The newly released study on Iraq has claimed that, if matters continue as they are, “The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.”
The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.
Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?
Much is also being made of Gates candidly stating that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. However, I don’t think he actually said we’re *losing* it. It reminds me of Otto in “A Fish Called Wanda” declaring that we didn’t lose Vietnam, angrily claiming, “It was a tie.”
Personally, I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time before the Democratically elected head of Iraq is unDemocratically capped or subjected to a violent militia-driven overthrow. Maybe *that * will finally qualify as a civil war to Bush.
PAD
• 
“what were the reasons Olmert refused to agree to a prisoner exchange?”
Imagine this: Al-Quaida kidnaps an American border guard patroling the border with Mexico, and demands tthat the US release all the 9/11 and other terrorists held in US jails.
Eventually there will be an exchange. But part of the reason for the war was to put a clear price mark on such kidnappings. But it was not the only reason. Probably not even the main one. It was more the last straw. Hizballa has been attacking Israel across the border ever since Israel withdrew from Lebanon. It has taken over Southern Lebanon and built, with iraninan money, high tech fortifications (under residences) and stockpiles of missiles, some of which were shot into Israel during the kidnapping and on previous occasions. all this was accepted and officially recognized by the Lebanese government. Hizballa members sat in the government. In effect, the Hizballa created a balance of power in which it was able to attack and kidnap whenever it pleased, confident that nobody will do anything about it, and that Israel will not dare go into Lebanon to stop it. Combine this with the fact that the kidnaping happened in concert with the Hamas kidnapping a soldier and firing missiles into Israel from Gaza following Israel’s withdrawl, in effect creating a situation in which government sanctioned organizations were attacking Israel from two directions. Israel had to change the balance of power if it had any responsibility to the security of its soldiers and citizens. Furthermore, since Olmert ran on a platform of withdrawl from most of the west Bank, he had to show that Israel could deal with threats areasing from areas Israel withdrew from.
Oh, and I forgot to add that the person nasseraala wanted released mostly was a Palestinian who infiltrated Israel in the late 70’s (prior to Israel’s invasion to Lebanon), went into an Israeli city took a father and his daughter hostages and then murdered them. the wife was hiding in the attic with her baby and another child. She covered the face of the baby in order to stifle its crying and the baby died. You can realize why Isrel is reluctant to return this man.
Hmm, yes, I can see why an exchange might not be such a great idea.
About the guy you mentioned: is it pretty much a given he’d cause more trouble if he were set free, or would he simply be too old to engage in the kind of strenuous physical activity I imagine moving through a war zone involves? A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life. This man had served 25 years. Is there any possibility he was no longer a threat, or at least no longer the kind of threat he once was?
My second question is about the rockets. From the media coverage I recall reading at the time, it appeared that the provocation for the bombing was two things: the kidnapping, and the rocket attacks. The impression I got was that Israel’s response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody. Am I correct, or mistaken?
If we were talking about missiles deadly enough to kill 50 or 100 people at a time (or more) and it was a barrage that would continue indefinitely, I would not object to bombing the area to take them out. But it wasn’t like that.
Was this the sort of thing that could have been weathered? What kind of range did these rockets have–in other words, could Israeli civilians have simply been evacuated to another part of the country where they’d be out of range? Were there any purely defensive measures that could have been taken (example: the shooting down of SCUD missiles in the Gulf War before they hit anything)?
Bill Mulligan:
Ah, but imagine a gunman walking around with a hostage, shooting and killing people as he does and the cops do nothing because of fear of killing the hostage. At some point the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Or the one.
The first thing I’d do would be to get everybody out of the area; that would probably be easy since people would see the crazy guy with the gun and haul ášš. Then I’d see whether I could move a sharpshooter around behind the guy who could take him down without harming the hostage, or whether tear gas would work, or any number of other alternatives.
So, in the case of Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah…was there less bloody alternative?
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 07:07 AM
It seems I should be asking more questions and making fewer statements.
I think the same could be said for all of us, Rob. It appears to have taken you far less time to reach that conclusion than it took me.
It appears to have taken you far less time to reach that conclusion than it took me
LOL, good to know man. 🙂
Hi, Rob. It’s me, the admitted @$$hole. Hope you don’t mind me chiming in, even tho your questions were directed to Micha. (I will try to be a bit nicer today.)
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 08:55 AM
A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life.
The severity of the sentence depends upon a number of factors, not the least of which are the circumstances of the murder. What Micha described sounds like it easily fits the definition of First Degree Murder under New York State Law, which carries with it the death penalty or life without parole as options for the maximum sentence.
IMHO, justice includes more than practical considerations. Retribution is sometimes a necessary component of justice.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 08:55 AM
The impression I got was that Israel’s response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody.
Rob, think about Israel’s situation as if it were your own. You’re surrounded by enemies who question your nation’s right to exist, with the ability to attack you with missiles and border raids. They’ve demonstrated that they are unafraid of retaliation. A “proportionate” response in such a situation is inadequate, and may even embolden the enemy, as it sends a signal that they can attack you at will and expect to pay only a minor price.
