[mythtv-users] OT: SCOTUS decision

David Brodbeck gull at gull.us
Mon Feb 22 05:26:57 UTC 2010

R. G. Newbury wrote:
> ...when reality forces us to do things which we are morally entitled 
> to do, and which match what the other side does...but of course we are 
> not *allowed* to do that! We have to stop thinking we are doing wrong 
> when we fight by war rules. The whineys want us to fight by civil 
> rules, while the bad guys can use war rules.
Which is it?  "Things we are morally entitled to do," or "things the 
other side does"?  Because the whole point is we're supposed to be 
better than the other side, isn't it?  How can we claim to be a moral 
nation if we abandon our morals whenever they're inconvenient?

The rules we're playing by are definitely not "war rules."  War rules 
say things that we currently find inconvenient, like that you can't 
torture prisoners and you have to release them when hostilities end.  
Those are not the rules we're playing by now.

All I'm saying is, when the government starts saying that they have to 
have the right to detain someone without trial indefinitely, *because we 
don't have enough evidence to convict them of a crime*...that's a bit 
scary, no matter who's in office.  It's reminiscent of the way the 
Soviet Union used to "disappear" people they found inconvenient.  Keep 
in mind, *they* thought they were the good guys and were simply dealing 
with a mortal threat to *their* existence, too.

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list