a Canadian for several weeks after the US shipped him in there before
concluding he was innocent.  Syria has since stopped participating in
our information gathering.

So even by the lowest possible standards are we doing OK? 

I do not want the US ttreatment to be the new minimum standard of decency.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread Gary Denton

 to differ. Gitmo was a failure, on a number of
 levels. I have no argument with that. I do find argument with statements
 that the administrations actions are so vile that they are only possibly
 matched at the worst times in our history. I simply can't see the basis
 for such strong statements.


I do, but I am often passionate about liberty and my country. 

Late news, on a hearing on this very issue of Gulags and how far should we 
erode our liberties under Patriot Act 2 the GOP head of the Congressional 
committee stormed out of the room after refusing to listen to critics.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Gulags

Right away,  I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually
says.

The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other
prisoners.

The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the
power
of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
members
of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions.  Particularly clear is the fact
that they do not comply with b.

The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments.  It does not cover
citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining
the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by
wearing uniforms.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread Gary Denton

On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM
 Subject: Re: Gulags

 Right away,  I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually
 says.

 The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other
 prisoners.

 The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine:

 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
 belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the
 power
 of the enemy:

 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
 members
 of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
 including
 those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
 conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
 territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
 including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
 conditions:

 (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

 (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 (c) That of carrying arms openly;

 (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
 customs of war.

 AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions.  Particularly clear is the fact
 that they do not comply with b.

 The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments.  It does not cover
 citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining
 the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by
 wearing uniforms.

 Dan M.

You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions.  I will
repeat what I have above.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional
Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal
standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to
government clashes with armed insurgent groups.
In addition the 4th Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) lays out separate
protections for civilians, including so-called unlawful combatants. 
Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention sets out six distinct
categories of prisoners whom the convention defines as POWs.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags

On 6/13/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM
 Subject: Re: Gulags

 Right away,  I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually
 says.

 The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other
 prisoners.

 The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine:

 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
 belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the
 power
 of the enemy:

 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
 members
 of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
 including
 those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
 conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
 territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
 including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
 conditions:

 (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

 (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 (c) That of carrying arms openly;

 (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
 customs of war.

 AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions.  Particularly clear is the
fact
 that they do not comply with b.

 The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments.  It does not cover
 citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining
 the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by
 wearing uniforms.

 Dan M.

You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions.  I will
repeat what I have above.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional
Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal
standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to
government clashes with armed insurgent groups.

In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find.

quote

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected
by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of
a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be
regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals
has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

end quote

That excludes virtually all of the members of AQ.  I think if they were
Iranian, they might be covered, so that's a reasonable point.  I see the
same clause in the 4th Geneva convention, so the protected person status
there appears to be the same.

If you see a contrary definition of a protected person from the one I
listed, I'd like to know where it is.  I tried to go to the obvious place
to find these definitions, but I realize treaties can have things in not so
obvious places.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-13 Thread bemmzim

-Original Message-
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:22:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Gulags

At 08:28 PM Sunday 6/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 

 How does procreation have to do with homosexual rape among prisoners and how 
 to prevent it, which is what this discussion was originally about? 

We are animals (I mean that in no pejorative way). Our sex drive is an 
adaptation that insures that we will procreate. Men don't have sex to have 
babies directly but the drive for sex is founded in procreation. So the persons 
the men who want sex most are young men because this makes for more babies and 
they want to have sex with young women. With gay sex the object of diesire is 
changed but the diesire for youth is not

-- Ronn! :) 

___ 
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-12 Thread Bemmzim

In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Castration does not stop rapists.  Rape is typically a crime of
 power/violence.  People who have been chemically castrated have
 subsequently raped women.  I won't go into detail about how they could
 do
 it, but it should be obvious.