From a security standpoint, the only reasonable response is to destroy or at least degrade your enemy’s offensive capabilities. If it were the U.S. in that situation, it’s the response I would expect… and (heaven help me) want.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 08:55 AM
The first thing I’d do would be to get everybody out of the area; that would probably be easy since people would see the crazy guy with the gun and haul ášš. Then I’d see whether I could move a sharpshooter around behind the guy who could take him down without harming the hostage, or whether tear gas would work, or any number of other alternatives.
I wish Jerry C were here at the moment (Jerry, if you’re reading this I hope you’re over your flu and things are going well), because he’s a cop.
From what I’ve gathered from talking with other cops, however, I can say with some degree of confidence that hostage situations are never that easy to resolve. There are always hundreds of variables, and never any guarantee that a specific tactic will have the desired results. If the target flinches and the sharpshooter misses, the hostage-taker might start killing his prisoners. Tear gas might give him just enough time to do the same. There are never any quick, clean, easy alternatives. That’s why cops always try negotiations first.
The problem with drawing a parallel between some lone nut taking hostages, and acts of aggression between nations, is that in the latter case the acts are supported by a government or terrorist group that needs to be brought to account. It’s not enough just to defuse the situation. There must be a deterrent for the future.
And Micha, yeah, I know — it’s not black-and-white. And Israel doesn’t belong on a pedestal. But I’m thinking in terms of “how would I react were I in there shoes?” Believe it or not, our situations are not entirely dissimilar. The U.S. did take some flak for the intensity of our assault on Afghanistan after 9/11, just as Israel took some heat for the intensity of its assault on Lebanon. I think both our nations made mistakes, but in broad terms our military responses were justified.
Now, Iraq, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. We had NO business going into that country. But we did and now we’re stuck with it.
Blacks are the leading victims of murder.
State-sponsored execution is certainly retribution — but if it were retribution for murder, death rows wouldn’t be dominated by convicts who kill whites. Take another guess who the death penalty really serves.
About the guy you mentioned: is it pretty much a given he’d cause more trouble if he were set free, or would he simply be too old to engage in the kind of strenuous physical activity I imagine moving through a war zone involves? A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life. This man had served 25 years. Is there any possibility he was no longer a threat, or at least no longer the kind of threat he once was?
Prison is too good for him. Releasing him would be an atrocity. And what message does it send? I think Israel made a HIGE mistake the first time they agreed to an exchange. The result has been more kidnappings.
To my knowledge–coreect me if I’m wrong–the USA has never agreed to such a thing. And as a result, even though we have a HUGE prison population, many of them no doubt with family and friends who would do anything to get them out, you don’t see many kidnappings/hijackings/etc that demand the release of prisoners. They know it won’t happen.
As for my hypothetical–a crazed gunman using a human shiled as he walks around shooting people–I submit that a man walking at a decent clip can easily outrun any evacuation. Try evacuating a street sometime. I gûáráņ-dámņ-ŧëë it’ll take longer than it takes to walk to the next street. And this guy is shooting at the cops as this happens. And nobody is shooting back?
In the real world, when this happens, the cops shoot back. As they should. Sometimes the hostage gets killed as well, which is a tragedy. I submit, however, that if they let dozens of others get shot while waiting for snipers to take their best shot heads would roll.
Sean wrote:
>Not the one he WANTED to, but he did. And the Ismay analogy may fit perfectly.
While Ismay probably was a factor I’m afraid I don’t agree. Smith was the captain of the ship and ship captains while at sea are the dictator. Ismay may have cajolled but it was Smith who was the final decider.
Whichever history you believe, this was Smiths final voyage before retirement or just the second of the new ships he was going to be piloting Smith is at fault. Whites Star wasn’t going to do anything to him, he was their most respected captain. After all he wrecked the Olympic, sending it to drydock and delaying completion of the Titanic and they still gave him the Titanic.
Smith was too experienced to let what happened happen if he hadn’t been blinded by some specific desire. Ismay, well I’m not saying he doesn’t bare some of the blame, at the same time due to the fact he got off the ship, he was a good target in the congressional hearings.
“About the guy you mentioned: is it pretty much a given he’d cause more trouble if he were set free, or would he simply be too old to engage in the kind of strenuous physical activity I imagine moving through a war zone involves? A common prison sentence for murder in Canada and many states in the U.S. is 25 years to life. This man had served 25 years. Is there any possibility he was no longer a threat, or at least no longer the kind of threat he once was?”
Samir Kûņŧár is unlikely to be involved in future actions. But I think that even Canada would hesitate to release prisoners in response to terrorists taking hostages. It would undermine the credibility of its justice system. Furthermore, even if you were to rel;ease prsoners, as Israel has done in the past, you would also want to make sure this terrorist tactic would not be considered worthwhile in the long run. Remember, methods of terrorism go in and out of fashion if they are considered successful. Highjacking planes was considered successful for awhile. Suicide bombing has gained popularity by being used against Israel and then was imported to NY, London, Madrid, Kahbul and Bahgdad.
“My second question is about the rockets. From the media coverage I recall reading at the time, it appeared that the provocation for the bombing was two things: the kidnapping, and the rocket attacks. The impression I got was that Israel’s response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody. Am I correct, or mistaken?
