Ok, take your time, read. The initial statement was about six African American males. I reeeeeally don't think terrorists would recognize them as a gang. But maybe they are more like you than I know. Now, the next point was addressing the single race study that the good doctor performed. That does not cover other races in either part of the study. Nor does it cover different regional standards, age groups, experience levels, nor the effect of punishment possibilities. All of these factors should/must be evaluated prior to claiming that the survey is truly representative of the conditions for the military that existed at the camp. I would argue that you, nor the doctor, have no evidence that African Americans, Asians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, or any other minority would behave as white males would. He did not address having mixed ethnic groups. His test group didn't cover gender analysis either. Therefore the statement covering "people" all reacting this way is flawed. He has no documented proof! There is no argument that mixed ethnic groups cause different outcomes. Society can verify this daily. Black males think and operate differently when they are mixed in with other ethnic groups. This point you and the doctor must concede to me on. Generally, African American males in their 20's are different than in their 30's, and it changes again in their 40's. Maybe white males in your circle are static (we know better), but experience matters in our outlooks and behaviors as we age. The survey did not address this factor either. I can poke holes throughout this flawed review. Especially if you add minorities. I believe I am more of an expert on minority behavior than your doctor. Care to wager? Prisons in America experience similar abuse reports. Operations that do this normally have instances where it happens. It has nothing to do with the war or the military, it's about sick individuals. You will not get me to defend sick individuals. But you will not hear me saying that the military are misbehaving because they are the military unsupervised. You are going too far. What you have is/are a bad person(s), who was/were punished. It's not the military! Get over it!!! As you say, your doctor predicted what would happen in a real, improperly supervised, white male managed facility. Are you saying there is some truth to his data when these conditions are met? What does that say then? I am willing to listen!
Well, this proves my point. Both of these individuals were engaged in warfare against the US. Again, show me one case where an average US citizen, going about their normal affairs, has been harmed by the PA? The examples you give are actually good arguments for the PA. If you go to war with the US, you give up any rights you may have had under the Constitution. Comon sense guys.
Arnie, if i read that correctly, one was actually fighting us forces, padilla was "accused of terrorism" by consorting, right? How does that constitute "warfare", exactly?
This is about prisoners and guards. It has nothing to do with race. You really have a hard time reading don't you? "Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, who led the Stanford prison study in which two dozen college students were randomly selected to play the roles of prisoners or guards." I must have missed where it said white males lol. I'm still waiting for you to find a study showing improperly and unsupervised guards will never abuse their power. Once again you failed to read: "Q: How can ordinary people commit brutal, humiliating acts like what we saw from the Abu Ghraib pictures? A: According to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School who has studied Nazi doctors and Vietnam veterans, everyone has the potential for sadism. He says that sadism is a reaction to the atrocities occurring in oneâs environment. âThe foot soldiers, MPs and civilian contractors are all caught up in the atrocity-producing situation. They end up adapting to the group and joining in.â... Dr. Zimbardo says that everyone has the potential to be good or evil. The human mind can guide us toward anything imaginable, to create heavens or hells on earth. It depends entirely on the special situations in which we might become enmeshed. These young men and women mistreating prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison pictures were embedded in an evil barrel, says Zimbardo." I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time. It says that someone in our government/military's administration should have had enough competence to realized what was bound to happen at Abu Ghraib and should have enacted measures to prevent it from happening.
Splitting hairs. How else would you charcterize "terrorism". And again, show me where an average US citizen has been harmed by the PA? Not one of you has answered this. All 2 of the examples given are clearly of people who's goal is to harm America and it's citizens.
Who is to decide that? How can you be sure if they are not proven guilty in court of law? Is there some reason why our judicial system won't work suspected terrorist? What has been happening in our government, is exactly what our founding fathers feared. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." -- James Madison, Federalist no. 51. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania "It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams, 1788
I'm going to ignore the obvious here and assume you knew he was employing hyperbole for effect. Regardless, his point isn't THAT far from the truth. Almost every clause in the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 seriously weaken and erode fundamental provisions in the Constitution that protect free speech, warrantless searches, due process, right to trial by jury. etc. To cast these erosions as nothing more than 'reasonable sacrifices' would GROSSLY MISREPRESENT the egregious threat this legislation poses to our rights. Then why bother contesting his point?? You agree with the fundamental point our Constitutional rights are under serious attack by out-of-control legislators, but vigorously defend one of this countries most Draconian bills, simply because - in your opinion - its not Americas MOST Draconian bill. This mentality is pure idiocy. Another name for it is 'partisan hackery', of which you, and many lefties on this board are clearly a part. Instead of framing the debate in terms of left versus right. Try the paradigm of freedom versus slavery. When you do, you'll find both sides of the aisle are fucking you just as hard - just in different ways. The net effect is the same - loss of freedom and hugely expanded Government. Everytime.
Well Bush defines terrorism as anyone who is not with us, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." So by that definition, I'm a terrorist along with a lot of other Americans. Rather or not any 'average US citizens' have been harmed or not is irrelative. The point is that Patriot Act gives government too much power that could harm the 'average US citizen' in the future.
Thank you for bringing much needed perspective to the debate. Both sides are fucking us. But since this country is stuck in a phoney left-right paradigm, it matters not if the Government eviscerates our rights or grossly expands federal power - just as long as its 'our side' thats doing it. Sheer idiocy.
Ok, just did a quick search and found what you are looking for: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm