Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.

Well, if you want to be technical, they lose their rights because of a conviction. "Prisoner" comes after that. We have rights because we are not convicted criminals. Others lose their rights precisely because they are convicted.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.

Well, if you want to be technical, they lose their rights because of a conviction. "Prisoner" comes after that. We have rights because we are not convicted criminals. Others lose their rights precisely because they are convicted.
How can you justify that though? Why would they lose their rights?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: How can you justify that though? Why would they lose their rights?

Because they are guilty of a crime against society and government. As such, they lose their protections from government, and because of that, government has ever legal authority to restrict every single liberty and right that we are joyfully protected from as innocents.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: How can you justify that though? Why would they lose their rights?

Because they are guilty of a crime against society and government. As such, they lose their protections from government, and because of that, government has ever legal authority to restrict every single liberty and right that we are joyfully protected from as innocents.
Some of them, yes. The government imprisons them and prohibits freedom of movement, right to privacy, and other rights. But not all of them. No one has the right to take some rights, especially the right to hunger strike. It's a kind of last resort, like the judge quoted upthread said. The right to hunger-strike and to die is a final right that everyone has. The government has no right to take it and neither does society.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject:

The only way to really punish people for crimes is to punish them by taking away some or all of their rights to life, liberty, limb, and property, and the rights which naturally ensue from these. Jail sentences, parole, loss of the right to keep and bear arms, loss of freedom of movement, and such are all punishments in which the right to liberty is revoked. Sentences which result in fines or loss of physical property, or which prohibit ownership of property (not used anymore) are punishments which are focused onn the right to property. Removing a hand, flogging, etc. are essentially loss of limb. The death penalty is a loss of the right to life. You can't punish people in any other way. These are the consequences of being a criminal, and are part of the revocations of rights which occur when one enters into the social contract by birth or voluntarily, depending on the circumstances; others are restrictions which are embodied in the criminal code, mainly against the right to liberty, such as murder, theft, etc., and against the right to property, eminent domain (although this still requires compensation). It is the price of living in society, and loss of rights for commission of crimes is a punishment for those crimes.

Yes, rights are inherent in every person, and they do not originate from society or government. But the price of living in society and the price of crime are a loss or curtailment of some of those rights, mainly those which interfere with the rights of others, or those which are punitive in nature through due process. All those which are not restricted or eliminated for these reasons are otherwise absolute, as they do not originate from government or society; they exist independently of it. In fact, protection of these rights is one of the primary functions of government.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

bigstick61 wrote: The only way to really punish people for crimes is to punish them by taking away some or all of their rights to life, liberty, limb, and property, and the rights which naturally ensue from these. Jail sentences, parole, loss of the right to keep and bear arms, loss of freedom of movement, and such are all punishments in which the right to liberty is revoked. Sentences which result in fines or loss of physical property, or which prohibit ownership of property (not used anymore) are punishments which are focused onn the right to property. Removing a hand, flogging, etc. are essentially loss of limb. The death penalty is a loss of the right to life. You can't punish people in any other way. These are the consequences of being a criminal, and are part of the revocations of rights which occur when one enters into the social contract by birth or voluntarily, depending on the circumstances; others are restrictions which are embodied in the criminal code, mainly against the right to liberty, such as murder, theft, etc., and against the right to property, eminent domain (although this still requires compensation). It is the price of living in society, and loss of rights for commission of crimes is a punishment for those crimes.

Yes, rights are inherent in every person, and they do not originate from society or government. But the price of living in society and the price of crime are a loss or curtailment of some of those rights, mainly those which interfere with the rights of others, or those which are punitive in nature through due process. All those which are not restricted or eliminated for these reasons are otherwise absolute, as they do not originate from government or society; they exist independently of it. In fact, protection of these rights is one of the primary functions of government.
:? I'm sorry. I read your post three times and I'm still not sure whether you're for or against force-feeding. Or were you the one that said under certain circumstances?
I agree that the price of living in a society involves the loss of certain rights and additional ones under certain circumstances. Then other rights are rights that the governments and society can't take and has to protect, which I think is what your idea was.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

agentkgb wrote: I'm not sure this is in the right forum, but this was my best guess, if it's the wrong place I'm sorry in advance.
When Gitmo inmates go on a hunger strike, they're force-fed. According to an article in Harper's, they're often force-fed before their life is even in danger. In 2000 a US District Court judge ruled that a federal prisoner could not be force-fed, saying that “I just don't think the government has put forward any kind of compelling interest that would allow me to override a person's last, ultimate means of protesting government," and in 1975 members of the World Medical Association wrote a ban on force-feeding, which was later endorsed by the American Medical Association.
Prisoners, especially those without access to trial, don't really have a way to protest what's being done beyond hunger strikes. I guess this is essentially a right-to-die issue but I'm hoping this thread stays on the topic of force-feeding (unlikley to happen, but I can hope). I'm against force-feeding unless it's some anorexic twelve-year-old who's going to die if she doesn't get calories or something like that.