How often do castrated men actually commit rape? Is there really any data on 
this? I ask because the equation of rape and power is usually not questioned.
The notion that rape is about power and violence was proposed in the 60s by 
Susan Brownmiller (sp). It has recently been challenged by Randy Thornhill. He 
points out that the rape= power formula would predict that rape should be seen 
in all adult men and that rape should be directed at all woman. The reality 
is that rape is almost exclusively commited by young men and upon young women. 
Thornhill proposes that rape is about sex. (duh). Young men who do not think 
they have a chance to succeed wihtout coercion use force. At some level they 
are trying to procreate. Although this is by an large an unsuccessful strategy 
it may seem atractive if the man thinks he has no chance of succeeding in any 
other way. 

 
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-12 Thread Ronn!Blankenship


At 08:28 PM Sunday 6/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 6/11/2005 5:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Castration does not stop rapists.  Rape is typically a crime of
 power/violence.  People who have been chemically castrated have
 subsequently raped women.  I won't go into detail about how they could
 do
 it, but it should be obvious.

How often do castrated men actually commit rape? Is there really any data on
this? I ask because the equation of rape and power is usually not questioned.
The notion that rape is about power and violence was proposed in the 60s by
Susan Brownmiller (sp). It has recently been challenged by Randy 
Thornhill. He
points out that the rape= power formula would predict that rape should be 
seen

in all adult men and that rape should be directed at all woman. The reality
is that rape is almost exclusively commited by young men and upon young 
women.

Thornhill proposes that rape is about sex. (duh). Young men who do not think
they have a chance to succeed wihtout coercion use force. At some level they
are trying to procreate. Although this is by an large an unsuccessful 
strategy

it may seem atractive if the man thinks he has no chance of succeeding in any
other way.



How does procreation have to do with homosexual rape among prisoners and 
how to prevent it, which is what this discussion was originally about?



-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:



2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons.  Prison rape is
winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle.  There is no
national outrage concerning this.  You may think it is an outrage, as do
others of us on this list, but it really is off the radar.



In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians.  And many 
otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them deserve, 
especially those convicted of rape or child abuse.



-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-11 Thread Robert Seeberger

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
 At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:


 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons.  Prison rape 
 is
 winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle. 
 There
 is no national outrage concerning this.  You may think it is an
 outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the
 radar.


 In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians.  And 
 many
 otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them
 deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse.


Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral 
compass is set?

I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning 
morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds 
of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the 
time arguments don't impress me.


xponent
GA Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


At 12:25 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
 At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:


 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons.  Prison rape
 is
 winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle.
 There
 is no national outrage concerning this.  You may think it is an
 outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the
 radar.


 In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians.  And
 many
 otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them
 deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse.


Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral
compass is set?

I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning
morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds
of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the
time arguments don't impress me.



I was agreeing with you that it is a bad thing.  I was simply pointing out 
how bad it has become.  If you have any suggestions on how to fix the 
problems in the regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.



-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular 
prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.


For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.


--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular 
prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.


For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.



For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be?


-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-11 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags

 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
  At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:

  2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons.  Prison rape
  is
  winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle.
  There
  is no national outrage concerning this.  You may think it is an
  outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off the
  radar.

  In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians.  And
  many
  otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them
  deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse.

 Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral
 compass is set?

Part of the problem is that people who should be considered much more
refined are saying that.

 I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning
 morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the kinds
 of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the
 time arguments don't impress me.

I certainly wasn't making excuses for things I consider wrong. To me
questions about whether something is one of the worst threats ever to our
constitutional rights are different from questions concerning whether
something is right or wrong.  I do consider how we handle normal prisoners
a greater moral outrage than how we handled Gitmoand I'm prepared to
argue why.  But, I never mean to imply that, because I can show that that A
is worse than B,  that B becomes acceptable.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-11 Thread Robert Seeberger

Dan Minette wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:25 PM
 Subject: Re: Gulags

 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
 At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:

 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons.  Prison 
 rape
 is
 winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle.
 There
 is no national outrage concerning this.  You may think it is an
 outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off 
 the
 radar.

