Killing Saints

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The first recorded use of a form of the quote was in a newspaper and it was specifically labeled a paraphrase of Orwell.

Yeah, I got that.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not overwhelmed by their honesty in their conduct and deportment.

Whose honesty in their conduct and deportment?

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

FWIW, I have more or less transitioned to opposition to capital punishment.  Not because I believe it is immoral, but because our legal system does such a crappy job at utilizing it.  See here:

FWIW, I agree and for the same reason.  But it's still enjoined under God's law, which was the point I was making.

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As Freddie Lee Pitts put it (same link): “You can release an innocent man from prison, but you can’t release him from the grave.”

Thanks,

-Smac

And there have been far too many men put to death who were exonerated afterwards.  And men spending decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit, all because cowboy prosecutors and police just had to close a case.

[Mark Beesley]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

With respect, NO, it didn't fail.  

I don't know about anyone else, but I got a lot of thought and reflection out of it.  Got a little heated under the collar, too, for which I apologize, as it probably shines forth.

I still want to get the provenance about that story of the two LDS soldiers who were executed for what amounts to trivial and illegal reasons.  I remember hearing it, and believing it, until much later it began to sound fishier and fishier. 

Added only to clarify the “triviality” question. The German soldier was in civilian clothes, was caught stealing bread, and executed for being a spy. The American soldier was executed for disobeying a direct order. Your provenance for the account will have to come from source other than me.

Now I’m done, really.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Mark Beesley

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The quote you used was a paraphrase of Orwell. The paraphrase was probably based on Orwell’s comments on a poem by Kipling. Here is a bit of what Orwell said:

“He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.”

“A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling’s understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, ‘making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep’.”

The Kipling poem was about soldiers being barred from a tavern due to their drunken behavior. It sounds more like license for soldiers to be less civilized and unruly because of the job they do. I doubt you agree with the original intent of the source of that quotation.

Yes, those who honorably serve deserve gratitude and respect though I do not in this case mean everyone who was “honorably discharged”. I already said that explicitly so not sure why you asked.

Why do I think most of them lack a strong moral compass? Seriously? Have you lived in this world? Heard the apostles teach us of the prevalent wickedness of our day? I would ask on what factual basis you would suggest that law enforcement and the military are a bastion of virtue from the general trend of the times? If you want to be offended on their behalf for that conclusion go nuts. I believe it about virtually every occupation. I sometimes suspect the flaw in myself.

Not just the morality of the politicians but also those who elect and influence them. Part of the justice of the principle of democracy as King Mosiah taught is that if it goes bad there is plenty of blame to share.

 

We're all reading the same website at the same time. Sheesh.

[blarsen]

18 hours ago, blarsen said:

One of my dearest wishes would be to see the general awareness level of the LDS community rise up to a clear understanding of their own scriptures regarding what constitutes just war . . . . and act accordingly.

Unfortunately,  it probably won't happen anytime soon.  I wonder how many Sophie Scholls (Resistance of the White Rose) or Helmut Huebners our community could muster to equal the courage these folks displayed in resisting unjust war and tyranny, and in facing their ultimate execution (Sophie was the first of her group to be murdered by the Nazi machine . . . .  guillotined).

I find it astonishing that with almost two more pages of comments after my last one, no one picks up on how the 'just war' concept fits into all this. 

For me, if a fellow saint attacks me or mine unjustly, he'll run into a vigorous defense, even to the point of being killed.  If a fellow saint is part of an army involved in directly attacking my country without provocation (though we shouldn't be engaged in 'provocation', either), he/she put themselves in the way of being killed.  Not really anymore complicated than that, nor should it be.

Edited July 26, 2019 by blarsen

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The great “open secret” of law enforcement is that almost all of its actions are palliative and after the fact. They investigate more crimes then they prevent. Most crime is prevented by social rules. Almost no criminal believes they will be caught. Fear is a poor motivator for behavior.

If we were to release all child moleters, rapists, thief’s, fraudsters, murderers, and spousal/child abusers, etc. from jail/prison, do you predict that crime rates would go up or down?  What if we never sent them in the first place, or kept track of them after being released from prison?  It is impossible to say how much law enforcement efforts have prevented crime but I don’t think you give them enough credit in prevention.  I agree that more resources and energy needs to be invested in other preventive measures, but I think law enforcement has done much in terms of prevention.  There are many, many fewer victims today because of their efforts.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The first recorded use of a form of the quote was in a newspaper and it was specifically labeled a paraphrase of Orwell.

I am not overwhelmed by their honesty in their conduct and deportment.

At present, there are over 2.2 million active duty and reserve servicemembers.  They are, every single one of them, volunteers.  Most of them are paid very little.  Privates, though usually working more than full time, start their service with a whopping $19,198.80 per year, or $1,599.90 per month, or about $10 per hour (assuming a 40-hour work week, which is not a reasonable assumption).

