When the police start going after the the bad apples (cops) there are then maybe you can get people to trust cops. Of course it won't happen because cops are all part of the same gang. Always protecting each other regardless of the evil that's done by your "brothers". If you're a cop and turn the other way when the bad ones abuse their power or you don't vigilantly pursue eradicating the bad ones then you're just as much a part of the problem as they are. I will never trust any police because my past experiences tells me police are not to be trusted. The problem is cops all look the same and i have no way of knowing which ones i can trust. Show me where good cops are protecting me from the bad ones - they aren't. Also the judicial system is set up to protect the bad cops because the potential money they can cost a city due to lawsuits is enormous. So many cops go on abusing their power because they can and no one is willing to do anything about it.

Clean up your own house first before complaining about not being appreciated.

Down vote: The author of this book (which I shall never read a word of) let loose from the go with a string of insipid statements and loaded language-The prison system, as well as ANY so-called "deterrent" to crime offered by the penal, law enforcement, and judicial systems of the United States is broken, in that it has become a beast that only works to line pockets of assholes, foment race hatred, and insure that eventually, EVERY CITIZEN will become a criminal as free will and natural law becomes some illusory fantasy.

The death penalty WOULD function to reduce crime, if the people running the system were not themselves, the most egregious of criminals.

Can't repair the prison industrial complex, it should be scrapped in favor of (insert sane alternative here).

Slavery is not gone in America folks.....The hydra has many heads.

Exigent circumstances has been argued and backed by the Supreme court in many cases. In this case, may lawyers and law experts have already looked into this entire situation and say that trying to claim a violation of the 4th would be extremely difficult to prove. As exigent circumstances include: Fleeing suspect (which there was); immediate danger to person or property (which there was, suspect was armed and has already proved his intent); Hot Pursuit (doesn't mean the tv version actually); probable cause (which there was, as they knew he was in the area, and possibly in a domicile).

Regardless what I or anyone on this site says, it's up to the judicial system to determine this issue. And from the looks of it, there won't be much of a fight against the searches.

Is sexual assault an offical part of the judicial system now? Or just the reality..?

anakata's case is reason enough for Julian Assange to do whatever it takes to stay out of the Swedish judicial system.

bareboards2, your arguments all, may be condensed into one barrel of the same bilge.
Inflammatory rhetoric tinctured with convenient appeals to some idyllic world where assholes don't exist.

How bout some wake-up news from June of this year?? Hugo (Penn's best buddy) Chavez, cocksucking "president" of Venezuela, did what all great "leaders" do when they want no dissent and a country full of obedient and easy-to-control automatons:
-Outlawed all private ownership of guns, except of course for the military, the police, and certain private security monkeys. Their judicial system is total shiet, do some reading-up on how completely fucked it really is-

He's been in office since 99', "elected" once again by "popular" vote (give me a break), and if cancer doesn't kill him he'll probably die in office.

Guns are not the problem, society in decline, culture in decline, morality, ethics out windows, retarded ego-maniacal control-freak paranoids asshole douchebags in power..THIS is a much more pressing problem that mentally-retarded idgits raised by the developmentally-disabled twisting-off and going on killing sprees. If this recent shit happened in Inglewood or South-Centra-LA, there would not be a national uproar. It happened in a hamlet in Connecticut and the kid was living in his out-to-lunch, survivalist mother's home that was loaded with a massive collection of guns.

Didn't some Chinese guy twist \-off a few months ago and walk into a school and kill about 30 kids....WITH A FUCKING KNIFE!!?? Crazy fucks are the problem sir, firearms in their hands simply let's them reach-out and touch someone else with crazy. SO, keep guns in the hands of citizens with judgement and restraint and sound minds...Or go live in some shit-hole where only cops, soldiers, and officers of the King have weapons...How about Vatican City?? Bet that place is safe enough for ya??

Sorry Maynard, keeping my guns until I expatriate to a country without retarded fuckers being bred like tadpoles!

Perfect reenactment of U.S. judicial system.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

Weirdly, Sweden should be the safest place for him. The problem is not with the laws in Sweden (Assange would be protected from US prosecution) the problem is with certain people in the Swedish government and judicial system being pushed by and / or bought by US interests. This has been a problem lately and has pissed off the population so I don't know if it would still happen.

Put it this way, a few years ago US interests got The Pirate Bay "founders" found guilty of stuff that wasn't even against the laws in Sweden but today thepiratebay.se is hosted on the Swedish parliament's servers by the Swedish Pirate Party who are now in the Swedish parliament. I guess I can see why Assange would be worried because of Sweden's track record of a few years back. I would hope that something as big as Assange being given over to the Americans couldn't happen precisely because of the reaction to those past few years.

>> ^Trancecoach:

It doesn't refute the logic, however, as to why Treyvon's death matters and Answar's does not.>> ^doogle:
I don't think Cenk's logic adds up.
If Obama had a son, he'd most definitely not look like Anwar.
But if Cenk had a son, I think he'd look like Anwar.
Not Trayvon.



Do you know who Anwar was?

Treyvon was just an innocent random civilian killed at random, probably because of his race.

Anwar was actively involved in coordinating multiple international murders and had made supporting and encouraging them his full time job. He was doing this while hiding out in an area beyond the reach of any court or judicial system that could have charged and arrested him with all due process. The decision with guys like Anwar is do you simply give up and let them continue killing people, or do you follow the law of the land they are hiding in and just send in a drone? Even if you come back with a different answer than Obama, don't tell me it's the same thing as just killing random civilians in the street based on race. That couldn't be more insulting to victims like Treyvon.

The younger generation seems to place more trust in the internet than the judicial system and I can't say I blame them.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?
Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.
And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.
>> ^swedishfriend:
1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.




You're an idiot and a previous poster had the right idea by saying his opinion is worthless cause he's ignorant. You rise to the level of idiot because you seem to think your opinion about this subject matters. Might as well ask you how the fuck NASA should spend it's money.

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?

Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.

And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.

>> ^swedishfriend:

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.

2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.

3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.

4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?

I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:

I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.

1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.