If we were talking about missiles deadly enough to kill 50 or 100 people at a time (or more) and it was a barrage that would continue indefinitely, I would not object to bombing the area to take them out. But it wasn’t like that.
Was this the sort of thing that could have been weathered? What kind of range did these rockets have–in other words, could Israeli civilians have simply been evacuated to another part of the country where they’d be out of range? Were there any purely defensive measures that could have been taken (example: the shooting down of SCUD missiles in the Gulf War before they hit anything)?”
Israel’s response is not a punishment to a crime, it is a method to stop the citizens of Israel’s towns being held hostage by Hizballa’s rockets.
How long do you think towns and cities in Israel or anywhere could function if they were routinly attacked by rockets. Even if the casualties were only in the tens or even less?
Israeli houses have bomb shelters, which reduce casualties. But society cannot function if its citizens have to run to shelters at a drop of a hat.
100-200 rockets were shot on Israel at a daily basis during the war.
Do you think that just 5 or 10 casualties from rockets is acceptable?
Any part of Israel is in range of rockets from someplace in the the midle east. How long do you think Israel could survive if it were to evacuate areas in response to rockets?
If an independent Quebec were to bombard an area all the way to Torronto, what would be the adequate response?
The patriot missles were not very effective against SCUDs. It hit the missles, and then the reckage fell on Tel Aviv.
There were methods in development to block rockets, but the financial support was cut. This is probably one of the things Israel would reexamine. But even with such methods. Do you expect Israelis to simply sit while being bombarded as lasers or rockets hit the missiles being fired at them, even assuming the system was 100% foolproof?
When Hizballa intitated the original attack they expected that Israel would bomb some areas. Just as Al-Quiada expected a few tomohawk missiles being shot into Afghanistan after its previous attacks. For them its the cost of doing business.
Like Bill said. In order to have a functioning life we have to make sure Israeli citizens are not bombed whenever our enemies desire and routinly. Our responses should be as proportionate as this goal requires.
“Ah, but imagine a gunman walking around with a hostage, shooting and killing people as he does and the cops do nothing because of fear of killing the hostage. At some point the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Or the one.
The first thing I’d do would be to get everybody out of the area; that would probably be easy since people would see the crazy guy with the gun and haul ášš. Then I’d see whether I could move a sharpshooter around behind the guy who could take him down without harming the hostage, or whether tear gas would work, or any number of other alternatives.”
This was exactly what Israel did. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese ran away from their homes before Israel bombed. Israel flattened a densly populated area of Beirut. But the number of civilian deaths in 33 days was about a thousand. I believe we could have acheived an even lower rate of civilian deaths by fighting a faster and shorter war, and by being even more cautious when bombing. But it seems clear that had we been carpet bombing and targeting civilians as we’ve been accused, deaths would have reached much greater numbers.
Obviously, using tear gas was not an option in this case.
For use of gas against terrorists see the experience of Russia against the Chechans who took hostages in Moscow.
Correction:
The Lebanese deaths in total I think were claimed to be a thousand. I don’t know how reliable the HIzballa is with regards to the numbers or the ratio of civiliand vs. militants.
Oh, I felt the attack in Beirut was a tactical mistake.
Lots to respond to here. One thing in particular caught my eye:
Bill Mulligan: Prison is too good for him.
Have you been in prison for 25 years? Do you know what it’s like? If not, how can you possibly know whether it’s too good for him, or not? Me, I’d rather die than go to prison after the stories I’ve heard about it. Because in many cases, sending a guy to prison is like throwing him in with a pack of rabid dogs and turning a blind eye to whatever happens next. That is tantamount to torture, and I believe torture is worse than killing somebody because torture goes on and on and on for hours or days or months or years and traumatizes a person for their entire life. If somebody gets shot in the head, it’s over in less than a minute. Boom, they’re dead, they don’t suffer. Their loved ones suffer, but they’re eventually able to get on with their lives.
The punishment must fit the crime, it must not be WORSE than the crime. If that means life for life, so be it. But 25 consecutive years of brutal beatings, rapes, and dehumanization for the taking of a life? No, I can’t condone that.
Even the people I hate most in the world, even those people I wouldn’t wish more than a day of agony on. Eventually I’d feel sorry for them, eventually I’d say “OK, they’ve had enough.” I would not wish 25 years of agony on ANYBODY.
I’m sorry to go on about that for so long, but I don’t think people really understand what they’re saying when they say “prison’s too good for him.” Gøddámņ.
I would rather die than be in prison too. but Israel doesn’t have a capital punishment. but don’t worry about Kûņŧár rob, he serves his term with the other terrorists, not with common criminals.
Have you been in prison for 25 years? Do you know what it’s like? If not, how can you possibly know whether it’s too good for him, or not?
I’ve never had my family murdered either but I have a pretty good idea of how I’d feel if they were. He murdered a kid. In cold blood. For being a Jew. Frankly I think it’s only a sense of decency that prohibits us from thowing him into a molten glass furnace , which would be a just punishment.
Even the people I hate most in the world, even those people I wouldn’t wish more than a day of agony on. Eventually I’d feel sorry for them, eventually I’d say “OK, they’ve had enough.” I would not wish 25 years of agony on ANYBODY.
