US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

US criticises court that may decide on Julian Assange extradition, WikiLeaks cables show | Law | The Guardian

Damn commies. Fair trials? Humane treatment? So 20th century. :rolleyes:

On a serious note, I find it very sad that other civilized countries regard us with suspicion. We've managed to put ourselves in the same category as China and Iran.

I think we really need to take a step back and think about what the hell we're doing. Repair the damage to our reputation before it becomes irreversible.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Personally, I think Human Rights is over-rated. Sure, we should all have some the moment we are born, but when someone kills or rapes another, why should that person have any rights left? If people want that murderer or rapist put next to a wall and shot, then so be it. It's all said individual would deserve to be quite frank.

Human Rights should be selective. By that I mean only those that care for, and contribute towards Humanity should actually have them. Someone who goes out and harms another for no reason than for fun doesn't deserve shit in the way of rights.

Obviously it's a grey area as it's all dependant on said crime, person and punishment, but I do think it's over-rated.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

So the moment someone THINKS you might have committed a crime (assange hasn't even been formally charged with anything), you instantly lose all of your rights?

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I think he is referring to when a person has been caught in the act then he feels there is no point to waste time and money on a trial.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

See:When people are KNOWN to be guilty, they still get given a trial. What's the point? We know they're guilty, just shoot them and be done with it. Put the funds for their case onto something that will benefit society. Not waste it deciding what sentence said individual should or shouldn't get.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Well it comes down to things like being Osama Bin Ladens personal driver, do you really want to send this guy off for life just because he drove him around? I say no.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Why not? Surely that driver would be aiding with Murder?

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

If you can connect him to murder, where do you stop connections? how about his mother and father? why not the US administration during the times when he was being trained?

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Heck, shoot them too. =p

But on a serious note, Osama's mother and father probably didn't bring him up as a killer, if they did, they'd no doubt have been such themselves, so yeah, they should be shot. Not seeing the US administration here though, I doubt they trained Osama up as a Terrorist.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

You know you can't deprive anyone the right to a fair trial in this country.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

That is why it is over-rated and pretty much pointless. As said above, said rights should only apply to those that are victims, or those that care for, and contribute towards Humanity.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I take it you've never heard of the Innocence Project.

Right now there are thousands of people who were wrongfully convicted in American prisons, even on death row. According to you, these people shouldn't have even gotten trials in the first place. They should have just been killed, because our wise masters *know* they're guilty.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

This is the exact reason why you have a trial, and thats why there are human rights.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

No actually.

That's just the point you're missing. I'm talking specifically about those caught red handed.

If you've got 20 witnesses, or several security tapes that show an individual raping or killing another without cause, how can said individual be innocent? If there is 'actual' proof, then do away with the trials and hurry up with their death. That's what I'm saying.

Do elaborate please.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The Innocence Project - Home

Now you're just being silly. What if the witnesses are lying? Or what if they just misidentified you?

As for the "security tapes" - clearly, you've been watching way to much CSI. Security tapes are low resolution, and most of the time are next to useless in clearly identifying a single person (especially if he was making an effort to conceal himself, like with a hood or was simply turned away from the camera)

THAT'S WHY TRIALS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE - to determine if you were indeed "caught redhanded".

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen, under that support Osama Bin Laden was trained and armed to fight the soviet assisted Afghan government, much of the extremism in the area currently are still fighting with those weapons and using the same tactics that they were taught and now being passed down to younger generations in these "terror camps", Thus using your analogy, a driver who you claim is an aid to murder, is practically innocent compared to the Reagan Administration.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

While we're on the Reagan administration, I could also point out the whole scandal involving the Contras (who frequently targeted civilians), and Iran.

The Arms-for-Hostages Iran-Contra Scandal - What Was the Reagan Administration's Iran-Contra Scandal

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Are you going to question everything I say? =p

For the sake of this argument, lets say someone filmed another person brutally killing someone. They got a clear shot of his face, they have everything on record from the time of the event, the area in which it happened; everything.

Why put that person through court when there is undisputed truth that the individual in question is guilty?

Was used as an example only.

