tried to reply to many responses in 1 post and defend my knowledge
I am comparing any state in which the police have unchecked authority over the use of violence. I named these 2, there must be 100 others. Taliban and Nazis had laws, by which they follow(d). I think you are confusing morals and laws. It was once the law in the US that slave trading and owning was acceptable. Some, like John Calhoun, even argued the morality of it.
I would think that you could see through “crimes against humanity.” Such is nothing more than the ability of victors to vanquish those defeated, whether it be execution in the case of Nazis, life imprisonment of Former Yugoslavians or dictators in parts of Africa. Crimes against humanity is ill defined, and usually morally based which is subject to cultural interpretation. It is also dependant largely on the power of the state. When was the last time somebody from China was tried for crimes against humanity? Is it not a crime against humanity to levy harsh punishments like life in prison against those who engage in civil disobedience when they do not agree with the government? How about turning the military on a civilian populous? States do not usually cede their ability or authority to international bodies. Which is why the US does not recognize the international court.
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=723
was Governor Orval Faubus or any of the people that tried to prevent black children from going to school tried for crimes against humanity? (or for any crime at all?)What is the difference between that and the Taliban deciding females shouldn’t go to school?
My political agenda? I guess if my belief in oversight of executive power by the citizens of a nation is a political agenda different from that of allowing law enforcement to do what they value is appropriate based on the idea that suspects that police interact with must be guilty otherwise they wouldn’t be suspect. Do you think the life of a Police officer or any emergency worker is of greater value than others? That could be considered a caste system. I figured my view was a common value of a majority Americans. Politically I think I am quite moderate, but that doesn’t stop me from being able to have an academic discussion.
As for a ridiculous comparison, it seems awfully naive to me to not be aware that it is an erosion of values and rights that lead to the loss freedoms and rights as opposed to a sudden change. The comparison is not as farfetched as you might think. As for my intelligence, have you ever noticed that it is usually the lesser educated people that call others stupid the most?
The constitution does not protect you from state violence; it only allows you a legal recourse. If the local SWAT team accidentally kicks down your door thinking it was a different residence and tasers down your family because they were “resisting” while your family is trying to explain in the commotion there is a mistake, your recourse is post incident.
As for hands being tied, I would think we can all manipulate our authority over situations where protections are in place. Look at the physical restraint of patients as an example. (I agree with physical restraint, but I am not foolish enough to think it is never abused.)
The discussion of how and when tasers should be used, seems very relevant to their safety.
You want to start a real argument we could discuss “excited delirium.” But my intelligence and knowledge of biology, zoology, anthropology, sociology, and medicine might be considered suspect by those who do not understand how that may have any bearing on the topic.
Sorry for the long post, but if you are going to question how smart I am, I will usually retort.