If you are seriously suggesting that you would only wish one day of prison on someone who killed your wife and child…perhaps you are a much kinder man than I am. But that seems an insult to the dead and a slap in the face to those left behind.
Considering the fact that many of those who get out of prison are soon back in, I don’t know if it is quite the Dantes Inferno that you think it is. You’d think those in the know would do anything to avoid going back. But I have no intention of finding out, so…
OK, I’ve calmed down somewhat now…
The goal of police forces and military should be to keep people safe, NOT to mete out what they feel is appropriate punishment, NOT to say “I’m going to hurt those møŧhërfûçkërš so bad they’ll wish they were never born.” That just continues the cycle of violence and hatred and turns you into a sadist, into somebody who takes pleasure from inflicting pain on others.
Bill Myers: Rob, think about Israel’s situation as if it were your own. You’re surrounded by enemies who question your nation’s right to exist, with the ability to attack you with missiles and border raids. They’ve demonstrated that they are unafraid of retaliation. A “proportionate” response in such a situation is inadequate, and may even embolden the enemy, as it sends a signal that they can attack you at will and expect to pay only a minor price.
Striking back with equal force sends the message just fine. Striking back with excessive force is immoral. You realize that as a result of Israel’s reaction, the survivors of the bombing runs who lost their homes and loved ones probably despise them, right? All it accomplished was to make them more hated and give organizations like Hezbollah a larger pool of people to recruit from.
Retribution is sometimes a necessary component of justice.
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by “retribution”, but if you mean what I think you do then I must respectfully disagree. You want to deter crime, you want to rehabilitate if possible, you want to keep innocent people safe from violent predators. Punishing criminals might serve as a deterrant, but that’s it. In the case of the people who attack Israel it seems that it doesn’t deter them at all, so you might as well not even bother. Just keep them somewhere where they can’t hurt anybody else, or execute them. Is there any reason to make somebody miserable other than your own personal desire for vengeance? Does it accomplish anything, does it make the world better, does it make the world safer?
Rex Hondo: Unfortunately, we often have to simply try to find the answer that is the least wrong.
Agreed.
Bill Myers: If the target flinches and the sharpshooter misses, the hostage-taker might start killing his prisoners. Tear gas might give him just enough time to do the same. There are never any quick, clean, easy alternatives. That’s why cops always try negotiations first.
Sure, but in this hypothetical I am suggesting alternatives to “shoot at the guy through the hostage.” The sharpshooter MIGHT not succeed and that will make the hostage-taker kill his prisoner. The tear gas MIGHT give him time to do the same. Shooting at the hostage WILL result in the hostage’s death.
What I’m saying is that before you take one of the most drastic measures available, you’d better dámņ well have considered any and all other options and found that none of them have any chance of working. If you’ve considered everything, I mean EVERYthing, and the only option left is shooting the hostage…or dropping bombs on residential areas…then…all right, if you must.
Micha: Furthermore, even if you were to rel;ease prsoners, as Israel has done in the past, you would also want to make sure this terrorist tactic would not be considered worthwhile in the long run.
Good point. However, I can’t help thinking that refusing to negotiate with terrorists hasn’t exactly stopped terrorism. In this case it was a choice between two undesirable outcomes: either refuse to negotiate and risk never getting back the guys who were kidnapped, or agree to negotiate and have Hezbollah say “Hey, this is great, now whenever we want something from them all we have to do is kidnap a couple more of their people.” It seems to me like a no-win situation.
How long do you think towns and cities in Israel or anywhere could function if they were routinly attacked by rockets. Even if the casualties were only in the tens or even less? Israeli houses have bomb shelters, which reduce casualties. But society cannot function if its citizens have to run to shelters at a drop of a hat.
I don’t know how you’ve managed to function in this kind of environment. The problem here is that, until all or the majority of people in the Middle East become able to accept or at least tolerate Israel’s presence there, the problem will continue and it will be unmnanagable. Even if the attacks on Lebanon had worked perfectly, it would’ve only provided a temporary respite. There would eventually be more attacks on Israel. There really isn’t anything I can think of that can be done about it, other than annihilating everybody in the region who opposes Israel’s existence or abandoning the region entirely.
100-200 rockets were shot on Israel at a daily basis during the war. Do you think that just 5 or 10 casualties from rockets is acceptable?
If you’re saying 1000 to 2000 people on the Israeli side were killed in that span on top of the Lebanese dead, no, I don’t think that’s acceptable. What was the death toll?
But again, what can be done to put a stop to attacks like that? I honestly can’t think of anything. You blow up their weapons, they’ll only get more. You kill their people, they’ll only recruit more, since they have enough people on their side that they’re able to just throw away the lives of many of those people by sending them on suicide bombing missions. You kill their leader, somebody will take his place. I’m sorry, but it seems like no matter how much you do there’s no way to win.
But even with such methods. Do you expect Israelis to simply sit while being bombarded as lasers or rockets hit the missiles being fired at them, even assuming the system was 100% foolproof?
