|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
US withdraws from treaty to establish Int'l Criminal Court
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Null Actor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...000/1970312.stm
It's nice to know the US wants to be like China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Turkey, who are also not part of the treaty.
Gee, I wonder why they'd dislike the idea of an international criminal court whose main goal is to preserve human rights and persecute war crimes?
Oh wait, maybe this bit has something to do with it:
 Quote:
|
The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
|
Nice to know the 'greatest nation' feels itself above petty things like human rights.
Posted by: Darky!
I think they fear more for the lives of the soldier and the familys that would be affected, then they do about human rights.
Posted by: Null Actor
So... it's okay if they commit crimes against humanity, because they have family?
Posted by: Darky!
Yep.
Who needs humanity anyway?
Posted by: tkron
No the US is just afraid that it would have to live up to someone elses definition of human rights and war crimes.
What we are doing right now against terrorism is ok because we were the ones that defined what was right/good and wrong/evil/terrorism.
I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of the way we have treated the American Indians (native americans) over our 200 plus years of history. Imagine what would happen if the world decided that we (the US government) should be held resposible for all the broken treatys we made with the indians.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
The ICC, as envisioned, reports to no higher authority including the United Nations.
Sovereignty would become non-existent in the worst case scenario.
Best case, we all know nobody would listen to the court anyway. Including America.
Posted by: redwench
the us loves to point fingers, but cant take the heat itself. war crimes and the death penalty are the two big issues. god forbid we just lock up our murderers for life like other countries do. or have our soldiers behave themselves when in another country.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Content taken out of context ...... *snip*
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
god forbid we just lock up our murderers for life like other countries do.
|
*snip*
 this is a subject for debate! I for one do not believe in locking up "convicted", proven quilty beyond a "reasonable doubt", murderers.
Posted by: redwench
oh, you mean the murderers that are now being released because DNA evidence now PROVES that someone else did the crime? actually, i have no problems with the death penalty in theory. but the practice is so ludicrous, that there is no real point to it.
that wasnt my point however. the vast majority of the world doesnt have the death penalty. they consider it a human rights issue. we expect others to act as we wish when we make the human rights claim, yet we are dismissive of said claims made by other countries. thats just hypocritical.
Posted by: Blackknight
I say for everyone that commits an aggressive crime. We send them to:
A) Canada
B) New Jersey
C) The Moon
D) Antartica
or E) A volcano
I don't think that would fly. But it would be fun.
Besides, if they created an international court, there would be disagreement over laws, and blah blah blah, plus, what language would they speak? Would the Z be Z or Zed? All very important questions.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackknight
I say for everyone that commits an aggressive crime. We send them to:
A) Canada
B) New Jersey
C) The Moon
D) Antartica
or E) A volcano
|
No not New Jersey! Keep all the criminals out of my state
Posted by: Chako
Nah blackknight...you can keep your violent criminals.
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
god forbid we just lock up our murderers for life like other countries do.
|
The US is far too lax when it comes to punnishing criminals. China is great. The cops dont even have guns. They walk the streets in packs with only their clubs. If you get busted with drugs, you go away for life. Basically, people in China dont do stupid shit because they know the law is harsh.
Same is true in Singapore. Spitting on the street is a big offense. And again, if you get caught with drugs there, you get cained. Singapore is a really clean place- go figure. The law works.
So, you want to pay to keep murderers alive? Nuts to that. China has the right idea- the strictness works. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Posted by: AK47
oh, one more thing:
Blacknight, you say Canada is where criminals should go? Canada or New jersey? Nope. I think sending them to Ohio would be the best punnishment. They'd die of boredom 
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by AK47
So, you want to pay to keep murderers alive? Nuts to that. China has the right idea- the strictness works. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
|
I'd love to see a study on that, because I completely do not believe it. And you can't trust anything that comes from their government either.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
Quote:
Originally posted by AK47
oh, one more thing:
Blacknight, you say Canada is where criminals should go? Canada or New jersey? Nope. I think sending them to Ohio would be the best punnishment. They'd die of boredom
|
ummm.....boredom eh? Anyways all i have got to say is NIMBY(not in my back yard). As long as the crimminals stay south of columbus
Posted by: AK47
Nova, I saw it on either the learning channel, history channel, or discovery channel. It was a show about law enforcement through out the world.
why you cant believe it is beyond me.
