And I thought this thread was going to be a coded message from the American Communist Party to its flock. Just more conspiracy theories... I am disappointed.
I understand this part. But you still haven't answered my question: After the cop illegally broke in the drug guy's house and caught him with the drugs, do you still think the cop was more guilty and deserved more hatred than the drug guy? Am I right in interpreting the point of your analogy here?
With supposedly civilized countries, we adhereto an agreed set of laws and conditions. That's why criminals go loose when our law enforcement breaks the Constitution. Without the Constitution, what do we have in society other than my way and your way. That's why there's ambiguity on whether this is a sanctioned war or not. Sure, if we lived in the law of the jungle, evildoers beware our might, but we were supposed to be above that.
Maybe I'm stupid. I think it makes more sense to punish BOTH the cop for his/her illegal act AND the criminal whose evidence of the cirme was obtained illegally but true. The punishment of the cop would deter police from doing illegal investigation. The punishment of the criminal would. . . well. . . be JUSTICE. Yes, justice, that's what the legal system is supposed to be, isn't it? Letting the criminal go simply because the true evidence is obtained illegally is, to me, INJUSTICE. It has nothing to do with being "civilized." But we are off topic. Sorry.
Iraq is not the only country who has weapons of mass destruction and neither is Hussein the only murderous dictator in the world. This is about world oil control. But Bush isn't saying that. Its about overthrowing a dictator. Well, why haven't we gotten rid of Castro then? Just food for thought....
The greater threat to the society in question would be the cop, for several reasons; 1) One, the drug dealer, is breaking the law...the other, the cop, is breaking the law and violating his duty as a public servant. 2) One, the drug dealer, only has the power to break the law outside of it, whereas the other, the cop, has the power of law enforcement itself to use to break the law as he sees fit. 3) The slipperiest slope isn't in the degree to which strict enforcement of the law allows someone like a drug dealer to go free, but the degree to which allowing the cop to use the power invested in him by his society with the assumption that he uphold the law to come up with and enforce his own version of the law while sidestepping whichever laws he finds inconvenient putsthe entire society 'protected' by that cop in danger. 4) All the above is premised on the cop being right, and it's still wrong. We have the legal system in place as a systemic apllication of a broad based legal concept backed up by a series of checks and balances...When the cop sidesteps those he not only breaks down the system and becomes a greater threat, he puts himself in the position of assuming the roles of several levels of the legal system...What happens when he's wrong? Or when it's his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend's place? As the saying goes, who will watch the watchdogs?
Castro does not have WMD, hes not defining UN orders to disarm and hes not a thread to sell WMD to terrorist organizations. These are HUGE factors that you decided to leave out of your food for though.
I feel for you, Oski. Dream Team said he hadn't been around to read the multitude of threads on this subject and I take him at his word. He still started an incredibly simplistic 'if you're not with Bush, you're with Saddam' style thread. Something I'd really hoped we'd be past after the first hundred or so. And still you stuck your neck out, as well as your hand, asking if we could just all try and understand each other. FranchiseBlade and others chipped in and tried to keep it going. Your posts in this thread, Oski, have been the most successful I've seen in seeking unity at a time of great division. What do you get in return: sinohero: "This is a really mature discussion." Plus roll-eyes. treeman predictably accusing anyone with an opinion different than his of being Communist. Chance tried to be funny with his nanny, nanny, boo, boo crap, but sadly it was on par with pretty much all his posts on this war. Possum at least tried to shake the hand you extended (after calling you a hypocrite), but quickly reverted to bashing Timing who, in this thread at least, is taking pains to be civil. You guys give lip service to the idea of the right to oppose the government one minute and then become furious whenever anyone, anywhere actually exercises that right. And I'm not talking about at military bases or the Oscars. It's not okay with some of you guys to express an opinion different than the administration's on a freaking BBS. Oski tried to reach out here and you guys slapped him off. And, by extension, you did the same to anyone else who's had a problem with this war, regardless of attempts at civility. To Possum: Thanks for trying to find common ground. Please keep trying. We will too. To sinohero and treeman: I couldn't give two ****s what either of you says about anything. You have no respect for anyone. You're just mean, nasty, ugly people. You don't want to get along. You don't want to reach any sort of common ground or respectful disagreement. You just want an outlet for your incredible hate. I hope for your sake you both get well soon. But if you don't, I really don't care. I think you're both incredibly worthless, hateful people. Take a lesson from MadMax or someone else who knows how to be passionate to the point of fury and still isn't a total prick. Thanks again for the good posts, Oski.
