[Crantag]

It really depends.

For non-free countries, there is little difference between prison and normal population (e.g. North Korea, and to a lesser extent China)
Worse, such countries can boost that they "concern prisoners' human rights as much as everyone else" (I actually know there's a Chinese criminal drama TV series claiming exactly this).

I don't really agree with this.

I did live in China for 2 years, I don't think it was basically like a prison in any way. Mostly people are just getting on.

I don't begrudge you for being anti-China, especially given the situation with Hong Kong, but I also don't think China is in any way like a giant prison.

North Korea I am not really sure. You could be right, but it is really hard to know the actual scene in North Korea, and I don't trust the propaganda, so really it is just hard to say with entire accuracy.

My ex-girlfriend in China got arrested for drunk driving once, and had to spend some time on the inside, she said it sucked, but mostly just that it was boring. They woke her up at the same time early in the morning, made her go to classes, fairly normal shit, honestly.

She got arrested one night because I pissed her off, and she assaulted two guys, who were actually sorta trying to protect me. She was a bit of a crazy girl.

I got her out of jail the next morning, and she just had to pay some money to the guy she injured (she split his head open with the charging port on her cell phone), and that was that. It seemed much less punitive in general.

The American justice system is horrible.

[Crantag]

Well, that's an interesting point - but don't drug consumption crimes represent the plurality of all incarceration cases in the US?

Because it also seems the US is moving onto changing its view about drug use in general...

Yeah, that is true.

And drug consumption shouldn't be so much a criminal matter.

As far as if it is getting relaxed, it depends on which state. Here in Oregon, drug possession was actually largely decriminalized, by ballot measure, in the election last year, but this is more of an exception.

I hope it is a trend, but the numbers of prisoners is appalling, and if you want to talk about human rights abuses, America is a huge abuser of human rights, in terms of its prisons, and in other ways.

The jail where I had the pleasure of sitting in was certainly inhumane in my opinion.

Maybe it made me a better person, and I wasn't in there that long, but I really do find the situation of American jails and prisons to be utterly appalling.

[wat0n]

Please note that my arguments about indefinite detention without trial mentioned more places than just Guantanamo. For example, I also mentioned Iraq.

And this is because Camp X-Ray, and now Camp Delta, are or were not the only detention sites for whomever the US government kidnapped.

And then there is the practice of extraordinary rendition.

The US already left Iraq.

I can't comment on whatever camps may or may not exist, be they American or not. This is vague and reads as grasping at straws.

As for extraordinary rendition, I am pretty sure all states do that from time to time as well. Especially if the country the people are going to be sent to is influential.

@AFAIK no, serial killers and rapists should not get off although it would be odd to condemn someone who kills in self defense while praising a serial killer for political reasons. No one's saying the US is perfect, what I'm saying is that it's odd to whine about its evils while overlooking or even supporting even worse offenses. I can understand that simply because I live in the real world and don't hold people to some idealized standard that no one adheres to.

@Crantag indeed, it depends on the state but then again ultimately that means drug users do have options in this regard. I do believe this also means it probably doesn't make too much sense to make drug use a federal crime at this point (trafficking is another matter as its sale and distribution could be regulated like that of alcohol is).

[Rancid]

it's odd to whine about its evils while overlooking or even supporting even worse offenses.

It is odd, and it basically shows lack of true principle.

Not that I'm claiming I'm very principled....

[Rugoz]

China executes thousands every year.

It's so humane!

[wat0n]

It is odd, and it basically shows lack of true principle.

Not that I'm claiming I'm very principled....

...And much worse, a lack of honesty. I'll take an honest unprincipled person over a dishonest unprincipled one pretending to be principled any day.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the argument is that a person cannot criticise or be negative about the USA unless they show a denunciation of dictatorships, then we are effectively arguing that most US residents and citizens cannot criticise or be negative about the USA.

This may be supported by an idea of moral purity, but from a logical or practical perspective, it is incorrect.

Take Biden as an example. He has openly supported the idea that sexual assault is wrong. He has also been accused of sexual assault. Now, that may make him a hypocrite, but does it mean that he should not speak out against sexual assault? Is he incorrect when he says that sexual assault is wrong?

If we take the idea that only those who are not hypocrites can speak out, then Biden should not champion stopping sexual assault. If we go one step further and claim he is incorrect to say sexual assault is wrong because of his behaviour, we are not only putting forth an immoral position but also a logical fallacy.