Well, it seems that the US created their own Demon. However, they didn't teach that Demon to kill innocent people at random, did they?

Osama (and co) has chosen to terrorize and kill innocent people. There is a difference between being trained for a war / battle, and training people to kill simply 'because'.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Then you would have a TRIAL to determine if the video was legit, and normal legal proceedings to determine guilt, and if found guilty, determine punishment.

I'm not sure why you find summary executions so appealing.

Because truth is NEVER undisputed. The only place where such reasoning is considered acceptable is a Police State - a Totalitarian Oppressive regime like North Korea.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

If you hire murders with a different purpose, are they still not murders? Simply because you slap a new label on them every time you have a different train of thought doesn't change what they are, no?

Using your thought of mind, once again "being trained for a war / battle, and training people to kill simply 'because'." still doesn't change what can and does happen, that's why there are also war crimes, you have to have the intuition to see past the first decade and see what will happen in the next before you OK plans.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I realize I am splitting a hair with a electron beam but the US supplied training and money and equipment to Mujahadeen. Osama and the Taliban back then were considered radicals and shunned even by the other Mujahadeen.

The group that the US supported and trained became known as the Northern Alliance which is why the US was able to gain Allies and support in removing the Taliban from power. They remade contact with old Allies and used their support to overthrow the Taliban when the US invaded A-Stan.

The Taliban and Osama were a fringe group trained and funded by the Pakistani ISI using money and equipment supplied to Pakistan for teh Mujahadeen.

IMHO this argument is comparable to the US selling tens of thousands of tons of scrap metal to Japan up to right before Pearl Harbor and then saying we helped build Japan's war machine because it was built with US steel.

I also rememebr lots of arguments and heated debates about supplying Stinger SAM's to the Mujahadeen out of fear they would be turned on Western aircraft after the war.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Back then they were one in the same, the taliban weren't even a thought in Osama's mind at the time when he and many of the other Mujahadeen were being trained.

Not exactly, the Northern Alliance was yet another political force the only one that was against the Taliban, infact many of the forces that made up the northern alliance were former pro-soviet members, including Rashid Dostum, which is why we(russia) chose to support them.

fringe is a very strong word, the reason why they took over so easily is because they were supported by the same people who were against the communist party of afghanistan.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The Taliban rose to power because they offered the people security in the anarchy which we helped create. If we didn't topple a legitimate albeit (gasp) socialist government in Afghanistan, the Taliban never would have gained power and... just maybe... 9/11 never would have happened.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The point of a trial is to prove that you know. You have to have the trial - even when you're certain, even when you have overwhelming evidence - so that people can see the evidence. Otherwise, however much evidence you have, it's some policeman's word that it was done; the evidence never gets shown off. Some guy's word that you should be put to death.

A trial is part of the checks and balances system. It has to be there, even for rapists and murderers and scum like that. You can't just pull out your gun and shoot them, or you could do it to anyone and go 'Well, fuck it, I knew they were guilty.'

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

And if Russia had not invaded A-Stan we would have never had a reason to support the Mujaheddin.

The finger pointing and blame game can go on and on.

It could just as easily have happened in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, etc.

Sorry to have rained on your "America is responsible for all the world's problems parade".

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Fundamentally, Rusia invaded Afghanistan. That was inevitable; An expansionistic nation moving into an area of strategic importance. As a result, we supported a bunch of nutjobs who should never have been put in a position of power. That's a pretty big fuck-up to just place on happenstance.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

We didn't invade, the government was already communist, we came in to assist the government, that was already fighting the Mujahadeen long before we got there.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Heh what?

The Russians invaded BECAUSE we supported the Mujahedeen, not the other way around.

Just got a "cultural awareness" class on the subject recently. The Mujaheddin started out weak, but with American support got powerful enough to actually defeat government soldiers in several major battles, endangering the government and forcing them to ask the Soviets for help.


...not without billions of American $$$$$

Oh and speaking of Yemen... isn't the United States waging war there even as we speak?

Some people will go to the ends of the earth to justify the things the CIA has done to the world.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

It still remains laughable that people post negative rep without leaving their name. What you so scared about? Revenge Repping? Afraid that's not allowed, so don't go crying about it. :rolleyes:

Anyhow...