And for that $10 per hour, they put on a uniform, undergo extensive training, put up with all sorts of rules and regulations that don't apply to civilians, and often work long hours doing difficult and/or boring and/or dangerous work.  But at the end of the day, they take an oath to defend the Constitution.  They agree to take up arms.  They agree to risk their lives in defense of others.  They agree to be put in harm's way.

And yet you are publicly slandering them as a category, impugning their "honesty" and "their conduct and deportment."

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

For those who need clarification, and them I am done, I  sleep peaceably at night because I trust in God.  The freedoms and liberties I enjoy come of God, not man.

There are millions of good and decent people who also "trust in God," but do not "sleep peaceably" because they live in places where the rule of law does not prevail, where law enforcement is corrupt or ineffectual or non-existent, where bad people do bad things without fear of being caught by "rough men."

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

If we were to release all child moleters, rapists, thief’s, fraudsters, murderers, and spousal/child abusers, etc. from jail/prison, do you predict that crime rates would go up or down?  What if we never sent them in the first place, or kept track of them after being released from prison?  It is impossible to say how much law enforcement efforts have prevented crime but I don’t think you give them enough credit in prevention.  I agree that more resources and energy needs to be invested in other preventive measures, but I think law enforcement has done much in terms of prevention.  There are many, many fewer victims today because of their efforts.

Huh.  Just what would preventative measures look like?  How much would they cost?  Who would employ them?  How much of my personal liberty would be curtailed by them?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And one of the main reasons "social rules" prevent crime is . . . fear of the "rough men."

But many non-criminals are in that category because they do believe they will be caught.

And yet sometimes, particularly in the extremes, it's all we've got.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, fear of physical punishment is massively overrated in our society as a motivator. People speak it as an article of faith that it is but when you question the person who says it and ask if the primary reason they do not murder, rape, and steal is fear of punishment they act offended and often rightly so.

 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Huh.  Just what would preventative measures look like?  How much would they cost?  Who would employ them?  How much of my personal liberty would be curtailed by them?

Here is one example of what it looks like, with demonstrated results:

https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/VThwp5JSFz7eNKF5GkxW/full

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, fear of physical punishment is massively overrated in our society as a motivator.

I wasn't speaking only of "physical" punishment.

Quote

People speak it as an article of faith that it is but when you question the person who says it and ask if the primary reason they do not murder, rape, and steal is fear of punishment they act offended and often rightly so.

I wasn't speaking of fear of punishment as necessarily the "primary" reason, either.

I am aware of the data regarding the motives of people who do commit crimes.  But what about data about the people who do not commit crimes?

My respect and gratitude for law enforcement and military members arises of their service in the "extremities."  At the end of the day, they put themselves in harm's way to protect civilians, their property, and society in general.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

If we were to release all child moleters, rapists, thief’s, fraudsters, murderers, and spousal/child abusers, etc. from jail/prison, do you predict that crime rates would go up or down?  What if we never sent them in the first place, or kept track of them after being released from prison?  It is impossible to say how much law enforcement efforts have prevented crime but I don’t think you give them enough credit in prevention.  I agree that more resources and energy needs to be invested in other preventive measures, but I think law enforcement has done much in terms of prevention.  There are many, many fewer victims today because of their efforts.

Incarceration does sometimes prevent recidivism and there are some people so dangerous that keeping them away from society is required. We still incarcerate far too many people for far too long. That needs fixing and our privatization of the prison system should be a national outrage and scandal but it is not.  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wasn't speaking only of "physical" punishment.

I wasn't speaking of fear of punishment as necessarily the "primary" reason, either.

I am aware of the data regarding the motives of people who do commit crimes.  But what about data about the people who do not commit crimes?

My respect and gratitude for law enforcement and military members arises of their service in the "extremities."  At the end of the day, they put themselves in harm's way to protect civilians, their property, and society in general.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Virtually all punishment is physical. Being secured in a jail or prison is physical punishment. Being compelled to do community service is physical.

[smac97]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Virtually all punishment is physical.

Well, no.  Very little punishment is physical.  Incarceration is clearly "physical," but that's about it.

Just now, The Nehor said:

Being secured in a jail or prison is physical punishment.

And the vast majority of misconduct does not result in incarceration.

Just now, The Nehor said:

Being compelled to do community service is physical.

That's a stretch.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At present, there are over 2.2 million active duty and reserve servicemembers.  They are, every single one of them, volunteers.  Most of them are paid very little.  Privates, though usually working more than full time, start their service with a whopping $19,198.80 per year, or $1,599.90 per month, or about $10 per hour (assuming a 40-hour work week, which is not a reasonable assumption).

