Boston Bombings

Forums › Off topic › Boston Bombings

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800299 16-Apr-2013 16:20

ajobbins: I spent much of the morning on conference calls with colleagues in Boston. While the subject was mostly avoided as people tried to get on with work, every now and then someone would chime in with a new piece of news and those on the call were clearly quite shaken when it was brought up.

Very sad. Hope they get those responsible.

We work with a number of Americans both locally and Internationally and to say nerves were jangled was an understatement. We tried to keep it simple, and simply say, our thoughts and prayers were with them and leave it at that unless they indicated a desire to discuss further.

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800307 16-Apr-2013 16:24

sleemanj:
Handsomedan: Their idiotic legal system will likely see the perpetrator go free on a technicality and then be paid for book rights and a film.

Wait, what? Are we talking about the same United States of America that not only still has executions, but is comfortable keeping people locked up in a prison on foreign soil without a fair and open trial for quite possibly the rest of their natural life?

Somehow I don't think the person(s) they catch for this, be they actually the guilty parties or not, will be very happy with the outcome.

Heh ever wondered WHY they don't want to let those people out and about? Obama campaigned on it, and then got into office, aged visibly in months and then recanted, saying he couldn't close it? Maybe he knows something you don't? Something on the POTUS and select few that don't even include the President Elect doesn't?

Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think they detain these people for fun.

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#800327 16-Apr-2013 16:42

networkn: Heh ever wondered WHY they don't want to let those people out and about?

Well that's what having a fair trial is supposed to decide, kind of a fundamental aspect of being an open, fair, democratic and just society. /offtopic.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800344 16-Apr-2013 17:07

sleemanj:
networkn: Heh ever wondered WHY they don't want to let those people out and about?

Well that's what having a fair trial is supposed to decide, kind of a fundamental aspect of being an open, fair, democratic and just society. /offtopic.

Yah and the guilty NEVER get off on a technicality right? Perhaps there are security concerns around a public trial or the details of the nature of their alleged crimes ?

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#800346 16-Apr-2013 17:10

networkn: Yah and the guilty NEVER get off on a technicality right? Perhaps there are security concerns around a public trial or the details of the nature of their alleged crimes ?

Yeah, why do countries bother with courts anyway, the authorities always get the right people.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800353 16-Apr-2013 17:20

sleemanj:
networkn: Yah and the guilty NEVER get off on a technicality right? Perhaps there are security concerns around a public trial or the details of the nature of their alleged crimes ?

Yeah, why do countries bother with courts anyway, the authorities always get the right people.

Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get imprisoned incorrectly, than a single terrorist be allowed to go free for the greater good of everyone.

Logic should stand that if they aren't giving them a "fair" trial there must be a good reason. I don't think Obama is a "bad person" (tm) and if there wasn't a compelling reason, I couldn't see him standing for it.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#800358 16-Apr-2013 17:25

networkn:
sleemanj:
networkn: Yah and the guilty NEVER get off on a technicality right? Perhaps there are security concerns around a public trial or the details of the nature of their alleged crimes ?

Yeah, why do countries bother with courts anyway, the authorities always get the right people.

Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get imprisoned incorrectly, than a single terrorist be allowed to go free for the greater good of everyone.

Wrongful conviction is a terrible mistake that has no recovery. What if an innocent goes to the electric chair? Or life in prison? You rather see an innocent person die because "statistically and for greater good" one out of one hundred is not that bad?

Remember, in some states DA is an elected officer. There are cases of some DAs that would do ANYTHING, even get the wrong suspect behind bars - or even sentenced to death - just to get reelected.

"Governments can do no wrong because they are doing it for the greater good" is not a good position. Governments must always be challenged because that's how balances and checks are done. If not, totalitarian rulers find a way to establish themselves.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#800363 16-Apr-2013 17:34

At this point I would rather express my thoughts and condolences for those affected than enter into a pointless debate. Kia Kaha Boston.

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#800895 17-Apr-2013 12:33

It goes without saying that this is terrible. It is horrifying and extremely unfair on innocent victims.

I have to ask though, what makes it so much more important in the press and social media than the Iran earthquake or the Pakistan election bombings?
(note: Personal connections like some of you have talked about are of course a great reason)

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800901 17-Apr-2013 12:42

Wrongful conviction is a terrible mistake that has no recovery. What if an innocent goes to the electric chair? Or life in prison? You rather see an innocent person die because "statistically and for greater good" one out of one hundred is not that bad?