I disagree. A prisoner has no right to protest.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: I'm not sure this is in the right forum, but this was my best guess, if it's the wrong place I'm sorry in advance.
When Gitmo inmates go on a hunger strike, they're force-fed. According to an article in Harper's, they're often force-fed before their life is even in danger. In 2000 a US District Court judge ruled that a federal prisoner could not be force-fed, saying that “I just don't think the government has put forward any kind of compelling interest that would allow me to override a person's last, ultimate means of protesting government," and in 1975 members of the World Medical Association wrote a ban on force-feeding, which was later endorsed by the American Medical Association.
Prisoners, especially those without access to trial, don't really have a way to protest what's being done beyond hunger strikes. I guess this is essentially a right-to-die issue but I'm hoping this thread stays on the topic of force-feeding (unlikley to happen, but I can hope). I'm against force-feeding unless it's some anorexic twelve-year-old who's going to die if she doesn't get calories or something like that.

I disagree. A prisoner has no right to protest.
Why? Just because they're a prisoner?
I have a feeling I could just quote earlier posts I made in response to LostSoul for a while, but for now I'm typing it out.

bigstick61 · Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:

I gave my opinion in a much earlier post. I have no problem with it; the people running the prison have an obligation to keep them alive, and they rightfully have always had the power to prevent prisoners from hurting themselves.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.
We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.
Being in prison means you lose your right to liberty. How is losing the right to refuse feeding any different?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

bigstick61 wrote: I gave my opinion in a much earlier post.
Oh. Yeah I forgot. My bad.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.
We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.
Being in prison means you lose your right to liberty. How is losing the right to refuse feeding any different?
agentkgb wrote: society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all.
agentkgb wrote: No one has the right to take some rights, especially the right to hunger strike. It's a kind of last resort, like the judge quoted upthread said. The right to hunger-strike and to die is a final right that everyone has. The government has no right to take it and neither does society.

bigstick61 · Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject:

In the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, the people who run the prison do have the duty to keep them in good health. However, most are being held informally accused of terrorism or being an illegal combatant; in these cases, they are being denied their rights without any modicum of due process being followed. There there is a grave injustice. In he case of the Taliban prisoners, they are legitimate prisoners of war, being soldiers of a government, and do not need to be tried for anything, as they are not being held for crimes, unlike most of the rest of the detainees.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

agentkgb wrote: perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.
We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.
Being in prison means you lose your right to liberty. How is losing the right to refuse feeding any different?
agentkgb wrote: society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all.
agentkgb wrote: No one has the right to take some rights, especially the right to hunger strike. It's a kind of last resort, like the judge quoted upthread said. The right to hunger-strike and to die is a final right that everyone has. The government has no right to take it and neither does society.

If rights can't be taken away, then there is no way to keep somebody in prison. Liberty is taken away by the act of being in prison. If you can take liberty away, you can take any right away.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

bigstick61 wrote: In the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, the people who run the prison do have the duty to keep them in good health. However, most are being held informally accused of terrorism or being an illegal combatant; in these cases, they are being denied their rights without any modicum of due process being followed. There there is a grave injustice. In he case of the Taliban prisoners, they are legitimate prisoners of war, being soldiers of a government, and do not need to be tried for anything, as they are not being held for crimes, unlike most of the rest of the detainees.

Those non-Taliban captured in Afghanistan can all be executed, legally. If that's the case, they can certainly be imprisoned.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.
We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.
Being in prison means you lose your right to liberty. How is losing the right to refuse feeding any different?
agentkgb wrote: society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all.
agentkgb wrote: No one has the right to take some rights, especially the right to hunger strike. It's a kind of last resort, like the judge quoted upthread said. The right to hunger-strike and to die is a final right that everyone has. The government has no right to take it and neither does society.

If rights can't be taken away, then there is no way to keep somebody in prison. Liberty is taken away by the act of being in prison. If you can take liberty away, you can take any right away.
I said some rights. How do you define "liberty"? It's not a specific right really.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

agentkgb wrote: perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: perdidochas wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.
We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.
Being in prison means you lose your right to liberty. How is losing the right to refuse feeding any different?
agentkgb wrote: society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all.
agentkgb wrote: No one has the right to take some rights, especially the right to hunger strike. It's a kind of last resort, like the judge quoted upthread said. The right to hunger-strike and to die is a final right that everyone has. The government has no right to take it and neither does society.

If rights can't be taken away, then there is no way to keep somebody in prison. Liberty is taken away by the act of being in prison. If you can take liberty away, you can take any right away.
I said some rights. How do you define "liberty"? It's not a specific right really.

Liberty is the freedom to do as you wish so long as it hurts no one else. Prisoners don't have liberty.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

On the issue of the Gitmo prisoners, personally, I think we should return them all to the Afghan government to try.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

perdidochas wrote: Liberty is the freedom to do as you wish so long as it hurts no one else. Prisoners don't have liberty.
How does dying hurt other people?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14997 Location: Florida

agentkgb wrote: perdidochas wrote: Liberty is the freedom to do as you wish so long as it hurts no one else. Prisoners don't have liberty.
How does dying hurt other people?

It's irrelevant, as they don't have liberty. Prisoners can't choose to do whatever they want to do, irregardless of if it hurts anyone else.