Actually, if the system was 100% foolproof there’d be no need to retaliate at all. You could just sit back, watch the rockets get shot down, and laugh at the people firing them; “Ah, look at those idiots, they’re still firing rockets even after our defenses have kept the last 792 from hitting us. If they had any brains they’d try something else.” Face it, they would look stupid, and you’d be safe.
Any part of Israel is in range of rockets from someplace in the the midle east. How long do you think Israel could survive if it were to evacuate areas in response to rockets?
I don’t know. Under these kings of circumstances, I’m amazed you’ve lasted this long.
But I will tell you this: whenever you go on the offensive and somebody who was not involved in the conflict dies as a result, you make more enemies. Just like the U.S. did when it went into Iraq, and even Afghanistan.
That’s why I’m in favor of the U.S. fighting a purely defensive war. Offense doesn’t work on terrorists, because terrorists move around. They don’t stay in one location that you can blow up without taking out innocent people.
Look at what Bush tried to do: the way he was talking, he wanted to go around the world with his armed forces, going after terrorists wherever they might be, threatening any country that sponsored terrorists. It didn’t work. Even the “world’s only remaining superpower” can barely manage that with one single country.
What if they tried something else? What if they said “forget occupying nations and trying to change their governments, let’s just blow them up instead. Let’s nuke any country that harbors terrorists.” Can you imagine what would happen if they did that? Sure, they’d kill the terrorists…and a lot of people who aren’t terrorists…and they’d be hated all over the world.
By now you might be thinking “OK, why don’t you tell me what WOULD work?” I wish I could. I wish I had a solution. I don’t. I only know that some things DON’T work, and that I can tell when they aren’t working.
I don’t know all the reasons why the people behind 9/11 hate the American people so much. I don’t know why the people in Hezbollah and Hamas hate Israel so much. There are religious differences, there is the land issue, but I’m guessing that there are also many other reasons, that one terrorist has a grudge against the U.S. because some American military action killed his sister years ago, another terrorist has a grudge against Israel because a piece of their ordnance killed his father in the past.
As long as people keep getting caught in the crossfire and dying, we’re adding to the ranks of our enemies. This is much easier said than done, this might even sound stupid, but it seems to me that the only effective way to reduce terrorism and thin those ranks is to adopt foreign policy that angers as few people as possible.
If you are seriously suggesting that you would only wish one day of prison on someone who killed your wife and child…perhaps you are a much kinder man than I am. But that seems an insult to the dead and a slap in the face to those left behind.
24 hours of pain, non-stop, with me able to watch. I might be satisfied during the first hour. Maybe the second. I can’t see myself watching the guy in screaming torment for 24 consecutive hours and still saying “more, more, make him suffer MORE!”
Prison isn’t non-stop pain, but it is painful, and it’s cumulative. If you have 10 minutes of absolute misery per day, every day, for 25 years or longer, well, what kind of effect do you think that’ll have on somebody’s sanity? And that’s assuming it’s just 10 minutes a day.
I doubt the recidivism rate is a result of people WANTING to go back, although I realize that in some cases people get to the point where they feel like they can’t function outside. I consider it more likely that it’s the result of a person’s prison experiences turning them into emotionally unstable wrecks of human beings who wind up snapping and getting arrested again, or that nobody is willing to hire them after they get out and they go back to crime in order to support themselves.
Considering the fact that many of those who get out of prison are soon back in, I don’t know if it is quite the Dantes Inferno that you think it is. You’d think those in the know would do anything to avoid going back. But I have no intention of finding out, so…
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 05:11 PM
Have you been in prison for 25 years? Do you know what it’s like? If not, how can you possibly know whether it’s too good for him, or not? Me, I’d rather die than go to prison after the stories I’ve heard about it.
I think you’re leading with your heart, not your head. I think you have a good heart, and emotion certainly has its place in the world. But emotion is highly personal, idiosyncratic, and a very poor lens through which to make decisions about public policy.
You say you’ve heard stories about how brutal prison can be. But have you put them in context? In 2000, the U.S. prison population was roughly 2.2 million. According to a group called Stop Prisoner Rape, Inc., about 25,000 prisoners in the U.S. are raped each year. That’s roughly 1.1%. It’s still an alarming statistic — but hardly an epidemic.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 05:11 PM
Because in many cases, sending a guy to prison is like throwing him in with a pack of rabid dogs and turning a blind eye to whatever happens next.
The statistics don’t seem to bear that out.
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 05:11 PM
That is tantamount to torture, and I believe torture is worse than killing somebody because torture goes on and on and on for hours or days or months or years and traumatizes a person for their entire life. If somebody gets shot in the head, it’s over in less than a minute. Boom, they’re dead, they don’t suffer. Their loved ones suffer, but they’re eventually able to get on with their lives.
The punishment must fit the crime, it must not be WORSE than the crime. If that means life for life, so be it. But 25 consecutive years of brutal beatings, rapes, and dehumanization for the taking of a life? No, I can’t condone that.
I believe your conclusion — that prison is tantamount to torture — is based on faulty premises, as I’ve demonstrated above.
