The Confederate Flag

[Dannyalcatraz]

When did I deny it? It is what actually transpired when Laporte died that is at the heart the problem. Saying that it was accidental seems to be problematic for some, even if it is what happened.

While it is possible to accidentally choke someone to death- even the US legal system recognizes this- it is:

1) very difficult to successfully and legally classify a strangulation death as "accidental" and

2) an alien concept to most Americans that an accidental death comitted in furtherance of criminal act would not be considered murder- see my earlier post about felony murder- absent some kind of legal plea or jury shenanigans.

All of which does not diminish Umbran's point: in the moral/ethical context of the conversation, continuing to characterize the death as legally accidental looks like rhetorical minimization, and thus, extremely shady.

 

[Janx]

Law, Morality & Ethics are all closely related, but they're at best close cousins, not identical triplets. Law can be utterly correct within itself, but still be amoral/immoral, or non-ethical/unethical.

Along with that, I find that a guy who cites the law for "but it wasn't murder" is demonstrating a lack of empathy toward the loss of human life. That's a psychopathic trait.

 

[Kramodlog]

So you argue that the Twin Towers bombing in the 1990s, the lack of response to ultimately leading to 9/11, is a justification for not responding to terrorism?

Hello strawman, my old friend. You've come to talk to me again.

If a mugger shoots you and takes your wallet, is it an accident if you die?

Heh. Reminds me of that question about rape and murder asked to Dukakis.

Laporte was trying to exercise his legal right to leave, and they assaulted him to stop him, killing him. Even as assaults by kidnappers go, strangulation is not an impulse act; it takes time to strangle someone.

Depends. A wind pipe can be crush instantly if enough force is applied. If a scuffle a lot of stuff can happen, even manslaughter.

450 people associated with kidnapping and murder.

Nope. A lot were just independentists or union leaders, not FLQ sympathizers. Those arrests were political in nature.

I don't know the exact circumstances, but yeah, when a political group is going around killing people, locking up a few people for a few days may not be an unreasonable thing.

I love the irony of having my ethics questioned, while poor ethics is shown by endorsing immoral behavior.

 

[Kramodlog]

A lot of people talking about the plane crashing into the Pentagon. It's certainly true that what we see is real to us, and the WTC buildings were quite visual. But:

Six died in the bombings of the Twin Towers.

168 died in the Oklahoma City Bombings, and all remotely connected were promptly apprehended. They were not part of a larger criminal organization.

The final death toll of 9/11 was 2,996 (2,606 of whom were in the Twin Towers--a reason they might be remembered more then the Pentagon), three times the next largest terrorist attack ever, largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, which we also responded to rather extremely. Also it was done by the same organization that did the Twin Towers bombings and killed 237 in US embassy bombings in 1998; maybe it was about time we responded.

Oklahoma's numbers are really high and there are lots of radical right wing groups in the US and are responsable for more deaths than Islamist terrorist, if the aberration that is 9/11 is ignored. Since 9/11 they've committed 19 lethal terrorists attacks on US soilthat killed 48 people. They are a bigger threat than Islamists. But those death aren't on TV.

 

[Kramodlog]

While it is possible to accidentally choke someone to death- even the US legal system recognizes this- it is:

1) very difficult to successfully and legally classify a strangulation death as "accidental" and

2) an alien concept to most Americans that an accidental death comitted in furtherance of criminal act would not be considered murder- see my earlier post about felony murder- absent some kind of legal plea or jury shenanigans.

All of which does not diminish Umbran's point: in the moral/ethical context of the conversation, continuing to characterize the death as legally accidental looks like rhetorical minimization, and thus, extremely shady.

I find governments ignoring the rule of law disturbing and those who agree with that abuse shadier. But that is just me, evidently.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Ummm guys - shouldn't this be another topic - considering NONE of this has to do with the Confederate Flag debate, just a continuation of an idea that was an offshoot of a comment?

 

[prosfilaes]

Hello strawman, my old friend. You've come to talk to me again.

I see. The argument that the Twin Towers bombing got insufficient response because the organization behind it subsequently murdered 3,000 people is a strawman?

Heh. Reminds me of that question about rape and murder asked to Dukakis.

That's non-responsive. If the actions committed by these terrorists in furtherance of the kidnapping of Laporte that in and of themselves assault do not amount to murder because they didn't intend to kill him, the actions of a mugger that amount to assault should not amount to murder because he didn't intent to kill.

Nope. A lot were just independentists or union leaders, not FLQ sympathizers. Those arrests were political in nature.

In a scuffle, many things can happen, even illegal arrests. I certainly don't justify all the actions the Canadian government took, but in the context of executions (the terrorist group's words at the time) they hardly rank high on my list of historical atrocities.

I love the irony of having my ethics questioned, while poor ethics is shown by endorsing immoral behavior.

I see; if you're in a discussion, and can question the other people's ethics, that makes you an angel.

 

[Umbran]

Oklahoma's numbers are really high and there are lots of radical right wing groups in the US and are responsable for more deaths than Islamist terrorist

No argument with that. The deaths of Oklahoma were most certainly on the TV at the time. And they led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. So, please stop implying it was a non-issue to us.

if the aberration that is 9/11 is ignored.

Why should it be ignored?

The 9/11 attacks killed 18 times as many people as did McVeigh and Nicholls, caused $10 billion dollars in damage (M&N caused about $658 million), and incited a bit of an economic recession to boot. It is reasonable to say that 9/11 was one or more orders of magnitude more impactful than Oklahoma City, and therefore weighs rather more heavily today

 

[prosfilaes]

Oklahoma's numbers are really high and there are lots of radical right wing groups in the US and are responsable for more deaths than Islamist terrorist, if the aberration that is 9/11 is ignored. Since 9/11 they've committed 19 lethal terrorists attacks on US soilthat killed 48 people.

It is not true that radical right-wing groups have killed 48 people since 9/11. You seem to be referring to the The New America Foundation report; on NPR, the director says

And we found 48 attributable to people with extreme right-wing, racist or antigovernment views.

That's different; the problem is Timothy McVeigh and the others are not part of an extended terrorism group. I know many of those actors were unaffiliated with any specific group, and I don't know of any that were--and while there probably were a few, they weren't one big organization like al-Qaeda, nor were the attacks necessarily handed down from above. You can't skulk around about how outrageous it is that Canada responded to all the parts of the Quebec sovereignty movement and then act like the US should have rounded up all the right wing groups that make a lot of noise but don't seem to be doing anything violent.

They are a bigger threat than Islamists. But those death aren't on TV.

It is not simply true that they are a bigger threat than Islamists. You can come to that conclusion, and it's not inherently absurd. But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year, not the 3 since 9/11 that the radical right-wing groups have done, or the 10 a year if you go back to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is money from Iran and Saudi Arabians to fund Islamic terrorism, where as most of the violent right-wing is poor losers. At the very least, there's good reasons for considering Islamists the bigger threat besides what we see on TV.

I find governments ignoring the rule of law disturbing and those who agree with that abuse shadier. But that is just me, evidently.

Which is avoiding what people are pressing you on. Certainly it would be easier to discuss what the Canadian government did if we can agree that they were doing it in response to a terrorist organization that was kidnapping people, killing them, and call it executions.

 

[Ryujin]

Just to toss a hand grenade into the room during the "October Crisis" the ordinary rule of law was in abeyance, and Martial Law had been declared.