With respect, if someone had set another person up with video footage, there's a chance that they'd be able to control the trial too.

Regardless;My initial point raised, was that people found guilty (before or after a trial) shouldn't have any rights to hold on to, especially if their crime is a serious one. Maybe I've jumped the gun a bit where trials are concerned, on that note I'd go back and focus on my first post. Why should murderers and rapists (who are going guilty in court) proceed to have any rights?

@ Mihali and Nem, ignore what I've said in regards to trials. Obviously wasn't thinking straight; carried away with the moment. Specifically though, people who are found guilty of serious offences still have their 'human rights' in many cases, when I don't think they deserve to have them.

It is those who I believe should be shot.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The socialist government took power in a military coup. Then Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in another military coup and replaced with Hafizullha Amin who was assassinated by KGB Alpha Group. Shortly after, the Soviets invaded less than two years into the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan's existence. However, I guess it depends on your definition of legitimate. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs though.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I find this view very interesting given the United States' stance on the PRC's opinion of human rights.

This presumes that you know for absolute surety that the offender cannot, or will not, in the future become rehabilitated; that is, after all, what parole is for.

This also means that if someone committed such a crime, they are, by definition, no longer human in a moral or legal sense. If that is the case, then the law no longer applies, or applies differently. Notwithstanding the question of who gave you the authority to pronounce people as sub-human, or to kill. Other people who do that usually go to the Hague, to be tried for war crimes.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I think few countries, maybe none, respect the Human Rights and find it "irritating" too. From France with the Roms (the irony, France, which's considered the country of the Human Rights), passing by USA, Israel, many Arab countries, and (sadly) even my own country which I'm attached to: Turkey.

There's a dark spot on every country's Human Rights paper, and they'll use it whenever it suits them, or is beneficial to them.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

There will be always be dipshits arounds. Don't worry about them.

Which is true - all the more reason to make sure the judicial process has as many checks and balances and safety nets as possible. If we take short cuts like you seem to be suggesting, I.E., jumping to the conclusion that someone is guilty without due process, then we are making it that much easier for a tyrant to frame and punish people he doesn't like.

Murder... maybe. Rape? DEFINITELY NOT. Our definition of "rape" is so politically motivated that a lot of "sex offenders" really aren't by any rational standard. Hell, Julian Assange (wikileaks guy) is being persecuted for supposedly "raping" two women - despite the fact he slept with them both multiple times and even lived in one of the girl's apartment (and sleeping in her bed) for weeks after he supposedly assaulted her. Not exactly typical behavior for evil rapists.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

'Deserve' is not a term that the law should ever invoke. Many believe that you and I deserve to die for our violation of some religious law or cultural precept - I personally believe that people who speed consistently deserve to die. I'm not kidding there, they put lives at risk for their impatience, I'd kill them all. If everyone who deserved to die, according to some account or other, got killed, then there wouldn't be a person left alive.

You kill people when you have to, to achieve an aim - it's not something you do just because you don't have any further use for a person or because they violate something you hold dear; it's not something that should be done effectively out of hand.

There are good reasons for killing murderers and rapists - in specific ways under specific constructions of the legal system - but you can't just pass a free rule on the basis of what they deserve. We all deserve to die in someone's eyes.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Many people (Famously Ghandi) regard and hold "eye for an eye" as an example of a shocking and barbaric system. Actually for that time period, eye for an eye was a revolutionary concept that influenced justice systems up to this day.

It's all about consistency, equal standards, and PROPORTIONALITY. It doesn't matter what the guy "deserves". He committed a certain crime which merits a certain punishment.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Whilst true, why should it be allowed? Because it's 'right' or 'justified'?

Imagine someone you know is killed (on purpose) by another. There was no reason behind said crime, it just happened because somebody decided to kill someone close to you. Would you be happy with the knowledge that this person would one day be back out on the streets, living the free live (whether cured or not). Knowing that someone close to you lost their life because of this individual? I think not.