By the way, please be careful about portraying murderers as the real victims. I know someone whose 21-year-old nephew was murdered this year. He had taken some of his adult friends, and a little girl, to see a local musical production. He returned home and dropped the girl off to his family. He was then going to take his friends out for a late dinner. But a group of would-be robbers was walking down the street and decided that this young man and his friends were potential witnesses. They walked up behind the car, surprising everyone within, and fired a gun at my co-worker’s nephew. The bullet tore through his skull and brain, and then through one of the breasts of a female in the front passenger’s seat.
My co-worker’s nephew spent time in a coma and then died. Before he did, his head swelled up to the size of a watermelon.
Not only do the passengers of the car have to live with the trauma of what they witnessed that evening — a bullet tearing through the head of their friend — but the boy’s parents have become severely depressed.
The victim, by the way, was a well-loved and respected pianist in his father’s church. The victim had just gotten his minister’s license, and eventually wanted to become a funeral director.
That last part is so painfully ironic my eyes well up with tears when I think about it.
Rob, I truly believe you have a good heart and are passionate about what you believe. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but you’re kind of putting your foot in it here.
Prison is filled with criminals, many of whom are violent. That certainly increases the probability of problems. But, you know, if you don’t want to end up there, a great place to start is by not committing crimes.
I’m aware that our justice system is imperfect, by the way. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who ends up in prison is a victim.
1Rob, I’ll give you a very short answer so as not to drag this too long.
1) The situation of Israeel dealing with neighboring enemies, and the situation of distant Europeans, Americans and Canadians dealing with international terrorists like Al-Quaida is quite different.
2) Israel does not win and does not find perfect solutions, it survives. It survives by providing its people with a livable environment. Most of the time our life is as normal as any western country. But in order to achieve that we use a combination of defensive and offensive measures. We sometime have to fight wars. These measures are not perfect. I defenitly would like to see my governnment make better use of diplomacy and make a greater effort for peace. But we do survive, rather well actually. This is not a theoretical discussion in some distant country across the atlantic, it’s practice. It depends among other things on the fact that our neighbors know there is a price for attacking us.
For example, a few years ago we had weekly and almost daily suicide attacks that killed many. Now we haven’t had one in many months, and even when one does succeed, it kills few. Back then peolle (not myself) were afraid to go out to restaurant or be in buses, now our life thrives again. That’s how we live.
———————–
Bill Mulligan wrote:
“He murdered a kid. In cold blood. For being a Jew.”
Here is a point I consider very important, although not all Israeis understand it, and I’m not sure the Palestinians make the distinction. But, when Jews live as a powerless minority and some antisemite kills one of them, he is killed for being a Jew. But we have made a decision not to be powerless by founding our own country with its own army. This power comes with responsibility. we are no longer passive but active. We are not killed for being Jewish now, but for being Israelis, for belonging to a country that has good and bad policies that have political consequences. I consider it a very important distinction.
It does that by using defensive methods and offensive methods that deter its enemies from striking, not always but some of the time. Every once in a while we fight wars. Not perfect wars that end al the problems,
Posted by: Rob Brown at December 10, 2006 06:35 PM
Striking back with equal force sends the message just fine.
Really? Because prior to the invasion of Lebanon, that’s what Israel was doing — reacting to each provocation with a relatively proportionate response. It wasn’t working.
Prior to September 11, 2001, that’s how we’d react to terrorists. They’d commit an attack against us, we’d lob some rockets at an area believed to be a terrorist camp. Again, didn’t work. We ended up with the attacks of 9/11.
I’m afraid the facts don’t bear out your thesis that proportionate response sends a message “just fine.”
Micha–point taken. But would he have done what he did if he knew that the family was one of the many Israelis of Arab descent?
But still, point taken.
And I might add, I doubt very much that I would be as even handed as you are were our positions reversed. You are a true credit to your country, even if you feel like you are being assailed from both extremes.
Rob– As Bill Myers said, you have a good heart. I suspect, as time goes on, you will have reason to have a less benign view of criminals (I’m not suggesting you are pro-criminal, by the way). But it is important that we remain humane, even to those who may not appear to deserve it. For myself, I don’t really have much ability to feel any sense of mercy to certain elements…but this is not something that I think makes me a better person.
To Bill Myers:
I’m truly sorry that your friend and his family had to go through what they did and live with the aftermath, it sounds horrible.
I never said that criminals were the “real victims”, just that the punishment doesn’t always fit the crime. If somebody becomes part of that 2.2 million, I don’t think that fits the crime. If, on the other hand, he goes to prison and winds up preying on other inmates, that punishment also doesn’t fit the crime because the guy isn’t suffering much at all and he’s continuing to victimize people, some of whom might only be in there for possession of marijuana or something.
I consider myself a liberal but one place I break from the majority of liberals is on capital punishment. I’m not in favor of dragging everybody to the gas chamber or injection table kicking and screaming and sobbing, but if it’s a case where a guy did something like what you described and doesn’t care at all, then I’d say he should die. Also, if we’ve got a case of somebody who has a life sentence and would rather die than spend the rest of his life in prison, why put him on suicide watch? Why not grant him his wish? You get a dangerous criminal out of the way and you’re no longer spending taxpayer money to feed and house him.
