State sponsored crime

[bumab]

The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Exploitation of minorities was legal.

 

All were legal within their specific contexts- now, many would refer to them as "state-sponsored crimes." I certainly would. But, for the people at the time, they were just following orders, they were within the law- the morals which most people operate by usually is the law of the land.

 

So the questions:

How likely is it that the participants would recognize state-sponsored crimes at the time? Would you? Does the recognition of a state crime require some internal morality guide, not affixed to the state, or are laws simply written by the victor- so the Holocaust was wrong because we won. If Germany had won, presumably it would still be legal. Is there any state crimes going on right now in your home country?

[Biochemist]

... How likely is it that the participants would recognize state-sponsored crimes at the time?...

Sidestepping the semantic argument about whether something is a "crime" if it is not technically illegal, I think you are asking is whether a state will recognize or be recognized for immoral behavior.

 

History suggests the answer is "yes", but the lag time can be pretty uncomfortable. Nazi death camps, Apartheid, slavery in the US, pogroms in the USSR, genocide in Rwanda, etc. were all recognized as immoral by outsiders, and some fought to address the issues. The timeliness and the degree of success by the outsiders certainly varied.

 

I think you were asking whether the "insiders" were aware of the immorality. Interesting question. The real monsters of history (Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, etc) are odd folks. The surprising issue is the status they are granted by their respective populaces and/or cronies. There is a movement in Russia right now to re-elevate Stalin as a victor/leader (in a positive way) in spite of his murder of approximately 20 million Russians. It is fair to say that I do not understand this.

[UncleAl]

The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Exploitation of minorities was legal.

Absolutely legal and vigorously pursued. Anybody who didn't like the status quo should have departed to a place that was different - or departed and started their own place. Eastern North America was settled by cuckoo-cuckoo religious minorities suffering oppression at home. They arrived and promptly oppressed to the max, starting with enslavement and murder of bothersome indigenes. If you like large scale examples, WWI and WWII.

 

Is there any state crimes going on right now in your home country?

Taxes, traffic citations, eminent domain, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Patriot Act, Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, NASA, porkbarrel politics, political patronage... and the "insurgency" in Iraq.

 

Support evolution - shoot back.

[Turtle]

___I always have to come back to Stanley Millgram on this, with his seminal work Obedience to Authority. It was just such incidents as the Nazi death camps & the Melai(sp) masacrre that prompted the study in the first place.

___It isn't just the State one has to challenge, but any authority pushing "immoral" behavior. In my view, this means understanding where authority hides itself so you can strip away the curtain.

___

[Fishteacher73]

Not to beat a dead horse, but religion is often a powerful tool in convincing others to do immoral things. Just look today at the state of homosexual rights. Even Spain has granted same-sex marriages and it has a huge christian constituancy.

 

How about captial punishment? We even have US laws against murder, yet it is done with a vigor (quite notably here in TX, here a single county in Huston has a higher rate of death row inmates than many states).

 

The US has been listed as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world due to our treatment of "suspected terrorists" in the some what open Gitmo, to other admitted prison camps abroad uin undisclosed locals.

 

 

We have many other issues here in the states that are probably less acknowledged, such as polution, slavery (still), consumerism, etc. etc.

[Skippy]

Not to beat a dead horse, but religion is often a powerful tool in convincing others to do immoral things. Just look today at the state of homosexual rights. Even Spain has granted same-sex marriages and it has a huge christian constituancy.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.... Spain may have a huge Christian base, that means nothing about its representative leaders forcing a right on them.

 

How about captial punishment? We even have US laws against murder, yet it is done with a vigor (quite notably here in TX, here a single county in Huston has a higher rate of death row inmates than many states).

As I ahev learned to do so well on this site, look up the definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." By definition, capital punishment is not murder. (Houston is in Harris County, not the other way around)

 

The US has been listed as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world due to our treatment of "suspected terrorists" in the some what open Gitmo, to other admitted prison camps abroad uin undisclosed locals.

:eek: Listed by people who hail Castro and China as champions of humanity.

 

We have many other issues here in the states that are probably less acknowledged, such as polution, slavery (still), consumerism, etc. etc.

Is this Julianne Malveaux?

[Skippy]

Not to beat a dead horse, but religion is often a powerful tool in convincing others to do immoral things. Just look today at the state of homosexual rights. Even Spain has granted same-sex marriages and it has a huge christian constituancy.

How about captial punishment? We even have US laws against murder, yet it is done with a vigor (quite notably here in TX, here a single county in Huston has a higher rate of death row inmates than many states).

The US has been listed as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world due to our treatment of "suspected terrorists" in the some what open Gitmo, to other admitted prison camps abroad uin undisclosed locals.

We have many other issues here in the states that are probably less acknowledged, such as polution, slavery (still), consumerism, etc. etc.

This kind of trash is why no one respects the teaching profession anymore.

[Skippy]

The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Exploitation of minorities was legal.