And for that $10 per hour, they put on a uniform, undergo extensive training, put up with all sorts of rules and regulations that don't apply to civilians, and often work long hours doing difficult and/or boring and/or dangerous work.  But at the end of the day, they take an oath to defend the Constitution.  They agree to take up arms.  They agree to risk their lives in defense of others.  They agree to be put in harm's way.

And yet you are publicly slandering them as a category, impugning their "honesty" and "their conduct and deportment."

-Smac

I will be the last person to claim military personnel are well paid but your pay scale leaves out the other benefits provided including housing (or housing allowance) and things like combat pay.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a stretch.

-Smac

I would argue that being compelled to labor is inarguably physical punishment and I cannot see how it could be characterized any other way.

Edited July 26, 2019 by The Nehor

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I will be the last person to claim military personnel are well paid but your pay scale leaves out the other benefits provided including housing (or housing allowance) and things like combat pay.

Right.  That extra $225 per month ($2,700 per year!) for living in a combat zone, away from family, and in harm's way is making our military folks - particularly the enlisted guys - as rich as Solomon.

And somehow that extra $2,700 per year justifies you publicly disparaging them as they serve their country and fellow citizens?  Um, why?

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2019 by smac97

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The great “open secret” of law enforcement is that almost all of its actions are palliative and after the fact. They investigate more crimes then they prevent. Most crime is prevented by social rules. Almost no criminal believes they will be caught. Fear is a poor motivator for behavior.

Yeah, I know that, too, but the robbers are still worried about the police.  As for the delay between calling 911 and the cops arriving to take a report, well, that's why there's a second amendment. As for social rules, do criminals respect them?  Not really.  Social rules are like small padlocks: they only deter honest people.

I'm sure that almost no criminal believes that, but they'd have to be completely nuts not to worry about it.

I'm not sure that fear is a poor motivator.  Why weren't the people in communist states in rebellion then?  If fear isn't a motivator.  Perhaps that's taking it too far.

[blarsen]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is more complex then just economic interests. The reality is that US interventions abroad have paradoxically increased since the end of the Cold War when it could be argued national survival could be argued to be at stake. At the same time we are also losing more of those interventions as time goes on. I am not sure what to put it down to but I suspect corporate interests in exploiting resources in conflict areas are more scavengers then instigators. I suspect the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about and the people. We have a taste for conflict especially when it seems to require no direct sacrifice from us. I felt it strongly in Desert Storm and the invasion of Afghanistan.

The problem is the old playbook does not work. Ever since Mao rewrote the war book by defeating Chiang Kai-Shek’s government the way for weak actors to defeat the strong has been laid out. Some still try old conventional conflict (Korea, Iraq at first) and lose but others use the new model (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria) and we lose every time. We need a new playbook or to stop playing.

Smedley Butler, of course, gets into the issue of war/conflict driven by corporate interests (War is a Racket).  Vietnam was driven mainly by the "Dominoe' theory, which was proven to be quite false after 1975.  Our direct intervention was driven by the false flag of the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, largely admitted to by Robert McNamara in his memoirs; and strangely enough, the false flag nature of that incident was brought up in the late '70s in a BYU Masters thesis.  Mao was able to take over in China, mainly due to traitorous actions by high level people in our own government.  Gulf War 1 was green-lighted by our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie,  essentially giving Saddam Husein the go-ahead to solve his 'slant-drilling' problem with Kuwait, any way he saw fit, fueled by the 'false-flag' story of incubator babies.  And on and on the story goes.

The "new playbook" is really the old play book.  We deal with other nations honorably, giving them no just reason for attacking us, and we don't attack nations/people that don't directly attack us.  Simple.  Of course, this doesn't rule out showing the world that we are prepared to defend our interests.  Example: we have a right to protect our shipping going through the straits to the South China Sea by force if necessary.

And on another note, having more to do with the drift this thread is going, each of you (men, mainly) still have direct responsibility for defending yourselves and those you love from criminal assault.  You didn't give it away to the 'police'.  And the police are under no legal requirement to do defend you and yours.  If you don't believe this, try bringing legal suit against them for what you think are failures in this arena.

[blarsen]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, I know that, too, but the robbers are still worried about the police.  As for the delay between calling 911 and the cops arriving to take a report, well, that's why there's a second amendment. As for social rules, do criminals respect them?  Not really.  Social rules are like small padlocks: they only deter honest people.

I'm sure that almost no criminal believes that, but they'd have to be completely nuts not to worry about it.

I'm not sure that fear is a poor motivator.  Why weren't the people in communist states in rebellion then?  If fear isn't a motivator.  Perhaps that's taking it too far.

