On Jan 19, 9:34 pm, "R. Steve Walz" armory.com> wrote:

In a free country, when people have objections, would should try to
find solutions which protect other's freedoms to the utmost while
still addressing the objections if possible.

So in a free country we should be soft on crime when possible; if it
works and if certainly no one wants revenge. We should not be hard
for the reason your suggesting here. The purpose here is only
correction I think. For any law which is passed will be broken, and
such harsh deterrence is human sacrifice for the sake of hardly any
self defense in this case. Based on suggestions such as yours we have
over 2.2 millions people currently imprisoned, have over 7 million on
probation or parole, and have convicted 30-50 million, in this
supposedly "free" country of 300 million people.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

"The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at
737 persons imprisoned per 100,000. It has 5%% of the world's
population and 25%% of the world's incarcerated population.

In 2006 the incarceration rate in England and Wales is 139 persons
imprisoned per 100,000 residents, while in Norway it is 59 per 100,000
and in Australia and France it is around 100 inmates per 100,000.

In 2001 the incarceration rate in China was 111 per 100,000 in 2001
(sentenced prisoners only), although this figure is highly disputed.
Chinese human rights activist Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in forced-
labor camps for criticizing the government, estimates that 16 to 20
million of his countrymen are incarcerated, including common
criminals, political prisoners, and people in involuntary job
placements. Even ten million prisoners would mean a rate of 793 per
100,000."

So while the USA condemns the human rights violations of other
countries, most importantly violations of those rights guaranteed by
our first amendment: freedom of speech, and freedom of religion,
violations of rights guaranteed to us here by the 3rd through 8th
amendments: due process and the rights of the accused,

While in other countries people may have less rights, either the
punishment is so harsh, or the enforcement so lax, or the criminals so
few, that they ultimately ruin fewer lives than the USA does for
supposedly all its protected freedoms. In addition, in areas of
drugs, guns, and sex, the USA has committed injustice and oppression
in the name of the law. In these areas, juries might want to
consider jury nullification of nonviolent criminals, and nullify most
laws against drugs, guns, and sex. That still wouldn't change the
fact that 300 million American citizens live in peril, under
subjugation and in an imprisoned world. Disenfranchised of their free
rights in these areas.

The most important rights are listed in our First Amendment of the
Bill of Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of
the Press, and of Assembly and Redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech is a right which all good people should be willing
to kill over. For without freedom of speech, all else is lost. The
pen is mightier than the sword.

The next most important right is in our Second Amendment: The right to
bear arms. Without guns, bravery will perish. There is no point to
bravery when all you are going to do is die.

Next important are the rights of the accused, The 3rd through 8th
Amendments, and

Our rights to all freedoms in general. The 9th and 10th Amendments.
Those who steal our freedoms unjustly through unjust legislation which
violates the principles of the 9th and 10th amendments are no better
than murderers, and murderers must be brought to justice.

5 means of political change:

1. Public Speaking and Protest (it's everyone's patriotic duty to
dissent)
2. Legal Democratic Process - if it exists in your country
3. Civil Disobedience
4. Open War: Revolution, which will probably always amount to a Civil
War
5. Targeted Assassinations

Use any and all means to achieve your objective depending on the
circumstances.

Civil Disobedience sucks because you go to (or risk going to) jail.

Civil War sucks because a lot of people die in any case. And in the
case of the USA the USA has a powerful military which will probably
win in most cases. And war leads to poverty, and poverty leads to
war. But tyranny leads to poverty as well and poverty can lead to
tyranny?? idk

Terrorism: Destruction of possibly innocent civilians who may be on
your side. No territory is gained, no enemies are eliminated given
100s of millions of civilians. The effect can at most be economic,
and yet countries sometimes commit war because of bad economic
situations. The attempt is to coerce, which could possibly work only
temporarily, and perhaps those in the government may not even care
about their possibly innocent subjects.