 

All were legal within their specific contexts- now, many would refer to them as "state-sponsored crimes." I certainly would. But, for the people at the time, they were just following orders, they were within the law- the morals which most people operate by usually is the law of the land.

 

So the questions:

How likely is it that the participants would recognize state-sponsored crimes at the time? Would you? Does the recognition of a state crime require some internal morality guide, not affixed to the state, or are laws simply written by the victor- so the Holocaust was wrong because we won. If Germany had won, presumably it would still be legal. Is there any state crimes going on right now in your home country?

Suggested reading:

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

[Biochemist]

..The US has been listed as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world due to our treatment of "suspected terrorists" in the some what open Gitmo, to other admitted prison camps abroad uin undisclosed locals....

Fish, you have to admit that this says a lot more about the bias of the writers than about the actions of the US.

 

There is no shred of moral equivalency between making a prisoner wear women's underwear on his head and lopping off a captive's head on video.

[Fishteacher73]

You speak as if everyone has judeo-christiam morals, bio :eek: . What can be constured as morally grey in one construct may be abhorant to another. Putting panties on your head may not sound too rough, but it has a much higher moral impact in Islamic cultures than in christian view. (much like a baykyard bbq with a few burgers sounds like a party is not that morally clear to a hindu). It is probably paramount to having Fred Phelps get a boyfriend. People seek to impose their morals upon others with no real regard to what moral system others are in and act surprised that they have offended or angered them. This is a big issue in our current situation in the middle east.

[Fishteacher73]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.... Spain may have a huge Christian base, that means nothing about its representative leaders forcing a right on them.

 

A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on gay marriage, and 30 percent oppose it. Sounds like a majority to me, but then again I am just a trashy teacher...

 

As I ahev learned to do so well on this site, look up the definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." By definition, capital punishment is not murder. (Houston is in Harris County, not the other way around)

 

Premeditated malice...

premeditated: To plan, arrange, or plot (a crime, for example) in advance.

malice: Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

It is lawful is that we have deciede it was "authorized", which is the whole brunt of this thread. Legal does not mean right. The same results would be criminal if say a family member shot a individual sentence to die. This would be murder, yet when the state does it it is legal? This is not the dark ages, the US is is the only first world nation that continues to practice this. (Much like slavery was in the 19th century). Here's a nice list of those countries that allow executions...we have some great company:

* Afghanistan * Antigua and Barbuda

* Bahamas * Bahrain

* Bangladesh * Barbados

* Belarus * Belize

* Botswana * Burundi

* Cameroon * Chad

* China (People's Republic) * Comoros

* Congo (Democratic Republic) * Cuba

* Dominica * Egypt

* Equatorial Guinea * Eritrea

* Ethiopia * Gabon

* Ghana * Guatemala

* Guinea * Guyana

* India * Indonesia

* Iran * Iraq

* Jamaica * Japan

* Jordan * Kazakhstan

* Korea, North * Korea, South

* Kuwait * Kyrgyzstan

* Laos * Lebanon

* Lesotho * Liberia

* Libya * Malawi

* Malaysia * Mongolia

* Nigeria * Oman

* Pakistan * Palestinian Authority

* Philippines * Qatar

* Rwanda * St. Kitts and Nevis

* St. Lucia * St. Vincent and the Grenadines

* Saudi Arabia * Sierra Leone

* Singapore * Somalia

* Sudan * Swaziland

* Syria * Taiwan

* Tajikistan * Tanzania

* Thailand * Trinidad and Tobago

* Uganda * United Arab Emirates

* United States of America * Uzbekistan

* Vietnam * Yemen

* Zambia * Zimbabwe

 

Listed by people who hail Castro and China as champions of humanity.

Well I guess you understand how AI works then... Maybe having that ranking will impact how the so-called "bastion of freedom and human rights" takes care of its citizens and immigrants.

 

This kind of trash is why no one respects the teaching profession anymore.

Perhaps a "kill 'em all and let god sort them out" mentality would be more to your tastes?

[IrishEyes]

This kind of trash is why no one respects the teaching profession anymore.

That kind of talk to a Moderator, or any other member, is why you're on the top of my 'members to watch' list now.

And I don't mean that in a good way.

If you don't like someone's opinion, especially when they have the guts to speak out on something they feel strongly about, that's fine. But to bash them, or their profession (especially a public educator) is really inexcusable. Every member of this Forum is not only entitled to, but encouraged to, express their opinions, right up to the point that they become abusive to another member. At that point, I get to step in, and that's not usually a good thing.

Fishteacher answered the question that was asked. He was not disrespectful to you, to bumab, or to anyone else. Which is more than I can say for your quoted response above.

 

'Nuff said.

[nemo]

This kind of trash is why no one respects the teaching profession anymore.

Skippy, you should be posting in the Space forum; you appear to be speaking from Uranus.

[Queso]

Hahaha Nice!