Posted by: Null Actor
Probably because I have friends that grew up in china, and everything they've said is completely contrary to what you've said.
Posted by: Shalome
Lots of countries with harsh punishment have low crime rates. China does indeed have a farily low crime rate, as does Singapore.
I mean, in Afghanistan, the crime of rape practically disappeared after the Taliban took hold of the government. Of course, this might have something to do with the fact that half the population wasn't allowed out of the house...
Posted by: redwench
i dont doubt that china has a low crime rate. they achieve this by locking up anyone that speaks out, having pro forma trials, and executing people pretty much on demand.
now, this is great as long as youre not the one falsely accused. in most of europe and north america, i can have an expectation of a reasonably fair trial. in most of these "low crime" countries you cant.
the price of a free country is having more crap to deal with.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Without turning this into a "rant", instead of a discussion, I stand firm with my belief.
Quote:
Originally posted by ELLENOFTROY
"convicted", proven quilty beyond a "reasonable doubt",
|
I think it is ridicilous to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax money to keep someone alive to sit in a prison for 30-40+ years watching color television and using "my" tax dollars to "work out" with the best equipment that you could find in "any" gym in the country.
You missed my point too, it is wrong for people to sit in a prison for years to be found innocent later by DNA .... and the simple answer to that is make sure they are guilty before you put them to death. The stupid law "circumstantial evidence" .... should be taken off the books .... being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt .... should mean what it says. The crime can be proven! If it was not proven .... it is a totally different story.
But what this all boils down to is what you belive in, and I for one, belive in an "eye for an eye".
Charles Manson's "gang", that did the dirty work for him sits in a prison everyday ..... eating with "my" money that I could be putting in "my" pantry. Tell Sharon Tate's family, and all the other familes, that have suffered at the hands of a criminal'(s) that took away their loved ones that justice was done!
Ain't it great that we live in a country that we can agree to disagree?
Posted by: redwench
well, from what ive read over the years, its cheaper to lock em up than to kill em. so that arguement doesnt fly.
and if a convicted person confesses to the crime, i have no problem with the death penalty. but as science evolves, we keep finding out that what was "proof" a few years back, is now just junk science. and as long as people are convicted on anything short of dna and a confession, there is the possibility of that person being innocent of that crime.
as i said before, the death penalty in theory is fine. but practically speaking, its a nightmare, and expensive to boot. at the very least, all states should have a moratorium on executions until evidence can be retested, preferably until science gets a bit better.
convicting and executing innocent people doesnt just hurt them and thier families. it means that there is a guilty party wandering around out there. in the case of a shoplifter, not a big deal. but a murderer wandering around free is of concern.
Posted by: EOT(US)
I agree RW .... "it means that there is a guilty party wandering around out there." that just goes back to my "proven without a doubt".
but .....
"well, from what ive read over the years, its cheaper to lock em up than to kill em. so that arguement doesnt fly." if this is true it is most likely because of the zillions of appeals that come to light .... and once again .... most of those "appeals" are done with "my" tax dollar being paid to a "public defender"!
"and the beat goes on" .......
Posted by: redwench
and how would you prevent innocent people from being executed without said appeals?
i mean, we could go the china route, with a closed trial, followed within a few days by the execution. would certainly save that small amount of tax money that public defenders get. as long as youre not the one on trial, it ok.
i just love circular arguments. youll never improve accurate convictions unless faulty ones are overturned. even 20 years ago, many violent crimes like rape and murder were "solved" by finding someone with the right blood type or semen type. was the best they could do at the time, but not exactly accurate.
and im willing to bet that 78% of people on death row are NOT there due to modern dna evidence. but rather inaccurate eyewitness testimony and various and sundry circumstantial evidence. note that i dont say they arent guilty, but that the convictions arent based on scientific evidence.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Again ...... ain't it good that we can agree to disagree? 
Posted by: Null Actor
Without circumstancial evidence, it would be quite easy to murder and get away with it.
