[mythtv-users] OT: SCOTUS decision
oliver.greg at gmail.com
Mon Feb 22 15:03:44 UTC 2010
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:26 PM, David Brodbeck <gull at gull.us> wrote:
> R. G. Newbury wrote:
>> ...when reality forces us to do things which we are morally entitled to
>> do, and which match what the other side does...but of course we are not
>> *allowed* to do that! We have to stop thinking we are doing wrong when we
>> fight by war rules. The whineys want us to fight by civil rules, while the
>> bad guys can use war rules.
> Which is it? "Things we are morally entitled to do," or "things the other
> side does"? Because the whole point is we're supposed to be better than the
> other side, isn't it? How can we claim to be a moral nation if we abandon
> our morals whenever they're inconvenient?
> The rules we're playing by are definitely not "war rules." War rules say
> things that we currently find inconvenient, like that you can't torture
> prisoners and you have to release them when hostilities end. Those are not
> the rules we're playing by now.
> All I'm saying is, when the government starts saying that they have to have
> the right to detain someone without trial indefinitely, *because we don't
> have enough evidence to convict them of a crime*...that's a bit scary, no
> matter who's in office. It's reminiscent of the way the Soviet Union used
> to "disappear" people they found inconvenient. Keep in mind, *they* thought
> they were the good guys and were simply dealing with a mortal threat to
> *their* existence, too.
This is a topic that a lot of us have strong opinions on. That said,
it is also a topic I do not want to read about on a mailing list I
like to read.
*Please* bicker privately if you want to continue the argument...
More information about the mythtv-users