Exactly.  A good book that documents the necessity of being responsible for your own self defense is:  Dial 911 and Die, promoted by Jews for the Preservation for FIrearms Ownership (jpfo.org).

Don't forget the Hungarian uprising in the '50s, where the people rose up against the Communists.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, I know that, too, but the robbers are still worried about the police.  As for the delay between calling 911 and the cops arriving to take a report, well, that's why there's a second amendment. As for social rules, do criminals respect them?  Not really.  Social rules are like small padlocks: they only deter honest people.

I'm sure that almost no criminal believes that, but they'd have to be completely nuts not to worry about it.

I'm not sure that fear is a poor motivator.  Why weren't the people in communist states in rebellion then?  If fear isn't a motivator.  Perhaps that's taking it too far.

Criminals do respect social rules, just not all of them. They even have their own. We credit Cain for the first draft of those.

It is not so much fear of violence that prevents revolutions as a belief that it will not work or even a fear that it will not make things better.

[Stargazer]

40 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Added only to clarify the “triviality” question. The German soldier was in civilian clothes, was caught stealing bread, and executed for being a spy. The American soldier was executed for disobeying a direct order. Your provenance for the account will have to come from source other than me.

Now I’m done, really.

If you're done, fine; you needn't respond and I consider that you've fulfilled my virtual CFR to my satisfaction.  Thanks!

As for what you write here, that adds details not in the original telling, and actually adds a degree of verisimilitude that wasn't present before.

It had been customary over the past few centuries to charge enemy soldiers out of uniform behind friendly lines as spies, for which the penalty was always death. During the American Revolution, for example, there was the case of Benedict Arnold's treason which involved a British soldier, Major Andre, whom his American captors grew to like because of his behavior, but nevertheless he was hung as a spy. And on the other side, American soldier Captain Nathan Hale, caught as a spy behind enemy lines by the British and hung for the same reason ("I regret I have but one life to give to my country"), whose courageous comportment in the face of death was, like Andre's, cause for sorrow at his death by his executioners.  I am aware that there were a number of incidents of German spies executed by firing squad during the war, by both the Americans as well as the British -- I did a little research and two that I am now aware of took place at the same time, in the Aachen area. It was apparently two Hitler Youth who were coerced by those over them to infiltrate American lines in civilian clothes and report on troop movements. And of course they were caught, and executed after a trial. Their names were Heinz Petry and Josef Schoner. Do those names ring any kind of bell?  No mention in the report I read indicated that a US soldier was also executed for disobedience of orders.

As for execution for disobedience of orders, that might under very emergent and exigent circumstances be lawful. For example, in the heat of battle a soldier's behavior before the enemy might justify summary execution by his commanding officer -- which post battle would be very closely examined for illegality.  If you can't imagine how this could possibly be justified, imagine a situation where a small force is in hiding from an enemy unit, when a panicking soldier is about to inadvertently reveal their position.  But mere disobedience not in the sight of the enemy (i.e. not in the heat of battle), would never justify capital punishment.  This is why I question the account.  Soldiers in battle tend to become tightly bonded by shared danger, and such a clearly illegal execution of one of their fellows would just not be allowed to fly. Any commander who tried it could afterwards find himself a victim of "friendly" fire in the heat of battle.

I'm actually intrigued by the story, and I may find the time to follow up and see if I can find out more about it.

Sorry for getting peevish with you.  I'm not happy with myself over that.

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Exactly.  A good book that documents the necessity of being responsible for your own self defense is:  Dial 911 and Die, promoted by Jews for the Preservation for FIrearms Ownership (jpfo.org).

Don't forget the Hungarian uprising in the '50s, where the people rose up against the Communists.

Oddly enough, I'm a JPFO member!  Hooray for Grandpa Jack!

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Don't forget the Hungarian uprising in the '50s, where the people rose up against the Communists.

The Russians were supposed to leave, by treaty, in 1955.  They didn't.  After their Austrian neighbors negotiated independence and non-alignment in 1955, with the Sovs (mostly) leaving as they were supposed to, Nagy, the Hungarian Premier, tried unsuccessfully to get the same deal.  The Sovs demurred.  The Party cracked down under orders from Moscow, and then a general uprising, similar to a Polish one shortly before, and a general melee ensued, put down by Soviet tanks in mid November 1956, as I recall.

Though Eisenhower probably wanted to intervene, and was probably bound by end-of-war undertakings, he didn't, with the States' having been left with no stomach for antiCommunism adventures following Korea.  The Brits and Frogs were in no position to help either.

The viciousness of the Sovs' responses to Polish and Hungarian attempts at independence, the 1955 Warsaw Pact notwithstanding, made clear what Warsaw Pact living conditions were going to be like.  We grew up with the sure knowledge of what a true police state looked like, one far more effective and soul-killing than even the National Socialists could achieve.