Without circumstantial evidence, as long as you didn't leave any actual physical evidence, you'd get away with it. So all it takes is a plastic suit and some gloves, and you could kill anyone you wanted.
You have to remember, little things like not having an alibi are circumstancial.
Posted by: redwench
well, i live alone. id say i dont have an alibi for the majority of crimes committed in the us. i didnt do any of them however.
circumstantial evidence is just that, related to circumstance. if you cant prove someone was there to commit the crime, you certainly shouldnt be convicting them.
circumstantial stuff should be used by police to rule people in or out, not at trial.
Posted by: Shalome
It really irks me that the tax dollars spent on public defenders don't do a damn thing in the long run. Quite a few of the recently overturned death sentences were due to inadequate representation. The public defenders, basically, didn't even bother to do their jobs. I'm gonna go search for the case where the death penalty was passed down even after it was clear that the public defender SLEPT through parts of the trial and didn't bother to attempt to refute circumstantial evidence.
Posted by: Null Actor
Circumstancial evidence is what sways the jury though. If that weren't true, then police would just be charging 'suspects', and they'd always be set free without any hard evidence.
And while witnesses might offer evidence, you need to realize that humans are fallible, and witnesses may or may not have actually seen the specific person.
The court system is the way it is for a reason.
Posted by: redwench
circumstantial evidence shouldnt sway juries. its too easy to fiddle with. and witnesses that dont know the person are almost useless, unless suspect is scarred or tattooed up the yinyang.
shal, most public defenders (no, not all) are overworked and underpaid. so yes, it can be a waste of money. but its unbelievable how much they are expected to do at a goverment payment level.
and judges should stop trials when its clear the representation is inadequate for whatever reason.
Posted by: rockjock
Quote:
Originally posted by Kdr Kane
The ICC, as envisioned, reports to no higher authority including the United Nations.
|
Agreed although I do not know if I would consider the UN a viable oversight organization. We can also get out of the UN as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: Arta
I get so angered by these threads.
The death penalty is the most disgusting, foul, inhuman, repulsive practice in the western world. It is beyond my reason and understanding that it could be supported by anyone at all. It's an absolute travesty and any nation that practices it should be totally, TOTALLY ashamed of itself. Any nation that practices it has no moral basis upon which to judge/police/preach to the rest of the world. No nation that practices it can in my opinion be called a civilisation.
There are so many reasons why the death penalty is outrageous that I find it hard to list them.
I am offended by the suggestion that the amount of money involved in execution vs imprisonment can be considered as a factor, even though execution is more expensive and thus strengthens my argument - because this argument attempts to put a price on life, on LIFE ITSELF, and life is beyond value, it is invaluable, life is such that no earthly possession can ever express it's worth.
There is NO evidence, NONE WHATSOEVER that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. In fact, a survey of former presidents of the US's top academic and criminological institutions found that 84% of these experts rejected, outright, the argument that research has shown the death penalty to have any kind of deterrent effect. Indeed, many experts such as William Bowers (Northeastern University) believe that the death penalty has the opposite effect, because society is brutalised by its use.
For the Christians out there who like to quote “an eye for an eye”, there is also much material in the Bible that would seem to contradict Lev. 24:20 - such as "Love thy Neighbour", and, my personal favourite: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"... it means only God gets to kill people. I would also like to point out that using the Old Testament to support any opinion is pretty hypocritical, unless you also believe that it’s acceptable to sell your youngest daughter into slavery [Ex 21:7], to kill people for working on the Sabbath [Ex 35:2], to execute people for cursing their parents [Lev. 20:9], to burn prostitutes alive [Lev 21:9]… need I go on? Finally and more importantly I would like to quote Martin Luthor King Jr. who said “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”. How right he was.
Coming at it from a judicial standpoint, the death penalty serves none of the classic principles of justice such as proportionality, and most obviously, rehabilitation. The death penalty exists only as a means of revenge, of vengeance, something that is futile since it never ends – it leads to a cycle of violence that doesn’t stop until one party has the maturity and intelligence to realise that there’s no point in revenge because it achieves nothing. Nothing except more sadness and loss of life.
