The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
I would also take our jurisprudence system, at it was envisioned, not what it has morphed into.

All Putin needs to say is "we deemed them enemy combatants" and any criticism from the US has no moral or legal legs to stand on. The same thing happens here.

The rest is just details.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
All Putin needs to say is "we deemed them enemy combatants" and any criticism from the US has no moral or legal legs to stand on. The same thing happens here
.

Putin could. But an American President could not, because, under our systems, words (like "enemy combatant") actually do have meaning, and laws--even ones you don't like--must follow due process.

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
We are getting more and more socialist.

more and more communist -

and both are extremely and ultimately anti religious and anti catholic.

Judges who legislate from the bench distort the justice in the USA - and create a socialistic culture

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Stuart,

First, let me thank you for posting Tim Kelleher's article.

However, I'm still concerned about your earlier comments:
Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by EasternRomioi3
Russia has always had supreme authority figures. Think back to the old Russian saying "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality." Orthodoxy is the Russian way, autocracy is the way of their political system, it always has been.
A good example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. "They're just Russians--this is what they deserve".
The problem here is that I don't think he's saying, "They're just Russians--this is what they deserve." Rather, I think he's saying, "Stop judging Russia by modern Western standards." I'm sure you're aware that several members of this forum actually see this as the ideal situation, and decry our American values such as freedom of expression as leading necessarily to the moral degeneracy and irreligion that are rampant in the West today, but even more of them see it as being at least an equally valid perspective. Hardly "low expectations."

Now, getting back to the Tim Kelleher article, I appreciate first and foremost that he does share our perception of how the world is interpreting these events. I particularly like where he says:

Quote
For their part, the activists have maintained their intent was never to insult the Church, or the state, but to add a sense of urgency to the concern that the relationship between the two is growing increasingly unseemly. It’s hardly an extremist view, one shared by a wide range of people ... One, [former world chess champion] Gary Kasparov, was arrested outside the courthouse while protesting Friday’s verdict.
First of all, it's good to know what the defendants' actual explanation for their own actions was, and that it was not nearly so extremist as their actions would suggest. That puts the response to those actions in a whole different light--one that is not missed by the onlooking world. Like it or not, Patriarch Kiril's actions are serving to reinforce the already-existing perception held by many, that the Church is far more interested in sustaining its own prerogatives than in addressing any real wrongs in society.

I'll skip over Kelleher's historical analysis, which I thought was pretty lame, and get on to what was really worthwhile:

Quote
Yet, the Church is called to be the Church—royal, priestly and prophetic—dwelling in graced tension with any and every temporal institution.
...
The satisfaction of humbling one’s opponents is no match for the evangelical power of forgiving them. Thus, Patriarch Kirill’s demand for severity seems to strengthen the perception given voice by Pussy Riot, that the Church is able, willing, and eager to supply spiritual muscle in the cause of eliminating opposition to Mr. Putin. In so doing, it only helps enlarge popular acceptance of the most negative stereotypes of Christianity in general, and Orthodoxy in particular.

Last edited by Epiphanius; 08/22/12 09:00 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
All Putin needs to say is "we deemed them enemy combatants" and any criticism from the US has no moral or legal legs to stand on. The same thing happens here
.

Putin could. But an American President could not, because, under our systems, words (like "enemy combatant") actually do have meaning, and laws--even ones you don't like--must follow due process.

Really? What due process in the detention of terror suspects do you imagine there is? Since I can't prove a negative, you'll have elaborate on what this might be.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
Really? What due process in the detention of terror suspects do you imagine there is? Since I can't prove a negative, you'll have elaborate on what this might be.

The statement is so inane that any attempt at explaining would be wasted.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Really? What due process in the detention of terror suspects do you imagine there is? Since I can't prove a negative, you'll have elaborate on what this might be.

The statement is so inane that any attempt at explaining would be wasted.

Aw, I've seen you respond to much more inane things. Give it a shot.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Most terror suspects detained in the United States are processed through the ordinary criminal justice system--whereas, in countries like France, Germany and Italy (as a result of their experience with international terrorism in the 1970s-80s) have special "terrorism courts" in which most laws of evidence do not apply and in which all cases are determined by anonymous tribunals of special magistrates.