That’s how I’d deal with certain unrepentant murderers. As for people who commit manslaughter or grand larceny or fraud or any number of other things, I’d have to think about that. But whatever conclusion I come to, it won’t involve rape (unless the crime was rape, because then the punishment would fit the crime).
Prior to September 11, 2001, that’s how we’d react to terrorists. They’d commit an attack against us, we’d lob some rockets at an area believed to be a terrorist camp. Again, didn’t work. We ended up with the attacks of 9/11.
Bill, we ended up with those attacks because Dubya breezed into office, wondered why Clinton had been paying so much attention to some guy named “Bin Laden”, ignored the memo telling him Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the U.S., and just went about everything half-assed.
The WTC was bombed in ’93. It was not attacked again until 2001, in other words it was not attacked during the Clinton administration. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Islamic terrorists even managed to attack a location on U.S. soil (I’m obviously not counting embassies) before that. Timothy McVeigh did so, but he was clearly not working with Bin Laden.
Do you think anything Bush has done is working any better than what was tried before? I’ve heard people point to Libya and saying “See? By invading Iraq we showed everybody we were serious and scared Libya into getting rid of ITS weapons.” But Libya did not disarm because of the invasion of Iraq, as explained in the piece “Why Libya Gave Up The Bomb” by Flynt Leverett. Google it, you can read it on many different sites.
To Micha:
It sounds like the problem isn’t as bad as I thought, but it still don’t envy you guys your position.
To Bill Mulligan:
For myself, I don’t really have much ability to feel any sense of mercy to certain elements…but this is not something that I think makes me a better person.
I don’t feel that makes me superior or anything, I suspect it’s just a result of my own past suffering that I feel that much compassion for others who suffer. Even if that person has done something to me, I’ll eventually feel sorry for them if I see them suffer enough.
To Bill Mulligan and Myers:
Thanks for what you said about me having a good heart, cause even if I turn out to be wrong on everything else I’d hope that at least my heart would be in the right place.
Oops again. I said:
The WTC was bombed in ’93. It was not attacked again until 2001, in other words it was not attacked during the Clinton administration.
I’d meant to type “it was not attacked again during the Clinton administration,” since that administration does include 1993.
> Maybe you don’t live somewhere where you drive so your attitude is such you could give a rat‘s ᚚ about the price of gasoline. Well, let’s just jack those fuel prices way, way up so the cost of your groceries (which are mainly trucked around the country) goes through the roof and leaves your wallet full of dust and not much else.
We’re headed that way regardless because those in charge may have bleated all the right words back in the 70s about never being held hostage at the pumps again but they weren’t willing to back those words up with action. ie spending what it took in a Project: Manhattan-style effort to come up with a viable alternative to digging more holes in the ground. And we’re still paying the price – figuratively, as well as literally – for that lack of leadership.
> And football “hooliganism” in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn’t occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.
Apples and oranges. There is little in the U.S. that can begin to compare with the intensity of emotions involving soccer/football which exists in Britain and some other countries. Look at Canada and Hockey. The ‘Rocket Richard riots of the 50s, for example.
> You’d think teaching our personnel how to speak Arabic would have been a priority sometime since 9/11.
And you’d think having a Secretary of State who is conversant with the region and its problems would have been a priority. But, no.
> Way to give a guy douche chills first thing in the morning, I could feel the ol’ sphincter tightening up at the prospect (Jeb successful). We can only hope the damage is so severe.
Then again we may yet wind up with Billary in charge. Talk about lose-lose …
> Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don’t think she would sabotage the thing.
Her specialty is the late Soviet Union. You’re telling me that, after the hash she’d done of her last job, the Shrub administration couldn’t find ANYONE better suited to the Middle-East-centered problems the U.S. is having to deal with?
>I expect people who’ve been labeled the “bad guys” to kill civilians and things like that. So when I hear about that happening, it doesn’t surprise me. But when a nation composed of “good guys” does it, it’s surprising to me…and a very nasty surprise, too!
Not to anyone who has studied history in high school. At least, not to anyone who studied it 30 0r 40 years back. They may have ‘sanitized’ it since then. Wouldn’t surprise me.
>The Bushite view doesn’t just view military action as the first options, in many cases, they view it as the only option. This is evident in their contemptuous view of diplomacy. The purpose of diplomatic talks is to try and induce others to give give you something you want or to alter their behavior. That means you don’t just talk to governments that are already friendly towards you. You have to negotiate with your enemies.
That has been known to work when you’re dealing with a centrally-controlled entity with clearly-defined borders, and possessed of an ability to make concessions or reach a compromise.
How do you compromise with a people who just want you dead and are willing to die in the attempt to achieve that goal? How do you enter into diplomatic talks with a fragmented entity with a fluid chain of command? How do you negotiate with those who just want to eradicate your society as even an abstract concept?
> 1) The truth is that there are no good guys and bad guys. In the real world things are more complicated.
It was, I think, John Wayne who once said “They tell me the world isn’t just ‘black and white’ and I say why the hëll not?”
> even if those opponents happen to be US troops just following orders (another fact glossed over).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are laws governing what the U.S. military can do within American borders. If so, those orders may have been of questionable legality in which case one would be perfectly within one’s right to oppose them.