You're damn right. People know the difference between right and wrong at an early age. It is the choice of said individual how they choose to live out their life. If their choice is to intentionally kill another, and they are found guilty of said crime, they should be given no quarter, and instead meet the same fate as their victim. Period.

Death in War is different. I'm not here to discuss that. That's a different sub-topic that we can get into later if you deem it necessary. As for who gives me (or anyone else) the right to label a killer sub-human, in my opinion, the killer has already given themselves that very label the minute they decided to go and kill someone in cold blood.

Whilst I can't argue your point here (you've got good reasons), personally if I believe someone wants to get someone put down for good, they'll get it done, no matter the evidence, trials, charges ect. If they've got the resources and power behind them, it'll be possible to convict the most innocent of people.

This and what else you said on the context of rape I cannot argue with. Seems rape is one of those topics that you can't be sure about anymore; like the boy who cried wolf.

That being said though, trials would no doubt determine 'actual' rapists from those who may not be as guilty as others state them to be?

Whilst your point stands strong, there are lines to be drawn. There are different levels with this. Humanity (as a whole) would probably agree that murder is a very bad thing, whereas breaking a religious law wouldn't be considered as bad by as many people.

That being, unless you're a catholic priest. Bet a few laws have been broken there. :rolleyes:

If you're suggesting we use them for other purposes then we can merely use other prisoners instead. We've got a whole bunch of minor offenders that are quite capable of getting such a job done.

I don't think the most serious of offenders should be given any chance of a... second chance. How many times have we heard of murderers who have been caught, had their trial (and found guilty), taken a trip to prison only to be released early due to good behaviour and having been rehabilitated, only for that very person to go and kill someone else.

If you get rid of them in the first place, then that second (or third, fourth, fifth person ect) wont lose their lives. I also believe that if people knew a death penalty was implemented, it would deter more people from committing such acts. Not sure what the rates are in the US, but I sure expect it would make a difference here in the UK. Not just for murder, but other crimes too.

Whilst true, following a majority vote via a trial can be a quicker way to meet this result, especially for someone who has committed such an act.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

If it was done for absolutely no reason at all, then there's not much chance it could happen again, could it?

Also, what good would killing the perpetrator do, as compared to say, life imprisonment or rehabilitation?

Also: Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :cort:

No they don't. Children have to be taught how to share, how to be kind to other children, even though most of us would think it's 'right'. And how does an eye for an eye solve anything?

Why? I don't think the murdered person would very much care for the distinction.

No, they haven't. They are still human.

On a related note, what about manslaughter? Accidents? Do they also result in loss of said humanity, in your book?

Yeah. They get a knife, or a gun. They go to the person's house. And then...well. You know what happens next.

We don't live in a black and white world. What if the murder saved the killing of 3, or 4, or 20 others? What if that religious crime resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

And why would we have religious laws in the first place?

Because the media is a completely fair outlet and tries its very best to make its stories of the prison population and their reintegration into society as representative and objective as possible.

But then you've murdered someone as well.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

First and foremost:Obviously people feel the need to hide themselves when giving out negative rep. Why?

Well, yes, actually. If someone wanted to kill another person at random, what is there to stop that murderer doing it time and time again?

Even if it wasn't at random, and there was a reason for doing it, the idea that you'd have a killer walking the streets doesn't seem ideal to me. For that purpose, and rephrased for you:Firstly, life imprisonment is a perfectly good waste of money for someone like that. I'd rather pay to make sure said person never harmed again, than I would to pay for them to have meals, a gym, and a bed to sleep in at night.

In the day and age where the average adult is capable of killing another, they know the difference between right and wrong.

It gets rid of a problem.

In war, you are sent into combat with a certianty to kill someone. It's your job. You aren't attacking random people for no apparent reason. You're fighting them for their beliefs, because they oppose you by defending their country. It's a completely different conversation.

Yet they don't deserve to be.

Accidents aren't an attempt on at killing another person, hence the word accident; that being something that isn't done on purpose. I don't see how the two would compare. You can't kill a man because he killed another unintentionally.

And you know this... how? You're looking at it in very simple terms.

Then it would have been a murder with the purpose of protecting others, and not an outright cold blooded killer.