 In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians.  And
 many
 otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them
 deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse.

 Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral
 compass is set?

I'd like to apologize to Ronn! for misreading him. I found it very 
disappointing to think someone I find to be a reasonable person might 
harbor such a sentiment. At work, I am constantly surrounded by Joe 
Bob Rednecks who do harbor such sentiments, and it is an endless 
source of frustration for me.

 Part of the problem is that people who should be considered much 
 more
 refined are saying that.

Yeah, it is like a kind of cynicism that has taken up permanent 
lodging in many peoples minds. It happens all the time, you cannot 
change it, therefore it is OK.
To me, that is reprehensable, and it is to a great degree directly 
opposed to the direction that justice and righteousness have been 
moving us the last 60 years or even the last 145 years.

I find this opposition to crop up in discussions of current events all 
the time with very little comment from any quarter.

 I find it disappointing in the extreme that people are abandoning
 morality, ethics, and the rule of law in favor of excusing the 
 kinds
 of things that they know are absolutely wrong. It happens all the
 time arguments don't impress me.

 I certainly wasn't making excuses for things I consider wrong.

Unless my newsreader is messing up attributions, I thought I was 
commenting on Ronns! remarks. (Sadly out of place I was)

To me
 questions about whether something is one of the worst threats ever 
 to
 our constitutional rights are different from questions concerning
 whether something is right or wrong.  I do consider how we handle
 normal prisoners a greater moral outrage than how we handled
 Gitmoand I'm prepared to argue why.

One of the things that is done with regularity at Gitmo (according to 
one our Congresspersons who was *allowed* to visit there), is tying a 
prisoner down till he defecates and urinates on himself and then 
leaving him there for 18 - 24 hours.

This is supposed to deliver intelligence to our Mil/Int services.

But I see no valid comparisons between the abuses of our penal system 
and the way political prisoners are handled at Gitmo and the other 
places where Americans are paid to leave their humanity at the door.

*

Dear Mr Bush,

Anyone who builds a torture chamber or employs torturers, is most 
assuredly going to burn in hell for eternity. There are no subclauses 
or exceptions that will give you an out. God will not care about your 
appeals to reason. Rather, he will let you burn in the company of the 
lawyers and televangelists that advised you to commit unchristian acts 
upon your brothers and sisters. Yes, God will forgive you, but you 
will burn just the same.
Your best bet is to pray to Satan for mercy, since God's judgement is 
final.

Luv,
rob

**

But, I never mean to imply
 that, because I can show that that A is worse than B,  that B 
 becomes
 acceptable.

I agree that A is bad, very bad, but I doubt you can make such an 
argument succeed if one keeps the argument contemporaneous.

xponent
Wild Hair Day Maru
rob 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the 
regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.


For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.


For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that 
be?


Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course.


--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-11 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags

 On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
  On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the
  regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.

  For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.

  For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that
  be?

 Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course.

Castration does not stop rapists.  Rape is typically a crime of
power/violence.  People who have been chemically castrated have
subsequently raped women.  I won't go into detail about how they could do
it, but it should be obvious.

Dan M.

Dan M.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


On Jun 11, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Dan Minette wrote:


From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]



On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the
regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.


For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.


For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would 
that

be?


Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course.


Castration does not stop rapists.  Rape is typically a crime of
power/violence.  People who have been chemically castrated have
subsequently raped women.  I won't go into detail about how they could 
do

it, but it should be obvious.


If chemical castration doesn't work there's the physical alternative, 
isn't there?



--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

2005-06-11 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Gulags

 On Jun 11, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Dan Minette wrote:

  From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
  On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the
  regular prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.

  For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.

  For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would
  that
  be?

  Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course.

  Castration does not stop rapists.  Rape is typically a crime of
  power/violence.  People who have been chemically castrated have
  subsequently raped women.  I won't go into detail about how they could
  do
  it, but it should be obvious.