I would also like to state that I feel the death penalty violates the 8th amendment of your constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. I think that anyone who’s ever seen film of or witnessed an execution, or has read about it, will understand that. Don’t you think it’s cruel and unusual to strap someone into a chair and apply a current to their body so large that they loose all bowel control and defecate all over the floor? So large that their skin singes and burns? Here is Amnesty International’s description of electrocution:
Quote:
“Electrocution produces visibly destructive effects as the body’s internal organs are burned; the prisoner often leaps forward against the restraining straps when the switch is thrown. The body changes colour, the flesh swells and may even catch fire. The prisoner may defecate, urinate or vomit blood. Witnesses always report that there is a smell of burning flesh.”
|
Words fail me. Don’t you think it’s cruel and unusual to strap someone onto a gurney and give them drugs that cause violent convulsions and cardiac arrest? Don’t you think it’s cruel and unusual to put a rope round someone’s neck and drop them through a hole in the floor, thus snapping their spine? Hanging is still used as a method of capital punishment in Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana and Washington. Don’t you think it’s cruel and unusual to lock someone in a metal box and pump gas into it that burns their lungs so they choke to death? To put it another way – "humane execution" is a contradiction in terms. There’s no nice way to kill someone. However you look at it, it’s cruel, and therefore unconstitutional.
I think that it’s also worth mentioning that a black man who kills a white man is 11 times more likely to be executed than a white man who kills a black man. Between 1973 and 1993, 48 people were found to be innocent and released from death row. In 1991, 12% of Texans were black, but 48% of Texas's prison population, and 55.5% of death row inmates, were black. The USA is one of only 6 countries in the world with documented execution of child offenders since 1990 – Along with Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. This is clearly a list that the US wants to be on – perhaps George W Bush should have included the US in his Axis of Evil speech? It’s also worth noting that both China and Yemen have abolished this practice since 1990. A particularly poignant example is Sean Sellers, executed in Oklahoma in February 1999 for a crime committed when he was 16 years old. He was the 13th child offender to be executed in the US since 1976.
There is no argument in favour of the death penalty, there is NONE, NOTHING except people’s irrational and uninformed instinct that someone who kills should be killed.
It's callous, cruel, brutal, and inhuman.
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by Arta
The death penalty is the most disgusting, foul, inhuman, repulsive practice in the western world.
|
No its not. Killing someone in the first place is. When a killer gets killed, its not nearly as bad as the initial crime.
Posted by: Null Actor
If only everything were so black and white.
So what about a man who murders a man who murdered his child?
Posted by: Arta
Exactly.
I would also say that killing someone is... killing someone. It's equally as repugnent regardless of whether it's a murder or an execution, not that there's really much difference between the two. In fact I think there's a strong argument for saying that the execution is worse, because the government:
A) Shouldn't kill it's own citizens
B) Should take the moral high ground
C) Should set an example
The government should act as a moderator in these situations, it should lead by example - something it spectacularly fails to do when it comes to capital punishment.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
i dont doubt that china has a low crime rate. they achieve this by locking up anyone that speaks out, having pro forma trials, and executing people pretty much on demand.
now, this is great as long as youre not the one falsely accused. in most of europe and north america, i can have an expectation of a reasonably fair trial. in most of these "low crime" countries you cant.
the price of a free country is having more crap to deal with.
|
Amen. This is the best point (IMHO) brought up in this read.
Statistics be damned. They don't matter. Praise them for having a low crime rate, but as wenchy said, they lock up everyone up who speaks out. We had something called the Sedition Act in the United States that acted in much of the same way. This was repealed when it was decided that ends do not justify means.
Sure, it's not perfect here in the states. It's anything from it. There's probably more violent crime here than anywhere. But the US government doesn't opress it's own people (not any longer, over 200 years of social evolution) to maintain law an order.
The system is not perfect, but I would argue that we would rather have an imperfect system than have our government treat us as the Chinese government treats their people.
Posted by: Blackknight
My eyes are melting.
****Repairing****
Posted by: Arta
Yes, that is an excellent point.
Posted by: Null Actor
Also, there is the fact that while the lower forms of crime in china may be lesser, organized crime is much more widespread. Triads and such.