[Rancid]

If you guys all want to accuse me.of being unprincipled, feel free.

I'm not going to accuse you. "Let he who is without sin..." I'm sure I've done shit that is very gutless and principle-less.

You, in your heart of hearts would know best.

[wat0n]

If the argument is that a person cannot criticise or be negative about the USA unless they show a denunciation of dictatorships, then we are effectively arguing that most US residents and citizens cannot criticise or be negative about the USA.

This may be supported by an idea of moral purity, but from a logical or practical perspective, it is incorrect.

Take Biden as an example. He has openly supported the idea that sexual assault is wrong. He has also been accused of sexual assault. Now, that may make him a hypocrite, but does it mean that he should not speak out against sexual assault? Is he incorrect when he says that sexual assault is wrong?

If we take the idea that only those who are not hypocrites can speak out, then Biden should not champion stopping sexual assault. If we go one step further and claim he is incorrect to say sexual assault is wrong because of his behaviour, we are not only putting forth an immoral position but also a logical fallacy.

I don't think your analogy with Biden is particularly sound. I don't think anyone has ever proven he's committed sexual assault, so he can in fact speak against it. He would be a hypocrite, though, if he was convicted for it and his claims would be reassessed as a type of posturing and disregarded even if people can agree sexual assault is wrong - in fact those would likely be the ones who'd be most upset by Biden's posturing, if anything, and find it most offensive.

Now, a different matter would be if you were to criticize his stance on how sexual assault cases should be handled and contrast this with his defense against all accusations. Biden, after all, as Obama's VP played a pivotal role in the "Dear Colleague" letter that started the trend of denying key procedural rights to those accused of sexual assault in American universities, under threat of losing all federal funding if they do not comply, and as such indeed has no grounds to whine for being treated similarly when he is the one being accused. One standard for me, another for thee.

[Crantag]

@Crantag indeed, it depends on the state but then again ultimately that means drug users do have options in this regard. I do believe this also means it probably doesn't make too much sense to make drug use a federal crime at this point (trafficking is another matter as its sale and distribution could be regulated like that of alcohol is).

For the record I don't use drugs and never have (except alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes, weed which isn't really a proper drug, and alcohol which is a hell of a drug).

I had 3 friends die of overdoses in the past year and a half.

Drug use should be treated more as a medical issue my opinion.

I'm not the all knower of things, and I don't want drug use to be encouraged but when you are putting poison in yourself I don't really think you should go to jail for that.

And jail just makes things worse, in many many ways, and will exacerbate the bad condition in many cases.

And this is not something which I feel it is okay to just brush aside.

But there is complexity in the issue.

[Rich]

Will you not want to punish someone who has intentionally killed your loved ones?
Will a responsible government not want to punish someone who has intentionally killed people under their protection?

Whether the wrongdoer could repeat the feat is irrelevant.

IMHO if Politics_Obeserver was around he would have every reason to jump and lecture you.


Admittedly I hold similar view to them and some of those similar to them (e.g. ISIS).
They have wrong targets but what they do can be seen, at least, as a reference for strugglers.

Yes of course those responsible should have been punished and the most important culprits were the Pakistani and Saudi security establishments. Pakistan and Saudi should have been given non negotiable ultimatums like Austro-Hungary gave Serbia. The de-nuclerisation of Pakistan and unfettered access for investigators. Any failure to comply should have been followed up by the complete destruction of that countries military and security apparatus. As well as the criminal investigations that if and when proven with due process should have led to live televised public executions, there should have been civil liabilities paid by Pakistan for supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda and criminal negligence by Saudi Arabia for allowing the 15 hijackers to fly out of their country.

[wat0n]

For the record I don't use drugs and never have (except alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes, weed which isn't really a proper drug, and alcohol which is a hell of a drug).

I had 3 friends die of overdoses in the past year and a half.

Drug use should be treated more as a medical issue my opinion.

I'm not the all knower of things, and I don't want drug use to be encouraged but when you are putting poison in yourself I don't really think you should go to jail for that.

And jail just makes things worse, in many many ways, and will exacerbate the bad condition in many cases.

And this is not something which I feel it is okay to just brush aside.

But there is complexity in the issue.

I agree with you, and it can be treated as both a legal and a medical issue. A court can and will order an insane person to be sent to a psychiatric hospital, and they could also order drug addicts to get rehab.

