Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [mythsoc] Re: More no comment...

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... Yup. I knew none of this, but from what you quote it seems that he was the terrorists 14-year-old laundryman, cook, and translator. Forgive me for
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
      "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:

      >Poor thing indeed

      Yup. I knew none of this, but from what you quote it seems that he was the terrorists' 14-year-old laundryman, cook, and translator. Forgive me for suspecting that he might bear something less than full adult responsibility for all of their actions.

      >Khadr's native Canada has a vast array of movie theaters, any one of which Khadr could
      >visit at any time had his father not "tossed his little child in the furnace of the battle".

      But do their prisons? Even granted that he belongs in prison, why should he be prevented from seeing a movie?

      >I could not agree more, but I suspect that you and I locate Mordor in different places in
      >this sad history.

      Let's try a few more Tolkien quotes then. Start with discussion of LOTR's most noted prisoner, S. Gollum:

      Gandalf: "The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts." (There is no record of whether they had movie-theatres.)

      Frodo: "So let us forgive him!" (True, Frodo had reaons to say this which are not applicable here. But considering that the context of this conversation is Gollum's having physically maimed Frodo, it's even more a remarkable example of mercy.)

      And then there's Gandalf to Denethor on all their enemies: "And for me, I pity even his slaves."

      I do not think an attitude of "He (or, more accurately, his father) made his bed; let him lie in it" is very Tolkienian.
    • Mike Foster
      I think that many of us would agree that when this unfortunate young man finally gets to see the Jackson Fellowship, we would hope that his first reaction
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
        I think that many of us would agree that when this unfortunate young man
        finally gets to see the Jackson "Fellowship," we would hope that his
        first reaction would be, "Hey.where's Tom Bombadil?"



        -----Original Message-----
        From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of David Bratman
        Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:49 AM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: More no comment...

        "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@elvish. <mailto:Aelfwine%40elvish.org>
        org> wrote:

        >Poor thing indeed

        Yup. I knew none of this, but from what you quote it seems that he was
        the terrorists' 14-year-old laundryman, cook, and translator. Forgive me
        for suspecting that he might bear something less than full adult
        responsibility for all of their actions.

        >Khadr's native Canada has a vast array of movie theaters, any one of
        which Khadr could
        >visit at any time had his father not "tossed his little child in the
        furnace of the battle".

        But do their prisons? Even granted that he belongs in prison, why should
        he be prevented from seeing a movie?

        >I could not agree more, but I suspect that you and I locate Mordor in
        different places in
        >this sad history.

        Let's try a few more Tolkien quotes then. Start with discussion of
        LOTR's most noted prisoner, S. Gollum:

        Gandalf: "The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with
        such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts." (There is no
        record of whether they had movie-theatres.)

        Frodo: "So let us forgive him!" (True, Frodo had reaons to say this
        which are not applicable here. But considering that the context of this
        conversation is Gollum's having physically maimed Frodo, it's even more
        a remarkable example of mercy.)

        And then there's Gandalf to Denethor on all their enemies: "And for me,
        I pity even his slaves."

        I do not think an attitude of "He (or, more accurately, his father) made
        his bed; let him lie in it" is very Tolkienian.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Emerson
        ... And would feel like this: http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr_special_editorial.jpg emerdavid ________________________________________ PeoplePC
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
          >I think that many of us would agree that when this unfortunate young man
          >finally gets to see the Jackson "Fellowship," we would hope that his
          >first reaction would be, "Hey.where's Tom Bombadil?"

          And would feel like this: http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr_special_editorial.jpg

          emerdavid

          ________________________________________
          PeoplePC Online
          A better way to Internet
          http://www.peoplepc.com
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... If you read the article, you will see that he is charged with lobbing a hand-grenade at troops, not with being a laundryman, cook, or translator. If he did
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:

            > Yup. I knew none of this, but from what you quote it seems that he was the
            > terrorists' 14-year-old laundryman, cook, and translator.

            If you read the article, you will see that he is charged with lobbing a hand-grenade at
            troops, not with being a laundryman, cook, or translator. If he did so, he surely bears
            responsibility for it.

            >> Khadr's native Canada has a vast array of movie theaters, any one of which
            >> Khadr could visit at any time had his father not "tossed his little child in the furnace
            >>of the battle".
            >
            > But do their prisons?

            I don't know. I bet you could find out, though.

            > Even granted that he belongs in prison, why should he be prevented from seeing
            > a movie?

            Assuming that he is so prevented, is it really reasonable for us, sitting here, to presume
            that our estimation of what is proper and safe for prisoners to be allowed to do is superior
            to that of those who actually are responsible for deciding on and implementing procedures
            for prisoners, and who actually risk their own safety, and that of the prisoners, in
            managing their activities and access? I wouldn't so presume, certainly not when all that is
            "at stake" is a prisoner's right to watch movies.

            > Gandalf: "The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness
            > as they can find in their wise hearts."

            From what I've read, prisoners in Guantanamo are treated with remarkable kindness. Most
            prisoners actually gain weight, for instance, because their food is so much better and more
            plentiful than they had "in country". That is, those not persuaded by international
            observers to engage in periodic hunger strikes to generate publicity for those observers.

