Let's fight back against the NDAA

[dsheinem]

greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Ah, tyranny of the majority. Got ya.

Look, I have a lot of respect for you as I hope you know, but the way you are stating your claim - well it looks like you are calling for the overturning of a lot of core principles of American society...

I'd rather have the occasional convict get out and murder once again, the occasional terrorist slip through, or the occasional rapist running loose than have to live in fear that the state will lock me up and throw away the key on the grounds of suspicion or on the belief that personal reform is impossible.

I think your chances of being imprisoned under suspicion of terrorism are about equal to your chances of being murdered by that occasional convict. I'd rather take the option where I'm not being murdered and I could potentially be released.

Well neither of us know the probabilities, so we're just guessing. At the end of the day the principles of justice and fairness are more important to me than personal safety.

[flex wood]

For sake of fairness, do you have a link for those of us who would like to support the new law?

Just fell out of my chair laughing and smashed my head on my bed post. ouch

[mjmjr25]

Because of all "the freedoms" we have created in this country, some horrible things happen that should be avoided. He should have never been released the first time - in fact, in a truly "free" country, he would have been hung by a mob in that first small Minnesota town. But yes, he should not have been released, he should not have been allowed to buy property under a new name, he should not have been allowed to locate anywhere w/o the folks in that town knowing who he was.

1). No justice system is perfect, and substituting mob rule for what we have would be equally as problematic.

its wrong to paint ANYTHING on the garage of a, wait for it, garage that doesn't belong to you

2.) FTFY

yes, I 100% support the holding of people who are suspected of anything horrendous: rape, child abuse, and absolutely terrorism.

Indefinite detention based only on suspicion? Yikes. How'd that work out for the Soviets? Are you suggesting that this country needs a Stalinist purge?

greatest good for the greatest number of people.

3.) Ah, tyranny of the majority. Got ya.

Look, I have a lot of respect for you as I hope you know, but the way you are stating your claim - well it looks like you are calling for the overturning of a lot of core principles of American society...

I'd rather have the occasional convict get out and murder once again, the occasional terrorist slip through, or the occasional rapist running loose than have to live in fear that the state will lock me up and throw away the key on the grounds of suspicion or on the belief that personal reform is impossible.

I really hate trying to interject my comments into divided multi-quotes, i'm not there yet, so i'll number them

1. As I said, mob mentality AND utopian ideals are not realistic - it was an attempt to express to inazuma that when he thinks we should all think what he thinks, he just doesn't understand what WE ALL think. That was the point of the lynch mob mention, that in some cases, "WE ALL" (mind you, the inazuma WE ALL idea) would be ok with lynching a released child molestor.

2. Honest to God, you molest a kid, or other horrendous act - and are found or admittedly guilty. I have no problems with, well, pretty much with anything. This is personal flaw - I actually believe this belief I hold to be wrong - but I still do feel that way, i do.

3. I know you've read Bentham, and again, I wasn't stating my desire for Utilitarianism, it was in reply to izzy, whom espouses utilitarian thoughts often, even though he generally is confused on what most of us, or the "greater number of us" would actually prefer.

If I have the choice of some folks being wrongly held, or even wrongly convicted, i'd prefer that to someone not being held and then hearing of a 19yo gas station clerk being raped, strangled, and burned in a fire pit - by someone who should have been held, but wasn't. Where you and I disagree, I think, is that we have different opinions of what is the actual lesser, of two evils.

[Zing]

Vote third party this year, it's our only chance.

There is a compelling argument against this. If a third party gains significant seats in congress, then that third party will actually be the one with the most power. If the other two major parties are not able to pass their own agendas without a coalition of the third party, then the majority actually has less power, despite having greater numbers (and greater support from the public). Of course, some people would love a situation where their minority favourite holds all the cards, but that should not be the aim of the legislative body.

The other negative effect is that, when there is too much compromise made in a proposed law, the end result is a law that none of the parties agreed to. Neither party will take responsibility for its success, and each party will blame the other for its failure. Our two-party system already has this problem to a large degree, and it could be exacerbated to the point of a standstill if a third party were to come into "power".

I cringe anytime I hear of a "coalition government" here in Canada. It reminds me of how a third group of people are wielding far more power than they were mandated by the public.

Yes, the idea of choice in our representatives sounds great, but in practice, it is much better to have a "dictatorship", that is a legislature that is free to implement its ideas, both good and bad, than a congress that spends its time compromising. A dictatorship has no one to blame but itself when it comes to the next election. The ability to easily and quickly vote out a poor congress is much more important than who is voted in.

[MrPopo]

I think your chances of being imprisoned under suspicion of terrorism are about equal to your chances of being murdered by that occasional convict. I'd rather take the option where I'm not being murdered and I could potentially be released.

Well neither of us know the probabilities, so we're just guessing. At the end of the day the principles of justice and fairness are more important to me than personal safety.

I agree with your statement, but I disagree with your definition. Personally I think it is more just to imprison an innocent man then it is to let a guilty man rape/kill again.

[Hatta]

The principles of justice and fairness are required for personal safety. There is no conflict. If there is not justice, you are not safe. If there is not fairness, you are not safe.

[AmishSamurai]

For sake of fairness, do you have a link for those of us who would like to support the new law?

Just fell out of my chair laughing and smashed my head on my bed post. ouch

Even if you disagree with the law, it's good to see the argument of those supporting it.

[MrPopo]

The principles of justice and fairness are required for personal safety. There is no conflict. If there is not justice, you are not safe. If there is not fairness, you are not safe.

So what you're saying is no one will ever be safe.

[Breetai]

For sake of fairness, do you have a link for those of us who would like to support the new law?

I honestly hope no American here supports that BS. Wasn't The USA founded on the exact opposite of what this law stands for? I'm not even American and this makes me want to puke my guts out all over Obama's face. The US was supposed to be a a beacon of freedom to the world, not some example of an Orwellian state.

Does this mean that the American Republic is now officially dead?

[DinnerX]

I agree with your statement, but I disagree with your definition. Personally I think it is more just to imprison an innocent man then it is to let a guilty man rape/kill again.

Then change the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Beliefs on justice aside, I've got problems with any law that goes directly against the constitution, which is what seems to be the case here.