I was referring to your "this is about world oil control" portion of your post. We arent ousting Saddam because hes a ruthless/murdering dictator. If we were, then you have a point. If it were about that, we would have been on Saddam's case 20-30 years ago. This is about disarming him, which he has refused to do. He has defied the UN and defied the conditions that ended the 1st Gulf War. He has alleged connections to Al Queda and has the potential to supply them with WMD, which, is a direct threat to us. In all fairness to Castro, I think hes a pussycat compared to Saddam. Castro is a communist ruler whos people lives in constant poverty in a broke down country. I dont think he really has the reputation of being the ruthless/murdering dictator that Saddam has (someone please correct me if im wrong because im not a Cuba/Castro expert). In the end, I just think the whole "no blood for oil" arguement and the "Bush only wants Iraq's oil" arguement are really weak and not necessarily applicable in this situation. At least, not at the forefront.
slow down, chill, man. You are losing it. ok, ok, no more argument and division. we are one happy family. geez, this is a side show of a nba forum, seriously.
How is the cop violating his duty as a public servant, if his intention is to "get the bad guy" which is exactly his duty. You may say that breaking the law IS violating his duty. But that is begging the question. You are implying that the cop is "inside" the law? How is it so? Having the power of law enforcement makes him in a better position to break the law than the drug dealer? If you are saying that being the cop has better means (government resources, cooperation of citizens, etc.), I agree. But that makes him more guilty? Well, I grant that if a cop and a civilian both break into houses, the cop may be considered more guilty. But we are talking about two persons committing two different kinds of crime: breaking into a house and dealing drug. If you read my later post, you'd see that I am not saying that the cop shouldn't be punished by his illegal act. I'm questioning the notion that the cop is more evil than the drug dealer. We all know the scenario where the serial child molester/killer is set free simply because the cop or the prosecutor violated some rules in catching him. We all feel deep down that a system that let this kind of things happen is somehow problematic. In the context of this thread, I have no problem with people who think there are other means to resolve the Iraq problem without having to fight a war. I have no problem with people who think Bush may have some selfish motives. I am questioning the people who somehow protrait the Bush administration as a more evil regime than Saddam's.
This cop-drug dealer analogy is all wrong. For in the international community, there is really no institution functioning as a police department, and every country is essentially a citizen. Collective security, at its core, is a vigilante operation.
A cop's duty isn't to "get the bad guy", it's to protect and uphold the law. I could definitely see a situation where I would think a dirty cop was more dangerous and deserved more hatred than a drug dealer.
That's why the US trumpets the 17 resolutions passed, because collective security is a vigilante operation.
Well we havent found anything yet have we? Probably because he doesnt have jack ****. Damned if we accidently fire a missle at one of those so-called nukes. What do we do when that happens? Or are we impervious to error?
If the UN is the international police station+judge+prosecutor, it has no cops and no guns working under its order. Whenever a situation surfaces, it has to deputize an ordinary but more muscular and public-minded citizen to carry out its will, sometimes with violence (vigilante, no?). Iraq is a drug dealer in the neighborhood, but the UN is unwilling to prosecute him. The citizen has all the rights to take the responsibility to enforce justice on itself. UN has far less authority than a cop-less police dept, since nobody ever give the UN authority equivalent to domestic government in international policing. Countries have all the power to determine whether they are under threat from another one and act in self-defense. Analogies are dangerous, and sometimes silly, let's not get stuck in them.
The UN isn't unwilling to prosecute him, that's just your agenda in this situation. The UN has sanctions, 17 resolutions, control over Iraqi oil sales, and inspectors on the ground. The analogy isn't perfect but the UN is the mechanism by which international law is prosecuted. If it weren't, the US wouldn't be saying that 1441 gave them authorization for war which according to you isn't real authority. And really now, self-defense? Please... what happened to liberation? You just flip flop those whenever you want huh? Is that you George?
Uh, why is "getting the bad guy" not part of "protecting and upholding the law"? And of course, anyone can think of a bad cop more dangerous than a drug dealer. But is the Bush administration more dangerous than Saddam's? Is the war going to kill more people than Saddam would? That is not an easy question to answer. There are so many people on both sides of the issue think that the answer is so simple.
Ideally, in a society like ours, breaking two laws don't make a right. What if a cop broke into your house and shot someone in your family based upon his hunch that there was a drug ring operating in your area? Giving him powers to work above the law and allowing him to operate on abstract values of good and evil turns the cop into a glorified vigilante. Plus it would scare the hell out of the people they originally swore to protect since the public wouldn't have a consistent idea how each cop would act.