[Godstud]

He's not an American citizen.

Are you unaware of the US 14th Amendment? Learn it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction.

[wat0n]

Are you unaware of the US 14th Amendment? Learn it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction.

The federal government is not a state and Guantanamo is under the jurisdiction of no state.

[Godstud]

The United States exercises jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay, so you are factually WRONG, @wat0n.

If something happens on a US destroyer in international water, or indeed on a foreign American military base, it falls under US jurisdiction. Guatanamo Bay is a US military base and so falls under that same jurisdiction. They do not lose their rights simply because they aren't in the definition of a "state", that you ignorantly want to use.

[wat0n]

The United States exercises jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay, so you are factually WRONG, @wat0n.

If something happens on a US destroyer in international water, or indeed on a foreign American military base, it falls under US jurisdiction. Guatanamo Bay is a US military base and so falls under that same jurisdiction. They do not lose their rights simply because they aren't in the definition of a "state", that you ignorantly want to use.

The United States i.e. the federal government, not a State within the United States. Why do you think there's a distinction between citizens and "any person" in that paragraph?

That's also how it seems the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter.

[Godstud]

You're wrong. @wat0n.

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."

If your argument were to be true, an America operating on a foreign military base could choose to fall under foreign jurisdiction. Such is not the case, obviously.

Look up jurisdiction and how it works, fool.

You support American gulags, and confirm that USA is a piece of shit.

[Fasces]

I frankly don't even understand where you get this from. The US was always somewhat behind Western Europe when it comes to gender and LGBT.

I guess when it comes to race the situation is different.

Not at all - I've lived and worked in Europe and the casual misogyny and mistreatment of women is much worse than anything I've experienced in the US. Europe has nothing like Title X, either. There's a virtually identical pay gap. There's worse rates of domestic violence. Sex Trafficking is a huge issue compared to the US.

These countries do better on things like maternity leave, maternal health indicators, and overall health care indicators - that's pretty much it, and what games the statistics, pushing them up in rankings. In terms of social equality, I don't see it. Most of Europe, in attitude, is behind the US, a lot of it far behind. I don't see better health care for women in Europe as good evidence of gender equality - healthcare in the US is equally shitty, regardless of gender, compared to European healthcare, regardless of gender.

In terms of LGBT protections, Europe is also behind the US. Only Belgium and the Netherlands recognized gay marriage before any US states, and only 13 European states recognize gay marriage at all - with five of those coming after the US. Most EU states have no such recognition.

Look, I hate to defend the US on anything, but on social issues, the US is relatively progressive even by Western standards, even if they're a regressive force otherwise.

[wat0n]

You're wrong. @wat0n.

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."

If your argument were to be true, an America operating on a foreign military base could choose to fall under foreign jurisdiction. Such is not the case, obviously.

Actually you are right, although lower courts decided they had no jurisdiction the SCOTUS disagreed and granted them habeas corpus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

And it turns out most were either released or judged by military courts.

I find it surprising, actually, and it seems lower courts were surprised too.

Look up jurisdiction and how it works, fool.

Ironically, based on the case cited above, that was established by the US government itself when it decided not to contest the right to habeas corpus of Hamdi (the only US citizen in Guantanamo as far as I'm aware). It was hardly obvious, unless you believe Merrick Garland (current USAG who was serving as an appellate judge and voted for the US government) doesn't understand jurisdiction. But I guess you, a Canadian retiree living in Thailand, know more about law than he does.

You support American gulags, and confirm that USA is a piece of shit.

So piece of shit that its courts have granted the prisoners of Gitmo (which is not a gulag, by the way) habeas corpus. I'm actually surprised, and it's not as bad as I thought.

[Crantag]

I agree with you, and it can be treated as both a legal and a medical issue. A court can and will order an insane person to be sent to a psychiatric hospital, and they could also order drug addicts to get rehab.

Rehab fails as many people, at least, as it helps.

I personally can't meld to it.

To me rehab is like having a boss who you are smarter than.

But, I don't want drug users to be in the criminal system, but I do understand both sides, and I don't want kids to be encouraged to use drugs.

But, it is more of a medical issue in my opinion.

And I lost 3 good friends, and I could cry about it.

I have other friends that I am hoping they can stay alive.

And I think this shit could be handled better.

And as a political point I think the American gulag system is awful.