            > I do not think an attitude of "He (or, more accurately, his father) made his bed; let him
            > lie in it" is very Tolkienian.

            To whom are you ascribing that attitude? It is certainly not mine.

            Carl
          • Merlin DeTardo
            ...
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
              ---"Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
              << I think that many of us would agree that when this unfortunate
              young man finally gets to see the Jackson "Fellowship," we would hope
              that his first reaction would be, "Hey, where's Tom Bombadil?" >>

              Speaking of Bombadil, his absence from the film was the jumping-off
              point for a fun open discussion on his nature at a very enjoyable
              Tolkien conference this weekend at the University of Vermont. This
              was the fifth consecutive year the conference has run in Burlington.
              Though the weekend includes "open mike" Tolkien readings and
              discussion on Friday evening, and readings of papers by UVM
              undergraduates on Sunday morning, the conference is largely a one-day
              affair, with papers by academic and independent scholars presented
              all day Saturday, concluding with a keynote speaker. The conference
              was free and open to the public, though almost all of the attendees
              were either presenters or UVM students. I've had a great time
              attending this conference this year and last. In 2007, Doug Anderson
              was the keynote speaker; this year the speaker was Marjorie Burns. A
              schedule was posted here:

              http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?
              post=86925#86925

              Next year's conference has been announced for Apr. 10-12, 2009, with
              Jane Chance as keynote speaker. I believe Christopher Vaccaro at UVM
              will send out a call-for-papers in the fall.

              -Merlin DeTardo
            • David Bratman
              ... The text you forwarded - which surely would be your strongest case - said that the occupants of the hut did that, not that he specifically lobbed any
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
                "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:

                >If you read the article, you will see that he is charged with lobbing a hand-grenade at
                >troops, not with being a laundryman, cook, or translator. If he did so, he surely bears
                >responsibility for it.

                The text you forwarded - which surely would be your strongest case - said that "the occupants of the hut" did that, not that he specifically lobbed any himself.

                Interesting that you should write "charged", because he's never been formally charged with anything. He's been in prison for six years without a trial.

                And if he did lob a grenade - well, that's certainly sufficient of a crime to lock a 14-year-old up for six years and counting, without a trial.

                And what I actually wrote about responsibility was to doubt that he bears "full adult responsibility for all of [the terrorists'] actions." In our legal system, it is customary, when a 14-year-old is charged with even the most heinous crimes, for a considerable amount of legal discussion to go on as to whether to try him as an adult, i.e. one bearing full responsibility. But this guy hasn't had that either.

                >>> Khadr's native Canada has a vast array of movie theaters, any one of which
                >>> Khadr could visit at any time had his father not "tossed his little child in the furnace
                >>>of the battle".
                >>
                >> But do their prisons?
                >
                >I don't know. I bet you could find out, though.

                Well, in probably less time than it took you to write that comment, a little random googling produced an article at <http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2007/11/crimescenes.php> describing Canadian prisoners watching not a movie, but live theatre, and not only watching it, but themselves producing a Shakespeare play with lots of murders in it. Of course, as the summary at the top says, "The prison’s 26-year-old theatre program draws fire from right-wing critics, who think prisoners shouldn’t be having fun."

                >> Even granted that he belongs in prison, why should he be prevented from seeing
                >> a movie?
                >
                >Assuming that he is so prevented, is it really reasonable for us, sitting here, to presume
                >that our estimation of what is proper and safe for prisoners to be allowed to do is superior
                >to that of those who actually are responsible for deciding on and implementing procedures
                >for prisoners, and who actually risk their own safety, and that of the prisoners, in
                >managing their activities and access? I wouldn't so presume, certainly not when all that is
                >"at stake" is a prisoner's right to watch movies.

                I live in what at any rate used to be a free country, where the citizens' right to critically examine and criticize its leaders' decisions is not only a right, but almost a civic obligation. Especially when we see them locking up 14-year-old boys for six years without a trial. And assuring us that everyone they have there is "the worst of the worst," but then quietly letting many of them go after several years of incarceration. And I really have to wonder why it's so dangerous for him to read Peter Jackson's screenplay, and why his lawyer is now prohibited from performing other social bonding activities which were previously permitted. I'm not constructed so as to take "Because They say so" as a good answer.

                This skepticism of authority is something I'd thought I would share with people who call themselves libertarians.

                Anyway: when you're not allowed to do much of anything else, the right to watch a movie - or, in this case, read a screenplay - can become significant. The right to watch a movie seems trivial to us only because nobody's stopping us from doing it. In prison this sort of thing is called petty harassment, and its effect is cumulative. It even applies when the person really being harassed is the lawyer whom the authorities finally let the prisoner have.

                >From what I've read, prisoners in Guantanamo are treated with remarkable kindness. Most
                >prisoners actually gain weight, for instance, because their food is so much better and more
                >plentiful than they had "in country".