Perhaps terrorism may make sense against Israeli settlers on
Palestinian claimed land, but carrying it to other theaters makes less
sense.

In WWII cities were firebombed, this attacked their economy, but
unless the point is to be merely malicious or revengeful, this can
only make sense if it affects resources going towards the military.
(Punishment often seems malicious too and in which case both are thus
likely wrong). Such firebombing can also attempt to sway the hearts
of the people like terrorism which may or may not be successful even
if it does sway their hearts

Could Terrorism be used to keep the government in check? Like Timothy
McVeigh, Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing? Perhaps, but in that
case it should surely be directed against government and not civilian
targets.

Otherwise we are left with only one option besides legal public
speaking and the democratic process: Targeted Assassinations. If we
are really good, these assassinations could be done psychically, or
perhaps by using some sort of destructive miracles worked for freedom
or something like Moses, thus putting the assassin at no risk
whatsoever, other than the possibility of psychic reprisal, but only
from those who also have psychic powers to assassinate or the power to
work destructive miracles for freedom, - if such psychic powers or
miracles actually exist or are possible.

However, terrorism is a legitimate military action against an enemy.
(That doesn't mean there are no consequences, since there are
consequences to fighting a war in the first place).

Have to protect your country at all costs, that doesn't include
killing prisoners. Killing prisoners is a crime. Raping prisoners is
a crime. Torturing prisoners is a crime. These are war crimes

So terrorism on civilians while [impertinent] is militarily legal (or
until the development of more precision bombing, _was_ in the last
century - and in any case there are additionally, still unintentional
casualties of war (q: are those casualties ever intentionally accepted
today to destroy the target)) But a terrorist is to be taken prisoner
of war.

Q: What about just shooting on civilians in a village - Vietnam: War
crime? Maybe but Unlikely.

War crimes are crimes on prisoners. Lining up people and shooting
them is a war crime, and before you can do so, they must be your
prisoners. Thus, the death penalty for a terrorist may be a war
crime. Imprisonment of a war criminal may not be.

Prisoners of war are generally sent home after the war is over.
Unless they're prosecuted for war crimes - on prisoners. So any
common murderer could say they were at war, and then they would not be
given a sentence but just held in prison until the war was over. When
is the war over? When their leader says so, when they say so, or when
we say so, and that could be never and so I really see no good
solution here.

But as prisoners of war, might they still have rights under the Geneva
Convention, and moreover should not all criminal prisoners have at
least those same rights already anyway as well.

Whatever those rights are.

Penalize soldiers who attack our countries by keeping them in jail
after the war is over??

But is terrorism crime, because if not then in a state of war is it
okay to murder? Either way there are going to be consequences:
fighting a war or murder

But isn't murder still a crime within a state of war?? There must be
some military objective or justification for the killing -- but
bombing vs. shooting dead someone who's not fighting you are pretty
equitable. Have to protect your country at all costs, but murder of
an innocent noncombatant doesn't protect your country hardly... (and
there's the question: are casualties ever intentionally accepted today
to destroy the target - they are, but this may not be the same thing
as making civilians a target with no military objective. They say;
there's a target, so we're going to firebomb the city; or nuke
Hiroshima, and it's not terrorism. Maybe the President is right
then. For this is crazy and terrorists are too.).

Law enforcement officers and soldiers put their lives on the line
every day for what they believe in - hopefully freedom; and anyone can
do the same. The law should only be for things we are willing to kill
and die over, for criminals and law enforcement officers alike do die
over it. Freedom should be protected and fought for. Tyranny leads
to poverty and causes problems. The principle of freedom should be
followed, by a democracy or a king or dictator. For it is the most
righteous and leads to governance and prosperity. Tyranny always
leads to direct and indirect problems. An example is the drug war.
We've already been through the same with prohibition of alcohol, Al
Capone, St. Valentines Day Masacre, organized crime etc. Holistic
solutions may take more thinking to find, but we would do better to
find them.