> A writer, one who is not PAD and who shall remain nameless, once said that it would’ve been good to bomb Dublin to smithereens when the IRA declared war on Britain (to be fair, I have no way of knowing whether he really thought this was a good idea or was just ranting mindlessly or both). The sad thing is that Israel actually did something like that earlier this year; to get at a terrorist organization located somewhere within Lebanon, they bombed Lebanon to smithereens.
Bit of a difference, old boy, between the IRA placing a bomb in the occasional mall and Hezbollah lobbing rockets at Israel. For a more accurate comparison, what if the IRA were lobbing war surplus V-1s at London? Oh, wait, someone did do that. And got their country – Nazi Germany – bombed out in retaliation. And rightly so.
> As a Brit I’ve worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;
1. You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don’t like you, or your country, or your country’s actions.
2. You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.
I’m soprry to say that some years back, in Osaka, I confronted a caucasian tourist with “Hey what part of the States are you from?” He answered [actual answer lost in the dimness of time], then asked which part I was from. “Oh, I’m not from the States, I’m Canadian.” To which he asked how I knew he was an American. “Easy, just the way you were shouting obscenities at the locals just now.”
Yeah, I know, that’s a minority of cases. But it does do a nice job of feeding the stereotype.
>Now as for the guns being deliberately placed in residential areas…they put them there for the same reason criminals take hostages. What Israel did was basically the same as a cop shooting hostages, human shields, dead to get at the criminals he had cornered. Or trying to shoot around the hostages, screwing up, and killing several of them by accident. You think that cop would keep his job after doing something like that?
Depends. Again it is a bad analogy. More to the point would be if the hostage-taker had an accomplice in the back room lobbing mortar shells all around the neighbourhood. In that case the cop should get a medal for stopping them.
> On the part of the U.S., dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war a lot sooner than it would otherwise have ended, it may have meant that U.S. troops didn’t have to fight a long and bloody war of attrition before Japan was defeated, but despite that it was still, IMO, wrong.
Go to Japan and talk to older Japanese who were around back then. Get their opinion. I have. Many figure it was indeed the right thing to do. The imperialist military had the country in a stranglehold and would quite happily have used up every last Japanese defending their screwed-up sense of ‘bushido’. Seeing a couple of cities vanish in the blink of an eye is what got the Emperor to take a hand in putting an end to it. Am I happy it happened? No. But the alternatives – either bloody invasion, or starving them out – would have been worse.
>The impression I got was that Israel’s response was out of proportion to the initial attacks, since the total number of people killed by the rockets launched numbered in the dozens, rather than the hundreds or thousands, and that some of the rockets failed to even kill anybody. Am I correct, or mistaken?
Irrelevant. Just because their weapons were not terribly accurate is no excuse to wait until they get better gunsights.
> But I think that even Canada would hesitate to release prisoners in response to terrorists taking hostages.
Depends on who is at 24 Sussex. Nowadays? Maybe not. But when then-Prime Minister Trudeau was confronted with just that situation – the home-grown FLQ kidnapping a Labour Minister and a British Diplomat (eventually killing the Minister) – he didn’t hesitate to declare martial law, called in the army and stomped the terrorist movement flat. That was 35 years ago and they haven’t resurfaced since.
> Actually, if the system was 100% foolproof there’d be no need to retaliate at all. You could just sit back, watch the rockets get shot down, and laugh at the people firing them; “Ah, look at those idiots, they’re still firing rockets even after our defenses have kept the last 792 from hitting us.
The Katyushka(sp?) rockets probably cost a few thousand a piece. Interceptor missiles probably cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions a piece. How many billions are you, as a taxpayer, willing to see go down a rathole before you decide the government should put a stop to it?
“Miniscule”? Ah, yes, very fond memories of my years there, back in the days of abbreviated female fashions. 😉
(PAD doesn’t have a monopoly on playing with the language…)
A digression:
” And football “hooliganism” in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn’t occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.”
The cultural analogy is probably that ‘what team do you support’ is akin to ‘what gang colours do you wear’ in some of your less salubrious urban centres. There’s also a sectarian element to much of the antipathy (Catholic vs Protestant).
Historically (past 100 years) there have been clashes between supporters of rival clubs, ranging from the high spirited to the mindlessly violent, but the figures are on the decline thanks in part to technology and legislation used to identify and exclude from matches the hard core offenders:
Statistics on football-related arrests and banning orders 2005-2006
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/football-disorder/
Arrests for football-related offences down by 7%, to 3,462 – this follows on from a 11% decrease in 2004Â-5 and a 10% decrease in 2003-4. This represents a 22% reduction over three years after annual adjustments.
There remains a lingering domestic football disorder problem but for the second year running the total number of arrests at League and Cup matches was the lowest since records began.
League attendances in excess of 29 million saw just 2,651 arrests – an arrest rate of less than 0.01, or one arrest per 10,973 spectators.
Describing fatalities as “numerous” is arguably stretching things a tad though. I recall 96 fatalities at Hillsborough, but they were not due to hooliganism: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster)
Apart from that I don’t recall any recent fatalities, and they would probably be rare/sensational enough to have been the lead story on national news.
Cheers.