What crime are you on about?

Maybe 'laws' was the wrong choice of word to use.

Yet the stories are true. Such stories have happened. My point stands.

To save future lives.

Realistically, we can continue this until the end of time. My opinion on the matter is not going to change. In said opinion, I believe that anyone found guilty of a simple cold-blooded killing of another person shouldn't have the privilege of continuing with their own life. Once they've killed, they don't deserve to live themselves, and as such, should do society a favour and hang themselves, or have somebody shoot them.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Humanity as a whole is more inclined to do nothing than something - so bad people always get ahead in some form or another because they're willing to act. Lives have been ruined even after people have been found innocent because the few who think that person is guilty anyway are prepared to act on that assumption whereas those who don't think he is tend not to care.

It wouldn't be humanity as a whole deciding what was bad enough to kill someone over - it would be the loud-mouths.

I'm saying that you need a good reason to kill them, something in service of a higher goal. You need to decide what the law is for.

Is the law there to take a pound of flesh from nearest the heart; to hurt and murder and take vengeance? In which case who's vengeance? And how then can you condemn the abuses of the past, or guard against future abuses?

OR

Is it to minimise harm in society, or maximise individual freedoms, or.... Much more practical goals.

And then you aim every law you make at that higher law you have decided upon.

You do not simply destroy someone because they deserve it - that is to aim beneath the standard of the law rather than above it. Anyone can use the argument that they deserved it - even the rapist or the murderer. And appeal to what society thinks of as deserved does little to mitigate the problem. Sixty years or so ago your wife had to sign over all her property to you upon marriage, and it was legally impossible to rape her. That is not to say that she could not be raped, simply that it was not a crime for you to do so.

I can see us going back to that way of thinking all too easily, or to worse ways of thinking, and to lay down a precedent that would leave the law open to such abuses is not wise.

I don't know. How many have we?

See you're already extending it. First we kill the murderers, then we kill people who've committed other crimes, then the drug dealers, then we kill people who sell a bit of weed, then we kill the people who smoke the weed, then we kill the next door neighbour because his dog pissed on your lawn.

Democracy rarely generates good results. The jury system in this country is a joke. You have people up there who don't know the law, or evidence procedures; being grandstanded to by lawyers who are doing their level best not to tell them any of those things.

I would never want those morons to have the power of life and death. The legal system needs to be seriously reformed before I'd support the death sentence.

Frankly lawyers and judges make such a lot of money off of the legal system being messed up that I don't think it ever will be. - Ever will be fixed that is.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Well, there are recidivist drunk drivers walking around every day. Should we kill them too? "For the greater good"?

So you're willing to kill someone you have never met...because someone else has killed someone?

Average adults were always capable of killing one another. And no, they don't.

And puts another in its place.

No, you're fighting them because someone else told you to. Logically murderer stands on firmer ground because the soldier has no reason by himself to kill the other person; and the reasoning that they'd kill you is invalid.

Why?

Again, I doubt the dead person cares for the difference.

It would have been cold-blooded; but that's beside the point. Again, I don't think the dead person cares much for the difference. Dead is dead.

All this was purely hypothetical of course, but it's not unrealistic, nor was it unheard of.

That's like saying that many people with motor vehicles kill and injure others, therefore we should ban all motor vehicles.

Dead is still dead. What makes one person's life more worth saving than another? The guy hasn't even committed the crime yet.

But someone being killed because the government said so is good?

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

That is only because the majority of people are too afraid to stand up and say / do something about it.

Isn't that what these trials are for, to determine whether people are innocent or guilty? Worse case scenario, you don't have to kill anyone straight off. Give them 5-years jail time, in which they can (if still claim innocence) get a retrial.

Again, it is the 'loud-mouths' who voice their opinions. I've no doubt some of the quieter people would also expect to see a murderer put out of action. Granted this works both ways. Some states and / or countries support the death penalty, others don't. This isn't necessarily about what is right or wrong in these countries, it is pretty much the opinion of the people running said country, and how the public deem their decisions on the matter.