 If chemical castration doesn't work there's the physical alternative,
 isn't there?

I wasn't clear.  Maybe I'll have to be less delicate.

1) Castration stops the source of testosterone as well as sperm.  It
effectively ends sexual desire, as well as the chance to father children.
That doesn't address the main motivation for rape.

2) If a male is physically incapable of normal sexual functions, due to a
physical lack, he can still perform acts that qualify as rape.  Someone who
uses a foreign object does not automatically qualify for a lesser sentence.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags

At 03:38 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:

Dan Minette wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:25 PM
 Subject: Re: Gulags

 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
 At 11:31 PM Friday 6/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:

 2) The treatment of prisoners in our regular prisons.  Prison
 rape
 is
 winked at by government officials on both sides of the aisle.
 There
 is no national outrage concerning this.  You may think it is an
 outrage, as do others of us on this list, but it really is off
 the
 radar.

 In fact, the whole topic is treated as fodder by comedians.  And
 many
 otherwise reasonable people think it is no worse than many of them
 deserve, especially those convicted of rape or child abuse.

 Ahhhso let Joe Bob Redneck be the standard by which our moral
 compass is set?

I'd like to apologize to Ronn! for misreading him. I found it very
disappointing to think someone I find to be a reasonable person might
harbor such a sentiment. At work, I am constantly surrounded by Joe
Bob Rednecks who do harbor such sentiments, and it is an endless
source of frustration for me.

No problem.  This must be one of those days when I am not making myself 
clear:  I've had to go back and clarify things I've posted on two or three 
other lists, too.

[snip]

One of the things that is done with regularity at Gitmo (according to
one our Congresspersons who was *allowed* to visit there), is tying a
prisoner down till he defecates and urinates on himself and then
leaving him there for 18 - 24 hours.

This is supposed to deliver intelligence to our Mil/Int services.

But I see no valid comparisons between the abuses of our penal system
and the way political prisoners are handled at Gitmo and the other
places where Americans are paid to leave their humanity at the door.

Without making excuses or attempting to justify any abuses in either prison 
system, I did make a point in a post to another list earlier today in 
response to a reference to the alleged desecration of the Qu'ran at 
Gitmo:  whatever else we may have done there, we at least have made 
provision for Muslim prisoners we are holding to exercise their religion by 
allowing them to have copies of their holy book, by giving them something 
to use as a prayer rug and allowing them to pray, by giving them meals 
which meet their religious dietary restrictions, etc.  I have not heard 
that the Muslims have, frex, provided captured Christians with Bibles or 
captured Jews with yarmulkes, or otherwise facilitated them in their 
exercise of their religions.  (If I am incorrect in that, I would 
appreciate correction.)  And whatever we may have done as far as abuse or 
mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo, I have not heard of us kidnapping known 
non-combatants such as aid workers and posting video of their decapitation 
on the Internet . . .

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags


At 04:28 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

On Jun 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 01:02 PM Saturday 6/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:

On Jun 11, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

If you have any suggestions on how to fix the problems in the regular 
prisons, I'd be glad to hear them.


For rape? One solution springs immediately to mind.


For the non-clairvoyant among the members of the list, what would that be?


Castration, chemical or otherwise, of course.



While the redneck side of me may agree (and in fact suggests that the 
chemical method ought to involve something like pouring a liter or so of 
concentrated H2SO4 in their lap), my real opinion as to what should be done 
is to get the correction officers back in control of the prisons (and not 
in an abusive or sadistic way, either).  If what it takes is keeping the 
inmates locked in their cells so they can't get to each other to rape each 
other or kill each other, so be it.  If it involves a return to the 
practice of making little ones our of big ones so that when they return 
to the cell block they are too exhausted to commit mischief, so be 
it.  Perhaps someone else has a better idea of how to fix the problems in 
the regular prisons . . . ?



-- Ronn!  :)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gulags