Remember, in some states DA is an elected officer. There are cases of some DAs that would do ANYTHING, even get the wrong suspect behind bars - or even sentenced to death - just to get reelected.

"Governments can do no wrong because they are doing it for the greater good" is not a good position. Governments must always be challenged because that's how balances and checks are done. If not, totalitarian rulers find a way to establish themselves.

Who said it was 1 in 100. I don't have stats in front of me but I'd imagine the numbers to be FAR FAR greater than that. The bottom line for me is this:

Chances of the people in Gitmo being completely innocent and being held without any form of cause are slim to non existent. There isn't a lot of incentive I would think for the US Government to keep people bottled up in Prison for no reason, it's expensive and resource intensive. They have faced MASSIVE resistance to it, and haven't budged an inch, and someone who I believe has reasonable integrity has said he will release them, and has reached office, and said he is sorry but he can't release them. All those factors lead me to what I consider to be the sensible conclusion there IS a GOOD reason for it to occur.

The chances of the reasons being released to the public in my life time are slim.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#800918 17-Apr-2013 12:50

I am talking about wrongly accused/convicted IN GENERAL. You wrote "Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get imprisoned incorrectly, than a single terrorist be allowed to go free for the greater good of everyone."

This is too broad.

You trust the government to send someone to prison, without trial, without recourse. This is good in your books.

The problem is that governments are notorious power seekers and we've seen previous totalitarian societies where governments decided people with opposing views should be sent to prisons and none of those ended up well.

That's not how things should be in a society governed by law.

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800926 17-Apr-2013 13:00

freitasm: I am talking about wrongly accused/convicted IN GENERAL. You wrote "Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get imprisoned incorrectly, than a single terrorist be allowed to go free for the greater good of everyone."

This is too broad.

You trust the government to send someone to prison, without trial, without recourse. This is good in your books.

The problem is that governments are notorious power seekers and we've seen previous totalitarian societies where governments decided people with opposing views should be sent to prisons and none of those ended up well.

That's not how things should be in a society governed by law.

I am not saying it's ideal, but it would appear there are circumstances preventing due process to run it's course and I am saying with the evidence being presented to me, I am happy to trust the elected parties who clearly have the information, to make that call.

I don't see the USA becoming nor ever being completely totalitarian, they are a democracy, adjusting to changing circumstances as they should, given ever evolving threats.

I am not talking about in crime in general because it's not relevant to this discussion. I was responding to the person who was talking specifically about Gitmo and treatment of terror suspects in general.

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#800950 17-Apr-2013 13:27

networkn:
sleemanj:

Yeah, why do countries bother with courts anyway, the authorities always get the right people.

Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get imprisoned incorrectly, than a single terrorist be allowed to go free for the greater good of everyone.

Logic should stand that if they aren't giving them a "fair" trial there must be a good reason. I don't think Obama is a "bad person" (tm) and if there wasn't a compelling reason, I couldn't see him standing for it.

I prefer:
Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person [go free], than a single [']terrorist['] be [imprisoned incorrectly] for the greater good of everyone.

Given your arguments I can understand your view on excusing obama/american govt, but the counter to this is: if you excuse one government, why not every government who starts out with good intentions?
Power currupts...

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800952 17-Apr-2013 13:29

groynk:
networkn:
sleemanj:

Yeah, why do countries bother with courts anyway, the authorities always get the right people.

Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get imprisoned incorrectly, than a single terrorist be allowed to go free for the greater good of everyone.

Logic should stand that if they aren't giving them a "fair" trial there must be a good reason. I don't think Obama is a "bad person" (tm) and if there wasn't a compelling reason, I couldn't see him standing for it.

I prefer:
Personally, even if that person was me or a loved one, I'd rather the occasional person get killed, than a single 'terrorist' be imprisoned incorrectly for the greater good of everyone.

Given your arguments I can understand your view on excusing obama/american govt, but the counter to this is: if you excuse one government, why not every government who starts out with good intentions?
Power currupts...

What about 3000 people? 10000, 100,000? Where do you draw the line out of interest?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#800954 17-Apr-2013 13:31

networkn: I am not saying it's ideal, but it would appear there are circumstances preventing due process to run it's course and I am saying with the evidence being presented to me, I am happy to trust the elected parties who clearly have the information, to make that call.

But how can you trust they have the correct information? I can't come to trust a government hiding information from the public, even if it's for the "greater good".

In a court of law the information must be presented and a judge will tell the jury if it's relevant to the case or not. A jury will deliberate and decide. And this is public.

You advocate secret over due process.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4