By comparison, the military tribunals through which terrorists apprehended abroad are tried by the United States go the extra mile to ensure a fair trial. One only gets in front of such a tribunal by being captured in arms as an unlawful combatant (a term that has a specific definition under both the UCMJ and international law) or apprehended as part of a terrorist conspiracy. These are most decidedly not good people, and, frankly, most of them deserve no more than a drumhead court martial followed by an expeditious visit to the firing squad, but the U.S. seems intent on appeasing world opinion regardless of centuries of legal precedent regarding how to handle these cases.

As for holding terrorists indefinitely, if we don't execute them, what other option is there? If we were to treat them as lawful combatants, they would be prisoners of war, incarcerated for the duration--which is to say, an indefinite period. But they are unlawful combatants, so in reality they have no "rights" whatsoever--yet rather than treating them as such, we have gone out of our way to treat them better than we treat our ordinary domestic criminal class, putting them in a very nice facility in the Caribbean, where they get first class food, medical care, recreation and a great climate.

Frankly, I think a couple of years hard labor in a Russian prison for "hooliganism" would be a real eye opener, both for them--and for you.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
What you just described is a fantasy.

Jose Padilla, US citizen, arrested in Chicago, deemed enemy combatant by the president, held and tortured without due process for three and a half years in a military prison, then sent to a civil trial when public outcry reached a pitch, where he was found guilty of charges unrelated to his original detainment, of which he's now serving time.

Pussy Riot had it easy in comparison.

If you were president, you absolutely could send me to the gulag.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
The Patriot Act and the recent NDAA come to my mind as examples. "Indefinite Detention" of American citizens without trial seems to be just a tad bit authoritarian, don't you think? I mean the punk band got some sort of trial.



Last edited by Nelson Chase; 08/23/12 05:20 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
All the Padilla case proved was the inadequacy of the civil court system for dealing with acts of war. The Patriot Act balances quite well the issues of personal liberty and domestic security. If you think that the Patriot Act is harsh, think about the response that will be forced upon any U.S. government if there is a second attack of the magnitude of 9/11--or even a string of smaller attacks.

Also, as with all attempts at moral equivalency--Epic FAIL.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
There are no attempts at moral equivalency. Just refutations of the notion that things like this only happen in Russia, and a rejection of the position that they do not happen in the US. They do, as outlined above.

Your reading of the Padilla case is your own, and it is underwhelming. To be clear, it does indeed belie your claim that

Originally Posted by StuartK
But an American President could not, because, under our systems, words (like "enemy combatant") actually do have meaning, and laws--even ones you don't like--must follow due process.

He had zero due process, and that is exactly what the president did.

Epic fail.

As for your claim that his case proved the inadequacy of the civil court system for dealing with acts of war, I can only assume you aren't very familiar with his case. He wasn't given a civil trial until 3 1/2 years after being apprehended, deemed an enemy combatant of war, and held in a military prison with no due process whatsoever. What part of that proves the inadequacy of the civil court system in dealing with "acts of war"?

Further, you are accepting the premise that we are in fact in a state of war (undeclared and indefinite, with no enemy except those deemed an enemy by the president). How different is that from the heavy hand of Putin?

I say this not to forgive abuses in Russia, but to condemn them both abroad and in our very homes. And since I live here, I spend most of my time worrying about these things when they happen here, and less when they happen on the other side of the planet.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
He had zero due process, and that is exactly what the president did.

Right. That's why there is a court case bearing his name. Or does "due process" mean "results that I like"?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
He had zero due process, and that is exactly what the president did.

Right. That's why there is a court case bearing his name. Or does "due process" mean "results that I like"?

There is a court case in Moscow bearing the "Pussy Riot" name. I suppose you are saying they had due process as well. Oh, it means more than that?

Padilla saw the inside of a court room 3 1/2 years after being detained. During that time he was held in prolonged isolation without any civil proceedings whatsoever, much of it without access to an attorney or family or anyone else, while enduring "harsh interrogation" which has been recorded to have included sensory deprivation, death threats, forced acid trips, stress positions, etc.

Until he was finally released from military custody and put through a civil trial years later (where he was convicted of charges completely unrelated to the original charges that he was detained under).

If that's how you define due process then you have more in common with Vlad than you would like to admit.

Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5