[Boerseun]

Aaaaahhh... a new thread - nice...

 

I think what you're referring to is "not seeing the forest for the trees".

 

And it's very important - we lived through it right here at home in South Africa.

 

We (the whites) were told for years that everything the State did, is good and right. We were blasted with propaganda to such an extent that we never saw the suffering of the non-whites in this country. What we did see, was bomb attacks, limpet mines, land mines on farm roads, and all of these went to discredit the black masses. They didn't have a choice - we didn't give them a political voice to raise their issues. My father's office in Natal province was blown up with a limpet mine in 1987, his interpreter (a black guy) blown to shreds, bits of the poor guy lying all over the show. My dad only lost his hearing for a couple of months. We lived through it. Academic instruction was sidelined in schools to teach kids how to discern between different bombs. We had plastic models of different Russian and Chinese-made bombs and rifles hanging in every public space so we can recognize them. Nowhere were we told that the Blacks were suffering, and an armed struggle was their last resort. We were living in a fool's paradise, much like your average German was in the late '30s and early '40s.

 

Was the average German culpable in the holocaust?

Was the average white South African culpable?

 

Sure - both the Germans and South Africans plucked the fruits of these immoral systems, but they were both blind to the truth.

 

And State-sponsored propaganda is rife in the US, and we'll probably only see the injustices they're hiding with the benefit of hindsight, say, fifty years from now.

 

Global communication is such that propaganda is not limited locally anymore - its global, now. So, the lies a superpower like the US spout, blinds all of us to the Truth, in every country. How can they morally justify military expeditions to other so-called 'sovereign' nations, if they see 'Freedom' as their guiding light? What 'Freedom' are they referring to? If you are being hammered by the US in every respect, which nation can tackle the US on a straightforward military basis? Nobody can engage the US militarily, 'cause nobody can afford nine nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with all the bells and whistles to go with it, nobody can afford to have such a vast military foundation deeply rooted in their societies. The only option, it would seem, would be terrorism. That's a force that nobody can deny, regardless of any 'War on Terrorism'. How, exactly, do you make 'war' on 'terrorism'?

 

Terrorism is probably the only means a suppressed minority can make itself heard.

 

And - I in NO WAY condone terrorism, I'm just saying that people don't blow themselves to smithereens for no reason. There's a deep philosphical reason behind everything we've seen since 9/11, and if we deny the fact that we might even be the cause of it, we can't see the forest for the trees, and we have fell for the propaganda stated above.

 

The American military machine has a vested interest in international terror to justify its existence since the Cold War. If we actually go and talk to these people or leave them be and make peace with the fact that its THEIR oil, and not OURS, we might even have, like the man said, 'peace in our time'.

[Biochemist]

...And State-sponsored propaganda is rife in the US, and we'll probably only see the injustices they're hiding with the benefit of hindsight, say, fifty years from now.

 

Global communication is such that propaganda is not limited locally anymore - its global, now. So, the lies a superpower like the US spout, blinds all of us to the Truth, in every country....

This is a bizarre point of view, B. You can certainly dislike US policy. About 45% of Americans do to. But to suggest the media (which remains slightly left of center) is a tool of government in the US is ludicrous.

 

Even when we have a Dempocratic president, the media (which is well over 90% Democratic in most polls) still acts independently, even though it tends to favor Democratic presidents.

 

It is ludicrous to compare the US (or France, or the UK, or Austrailia or any democracy) to Nazi Germany, Apartheid SA, or any totalitarian system for that matter.

 

For example, Americans widely dislike the French. We don't blame it on French political hegemony. We just don't like their policies. Americans don't think Le Monde is a socialist tool of the government. We think Le Monde is run by a group of poorly informed socialists.

 

The political actors in the US government certainly spin facts to their advantage, often resulting in misrepresentations. This always occurs both directions at once (i.e., left and right). It falls to the voters to figure out who is closest to the truth, and which particular actor is best.

[Biochemist]

The American military machine has a vested interest in international terror to justify its existence since the Cold War. If we actually go and talk to these people or leave them be and make peace with the fact that its THEIR oil, and not OURS, we might even have, like the man said, 'peace in our time'.

B- You have to recognize that this is inflamatory.

 

1) No one is taking Iraqi oil from Iraqis, or any other Iraqi asset, for that matter

2) The US was attacked while we were "leaving them alone"

 

Nothing about this action is related to oil. It is thoughtless to contend that it is. If the US wanted oil, we would have left Saddam in power and let him pump to his heart's content. We certainly did not dislodge the Taliban for oil.

 

You can complain all you like about whether Iraq was an appropriate front for the war on terror. But to suggest that America wants to send soldiers into harm's way to "justify" the military is beyond heinous.

 

Further, do you recall the context of "peace in our time"? That is exactly what would happen. That was Chamberlain taking back "guarantees" from Hitler right before Hitler broke his word and rolled through his next chunk of Europe. A prescient statement.