                Wait! I thought these prisoners were horrible people who lob grenades and we shouldn't coddle them! Well, ours not to reason why, ours merely to accept whatever our leaders tell us, jawohl, to applaud harassment when they say harass, and applaud coddling when they say coddle. Why, the food is so wonderful, it's a mystery that people don't clamor to get in. Those noted gourmets Donald Rumseld and the purveyors of the MRE have assured us of its quality.

                >That is, those not persuaded by international
                >observers to engage in periodic hunger strikes to generate publicity for those observers.

                Oo, those awful hunger strikers, just trying to annoy our noble guardians. After all, they have nothing to complain about. The food is so good, and they get to watch first-run ... whoops, no they don't.

                >> I do not think an attitude of "He (or, more accurately, his father) made his bed; let him
                >> lie in it" is very Tolkienian.
                >
                >To whom are you ascribing that attitude? It is certainly not mine.

                I'm referring to the person who wrote, "Khadr's native Canada has a vast array of movie theaters, any one of which Khadr could visit at any time had his father not 'tossed his little child in the furnace of the battle'."
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                ... What case are you referring to? I simply related what he was charged with, not what he actually did. Whether he is guilty of the charge is for others (in
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
                  On Apr 14, 2008, at 6:03 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                  > The text you forwarded - which surely would be your strongest case -
                  > said that "the occupants of the hut" did that, not that he
                  > specifically lobbed any himself.
                  >
                  What "case" are you referring to? I simply related what he was charged
                  with, not what he actually did. Whether he is guilty of the charge is
                  for others (in this case, a military tribunal, see below) to decide.
                  > Interesting that you should write "charged", because he's never been
                  > formally charged with anything.
                  >
                  Says who? The Wikipedia article states right up top that Khadr was
                  "charged with war crimes and providing support to terrorism after
                  allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier", and provides a
                  source link.
                  > And if he did lob a grenade - well, that's certainly sufficient of a
                  > crime to lock a 14-year-old up for six years and counting, without a
                  > trial.
                  >
                  He was 15 at the time of the battle, not 14, and he turned 16 while
                  awaiting processing to Guantanamo (as the article notes). In any
                  event, I remind you that like all enemy combatants throughout the
                  whole history of the United States, Khadr is subject to military, not
                  civilian, justice. Military courts do not operate the same way
                  civilian courts do, they do not afford the same protections and
                  rights, and they NEVER HAVE. And the fact remains that he is a
                  Canadian native, but Canada does not want him back. If Canada wanted
                  him back, they could extradite and repatriate him; they refuse to do
                  so. So what exactly is the US supposed to do with him?
                  > In our legal system, it is customary, when a 14-year-old is charged
                  > with even the most heinous crimes, for a considerable amount of
                  > legal discussion to go on as to whether to try him as an adult, i.e.
                  > one bearing full responsibility. But this guy hasn't had that either.
                  >
                  Again, you are confusing civilian courts with military courts. And
                  this fact of history and law in the United States suffices to reply to
                  the rest of your post, except this:
                  > >> But do their prisons?
                  > >
                  > >I don't know. I bet you could find out, though.
                  >
                  > Well, in probably less time than it took you to write that comment,
                  > a little random googling produced an article at <http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2007/11/crimescenes.php
                  > >
                  >
                  Thus your (now) googling to answer YOUR OWN QUESTION took about the
                  same time as it took for you to type YOUR OWN QUESTION in the first
                  place.

                  If you wish to continue this discussion, I'm happy to do so OFF LIST.

                  Carl
                • David Bratman
                  Well, the same article in Wikipedia, font of all knowledge, that reports that he s accused of throwing the grenade also cites a Pentagon report saying there s
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
                    Well, the same article in Wikipedia, font of all knowledge, that reports that he's accused of throwing the grenade also cites a Pentagon report saying there's no evidence that it was he who did it, and the military tribunals have gone around this too. Oh, and if he was 15 at the time? That makes SO much difference. Fifteen is the age of majority, after all.

                    But all of this is irrelevant to the main point. Be he guilty as possible, and however well he's being fed, I still have a drop of human feeling for a 21-year-old whose main desire in life is to see a movie he's not even allowed to read the screenplay of. That still seems a strange punishment for his father having taken him to be reared among the terrorists.

                    If Frodo can forgive Gollum, after all he did, I can expend a little sympathy for a confused young LOTR fan. And I think that, rather than dropping tons of evidence about how GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY he is, is the Tolkienian, even the human, reaction.
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    I reject your ad hominem attack, your willful misreading and mischaracterization of the content and purpose of my posts, and your refusal to engage my actual
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
                      I reject your ad hominem attack, your willful misreading and
                      mischaracterization of the content and purpose of my posts, and your
                      refusal to engage my actual statements or to acknowledge my
                      corrections to your many false assertions about the fundamental
                      matters and facts of the case.

                      And again, this does not belong ON THE LIST.

                      Carl
                    • David Bratman
                      However, discussion of Tolkien does belong on the list, and that is where I returned it. Reading the latest response, I am reminded of a Middle-earth creature
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 14, 2008
                        However, discussion of Tolkien does belong on the list, and that is where I returned it.

                        Reading the latest response, I am reminded of a Middle-earth creature called a troll ...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.