Posted by: Spider
I couldn't have said it better, Arta.
Posted by: Asmodai
This thread is melting my brain.
Concerning the matter of the US pulling out of the ICC, I think this undermines the authority and responsibility the world has put in the United Nations. This is just another example of the US coming across as arrogant and irresponsible. No wonder most Americans blame all their problems on everything else but themselves...
Posted by: Blackknight
No. We blame the good things on us though!
Posted by: TotalRecall
Quote:
|
This is just another example of the US coming across as arrogant and irresponsible. No wonder most Americans blame all their problems on everything else but themselves...
|
How can you point such a finger at such a diverse nation of views and beliefs. If we are to ever live in a civilized world, that world must stand uniform. The blaming of nations and groups are as bad as racial discrimination.
So many people protest the views of their government and disagree with their government. These people are innocent. Why should they be punished? Is it because they live on this countries land? Because they make friendships with others there? What can they do? Leave? I don't think it's that easy.
If this is ever totally understood, war as we know it will end. Sorry for the post going somewhat off-topic.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I don't think it's off-topic. I think it gets to the very heart of the matter. These foreign policy issues are very complex, and their deeper meanings trascend any amount of blame. American domestic issues aren't even black and white. How could foreign policies and issues be that? There's just too many things to consider, and placing blame on a single target is just evasive.
Personally, I don't point fingers at nations, or their people. I point fingers at asinine comments.
Quote:
|
This is just another example of the US coming across as arrogant and irresponsible. No wonder most Americans blame all their problems on everything else but themselves...
|
Case and point (pun intended).
I got a C on my American Civ midterm. Since I'm an American, and I blame all my problems on everyone else, then it must be the professor's fault. He doesn't like me. And then, my lunch was bad that day too. I was sick at my stomach. And then, there was this lady on the highway, I mean soooooo slow. She stressed me out right before my test. All of that is the reason, not, in fact that I didn't study enough for the test, right?
Right, since I'm an American, and most (without providing a statistic, "most" is all inclusive unless you find an example otherwise), then yeah, it wasn't my fault at all.
I can go on, at length, about how utterly stupid that comment was, but I think I drove it home sufficiently.
I'll make a note here, and a strong note. Before anyone gets all in a tizzy here, try to keep this in context. Since I'm inclusive in "most" Americans, I'll defend myself. This isn't a personal attack, but a defense, rather.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions yesofcoursegreatwonderfulhalleluiah. However, I'll iterate a point I didn't have a chance to iterate previously. This is not an opinion forum, it's a discussion forum. Please, I ask, with all deliberate desire, that when you say something like that, you support it, or you don't say it. Sure, you don't have to, but when you don't, it doesn't make you look like someone exercising a first amendment right, it makes you look like an idiot -- and it offends a lot of other people.
If you presume to think (lol) you can make a broad sweeping judgement of millions of people like you did in only one sentence (quite a sentence, one that can accurately sum up millions of people), then back.....it.......up.
Ok. Who wants to go out for ice cream?
Posted by: Null Actor
I think he meant more the image portrayed by the media, as opposed to what is actually true.
Things like suing mcdonalds because you dropped hot coffee on yourself, or suing candy companies because you are fat.
Or blaming violent videogames because kids go to school with guns and kill people.
We all know that these sweeping views aren't the absolute truth, but the fact of the matter is that it's common to, say, associate 'american' with 'suing'.
Image isn't necessarily truth. However, image is what most people know.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I will concede that point to be true. We all have our generalizations about a particular group of people, but it would be good to check them at the door when a serious discussion is at hand, especially the door to OTS.net. The OTS coatroom isn't nearly as full as it should be.
Posted by: Null Actor
And I believe his main point wasn't to insult, but to say "If this is how the government acts, it's no wonder that some of it's citizens act the same way".
Posted by: Gunslinger
/me shakes Nova's hand.
If that is what was meant, then I rescind. That's not the message that was delivered by the post, to me at least.
And this somewhat adheres to what I was saying about opinions. Instead of telling me I was an idiot, you provided something rational that helped me to see it another way. Discussion has officially entered this thread.