In my mind, a higher goal is not wasting resources and other peoples lives because a murderer is allowed to live a relatively comfy life behind bars.

I don't keep a head count. :rolleyes: But I have read stories in papers of people having been murdered by a former convict that had early bail due to whatever reason. That convict has just been given a murder-pass by being let loose again.

For the record, I would only ever put down such a penalty for serious crimes. Murder and Paedophilia would be right up there.

I can't argue with that. The Justice System in the UK is tragic. And yes, it does need a reformat, but that isn't something I see us getting any time soon.

That's different, for the simple reason that these people haven't chosen to go out and kill someone. Granted it's been their entire fault (for drink driving) but the cause would be an accident. They should receive a hefty fine, along with a prison sentence and removal of their driving licence.

If they've purposely killed, then yes, I am.

Being capable of doing something and actually doing something are entirely different things. As for the knowing of right and wrong, anyone with a straight mental state knows the difference. I don't see how you can believe they don't. That's just ludicrous.

The 'other' would have existed anyway. This way, there is one less to worry about.

A soilder has a reason (might not be valid, but it's been validated by his/her country). A stand-alone murderer doesn't.

I could ask the same question in regards to having them kept around.

I doubt the dead person does either, but the family of the dead person would care, as would the family of any future potential victims.

I'm not seeing the connection between the two topics here.

Actually, he had. They'd murdered someone in the past. I'm talking about 'reformed' people here. Why give them a second opportunity?

I never said it was good.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

It's implicit. And can be taken as a given over time.

What makes you any better?

You're starting to sound like a friend of mine who couldn't see how I could possibly believe that abortion in any circumstance could possibly okay. Because that was 'just ludicrous' too.

So why is the government always right?

Burden of proof. Being human is (obviously) the default state of a human being.

It's an analogy.

Your argument is that because a subset of population A (murderers released from prison) will kill other people, it is a reasonable measure to prevent the entirety of population A from encountering human society.

With regards to my car argument: a subset of population A (people with motor vehicles) will kill other people; therefore, is it not a reasonable measure to ban motor vehicles?

Then why is it okay?

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Whilst there is a shared connection in that both result in the death of another, the circumstances are quite different.

Maybe because I haven't, nor have I any intention of killing anyone?

You'll be happy to know I'm not your friend in disguise.

Anyone with your average mental state of mind ought to know the difference between right and wrong, nomatter the choices they make in life. The differences are there, and they sure as hell know them. Anyone who doesn't obviously doesn't have that mental state of mind that the rest of us normal people have.

Hah, far from it. That isn't the point though. The point is a solider is following orders. They are doing what they believe to be right in order to protect their country, and the lives of others. An outright murderer is only out for themselves, and typically is likely only to kill for a quick thrill, fun, or pleasure.

I don't see what this has to do with whether someone should receive the death penalty for killing someone in cold blood.

The difference between the two is that people with a car don't drive with the intention of killing, nor have they driven over someone prior to getting their driving licence. A murderer has killed before, and has the potential to kill again.

See my point on the solider.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

The article clearly mentions the European view of human rights, which are faaaaar more liberal than the American views. So its considered an "irritant" because it hampers our plans.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

I see very little evidence to suggest we even believe in human rights at all.

Our government agencies find the Constitution to be an "irritant" as well - starting with the patriot act and ending God only knows where.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

George Carlin had a nice bit concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans and what that means for our "rights". But if you have a good lawyer and money, don't worry, we still have rights for you, if you're willing to wait for the court case to be decided in your favor. :nodding:

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Trust me, if we didnt, you would notice it. Black vans screeching down the street into driveways, doors busted in. Similar to the first level of Half Life 2.

We have gone over this before.

With enough money you are innocent of anything.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

Nobody cares when the "darkies" get their rights violated. Tea baggers are only scared of good Christian white folks in the higher income brackets getting their rights violated.

There are people rotting in Putin's prisons who used to believe that.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

If you didn't care about human rights you'd still do this sort of thing quietly. Being evil isn't the same as being retarded.

Re: US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"
 

In some cases. Racism is still more or less done out in the open.

Our drug codes are little more than Jim Crow laws by another name.