Posted by: TotalRecall
Ok, i'm sorry. I see that he was pointing out how American's are often misrepresented.
Posted by: Null Actor
Yeah well, it takes a long time to learn to see past just text and decipher the intended meaning of text. I'm guessing I'm right, but we'd have to wait for asmodai to come and confirm.
Posted by: -Memnoch-
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
I'm guessing I'm right, but we'd have to wait for asmodai to come and confirm.
|
Its that comedic timing that he has.
The guy really knows how to size up a room.
Posted by: laborat
I for one perfer the death penalty. We should ritualize it. Make it as painful as possible and have it televised on the Death Penalty Channel. I want to see these pychopathic bottom feeders have their hearts taken out without anesthesia. I want to hear them scream in agony while the audience places bets on which slice of the knife does them in. After they are dead we should rehabilitate and sell every salvagable part except the killer's lack of moral conscience.
I for one prefer the death penalty. We need more of it especially among Republicans, telemarketers, and Enron brass. I felt the same way about the people behind the Savings and Loan debacle. My only complaint, at least in the States, is that those people I think should die for their crimes...don't. Why? Because they have money, power, or good lawyers.
You tell me. Should someone who robs a liquor store and kills the clerk be given the death penalty? most states say no and the killer is back out on the street to kill again a whole lot sooner than pot smokers or pedophiles. How about someone who gives thousands of people cancer because they discharged chemical waste into our water systems?, or someone who knowingly builds a subdivsion on top of a chemical dump?, or someone who sells tainted meat to the USDA school lunch program,? Should they get the death penalty? I think they should.
The main trouble with the LAW is that laws are made by those who hold power. That goes for here, China or Afghanistan. Those laws are never applied in the same way to those people with power as they are to those without power. Until we find a way to have the law apply equally to everyone, the Death Penalty does nothing to deter those who can buy their way out of it or even those who face death or deal it on a daily basis in their neighborhoods, their citys, or their countrys.
Posted by: Null Actor
But can you buy in to the death penalty?
I mean, everyone wants out, but has anyone tried getting in?
Posted by: Asmodai
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
I think he meant more the image portrayed by the media, as opposed to what is actually true.
Things like suing mcdonalds because you dropped hot coffee on yourself, or suing candy companies because you are fat.
Or blaming violent videogames because kids go to school with guns and kill people.
We all know that these sweeping views aren't the absolute truth, but the fact of the matter is that it's common to, say, associate 'american' with 'suing'.
Image isn't necessarily truth. However, image is what most people know.
|
That's exactly what I meant.
As AK47 (I think) once wrote: "Relax"
Wow, after posting this message, I just read this article on Yahoo. Ridiculous, don't you think? Piercings == bad kids. Funny how it expounds on my point even more.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._piercings_dc_1
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Arta has a point about the death penalty being an act of revenge. It's a personal form of execution. I would probably want someone dead if they killed someone I love. It's probably something you would have to experience to ever understand why some people support it. Could you imagine someone raping and killing your mom? I can't imagine too many people who would not want that person dead.
I always liked the idea of dumping life without parole and death penaltly convicts on some remote prison colony island and leave them to fend for themselves. When it is made clear they cannot ever function in society, leave them to their own. It's not fair they get sheltered, fed, and even get forms of entertainment at our expense.
Shutting someone in a cell for life or the death penalty just doesn't make sense from any standpoint. The death penalty exists for emotional reasons only. Life without parole is the dumbest sentence. That's like being locked up forever in a correctional facility without ever having the chance to be deemed "corrected". What's the point?
Throw them all on a remote island with reasonable settings for survival and let them better themselves in their own way. It's not inhumane and if they kill each other or have mass lawlessness, then we aren't responsible for it. They are.
Posted by: Arta
i saw a film about that once ion
I think labo is playing the devil's advocate here heh
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
I remember. It was called No Escape..hehe And it suckethed.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Is that the Ray Liotta flick?
Posted by: Arta
i do remember it being pretty dire
Posted by: AK47
Yeah, Ray Liotta was in No Escape, yet Ghostbuster Ernie Hudson was the star
Ray Liotta is an underrated actor.
|
|
|
|
|
