letterman pwns o'reilly...

[Canis]

My consistent argument has been that the legality (clarified later as practical legality -- the relevant legality) has to do with the enforcibility of the "laws" that folks establish, based on the premise for the reason why we have this notion of "law".

I argued that in this sense vietnam isnt illegal. Its immoral and horrible, but not illegal, yes. I wish it were, but without a controlling body to intervene and prevent such actions it is not illegal. The idea of international law is an ideal (one I wish was enforcible like true common law in a given society), and it therefore has little weight in the international arena. Great! Regardless of details, if one can find illegality in the war in vietnam by researching the UN charter, the UN having no effect in stopping such action makes that claim of illegality irrelevant. Without enforcement, such claims become whining and bitching to the perpetrator who then has to deal with appeasing and applying self-righteous argument to support his actions and diminish the negative feedback, if that's in his interest. That's a "Bush-ism" as you describe it Rook. Recognizing that this occurs is not.

Why is it that folks assume despite my saying otherwise, that I'm advocating this as something I like? I dont like this at all, but am supporting that this is the case despite my wishes it were otherwise. This is the way it is, as is seen by example after example in the international arena.

In that quote I wasnt being selective at all. I'm taking the whole definiton into context instead of splitting it up. Saying or seeing that I'm selectively ignoring my argument is just showing you're not understanding my point.

My logic doesnt fall on the admission of illegality in order for it to be so; rather, my argument claims quite simply (something folks here seem to either choose not to see -- selective ignorance, anyone? -- or just dont see) that illegality has no merit beyond being condemnative unless someone can enforce it. It has no validity unless it can be enforced.

If the COMMUNITY agrees it's legal, then it is enforced by the COMMUNITY.

Which comes right down to your elected representatives being the cause of the problem you so lament.

But instead of saying that you believe it is illegal, and thereby holding them to account, you unleash the logic that "that's just the way it is, sorry suckers."

If I may, I believe this is what you are trying to say:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' … 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

They're accountable by obviousness that they were the perpetrators of the controvertial actions, but the legality of it has no bearing without enforcement. They do take it as "Sorry suckers, what are you going to do about it" and butter it up with political rhetoric.

The distinction here, as I said above, is whether or not the community's claim of illegality without the ability or motivation to enforce it makes the claim relevant. The argument is a fine one in distinguishing legality from morality. The community can agree upon morals and values they would like to enact by law, and the ratification of such values establishes them as being backed by the community as a law. This means that for them to be law, the community has promised to uphold them and, hence, enforce them.

That quote appears to be in part how I view what's happening in the international arena, yes. I am iffy on some aspects of it, but the idea that the powerful ones have the control and make the rules is true. In democratic communities, the community has power in elections and determining law. In fascism, the guy with the guns has it. In monarchies, the king has it. In religions, the spiritual leaders have it.

[R00k]

Who knew it was a river in Egypt....

[Canis]

Who cares? That's not what the discussion is about. This discussion was fired right back up from the Vietnam argument.

You first said that our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because noone could prove that our sole and only purpose was killing innocents.

Now you're saying our actions in Vietnam weren't illegal, because there is no one to stop us.

One is a more specific view of the other. In trying to avoid getting lost in specifics I've just labeled all claimed illegalities in the war in vietnam as "claims of illegality". The starvation claim and it being a sole purpose is one of them. I argued on a second stance that I dont believe it was their sole purpose to attack civilians, but thats different than the argument on the notion of legality/illegality in the international arena. They bridge on the basis of "what are folks going to do about it?" but that's tangential to the argument at hand.

There are multiple ideas being argued and discussed here. I know its tough to keep them separate at times, I have a hard time myself periodically. Lets not confuse issues even more by melding these various arguments together.

Listen, I understand what you are trying to say - about the practical application of law.

My point is that it's a useless statement. Every one of us is painfully aware of how things are already working out with the UN and international law - we see it every day. What exactly are you trying to tell us that we don't already know?

After all, we were asking for your opinion; you basically answered "that's the way things are." If that's the best you can do when it comes to things like genocide and civilian eradication, then it's pretty hard to believe you really disagree with the situation very strongly - if at all.

I had an opinion that differed from others in terms of legality, and I'm not excusing this or dismissing the advantages taken of this with "that's the way things are". Rather, I'm focusing on what I see being claims of righteousness and illegality that people are trying to use to some effect, when, in my argument, I was hoping to convey that there is no such effect. That isnt, however, to say that efforts and the voicing of opinion shouldnt be made.

In a contrary view to your question "What are you trying to tell us that we dont already know?", this argument should speak wonders to that. Its too bad if what you were looking for was basic support for your claim. Although I'm not in disagreement with the morality behind your claims, I am in disagreement with the practicality of what was being said.

[R00k]

They're accountable by obviousness that they were the perpetrators of the controvertial actions, but the legality of it has no bearing without enforcement. They do take it as "Sorry suckers, what are you going to do about it" and butter it up with political rhetoric.

The distinction here, as I said above, is whether or not the community's claim of illegality without the ability or motivation to enforce it makes the claim relevant. The argument is a fine one in distinguishing legality from morality. The community can agree upon morals and values they would like to enact by law, and the ratification of such values establishes them as being backed by the community as a law. This means that for them to be law, the community has promised to uphold them and, hence, enforce them.

It sounds an awful lot like you are extending your view of legality to the United States, and asserting that there is no way to enforce legality in our own country. Otherwise you would recognize what I was saying - that YOU are the enforcement for politicians who perpetrate illegal actions.

That quote appears to be in part how I view what's happening in the international arena, yes. I am iffy on some aspects of it, but the idea that the powerful ones have the control and make the rules is true. In democratic communities, the community has power in elections and determining law. In fascism, the guy with the guns has it. In monarchies, the king has it. In religions, the spiritual leaders have it.

That was a quote from a senior Bush administration official to a journalist.

I personally find it frightening that this comment could even be made by a government servant, to a member of the taxpaying public, without any repercussions. But there are too many people who won't speak out against it - like yourself - for any repercussions to take place.

You are content to simply react by saying, "Yes, that is a mostly true statement."

[Foo]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law

lol argument over a term which can be found in a dictionary.

[Canis]

They're accountable by obviousness that they were the perpetrators of the controvertial actions, but the legality of it has no bearing without enforcement. They do take it as "Sorry suckers, what are you going to do about it" and butter it up with political rhetoric.

The distinction here, as I said above, is whether or not the community's claim of illegality without the ability or motivation to enforce it makes the claim relevant. The argument is a fine one in distinguishing legality from morality. The community can agree upon morals and values they would like to enact by law, and the ratification of such values establishes them as being backed by the community as a law. This means that for them to be law, the community has promised to uphold them and, hence, enforce them.

It sounds an awful lot like you are extending your view of legality to the United States, and asserting that there is no way to enforce legality in our own country. Otherwise you would recognize what I was saying - that YOU are the enforcement for politicians who perpetrate illegal actions.

That quote appears to be in part how I view what's happening in the international arena, yes. I am iffy on some aspects of it, but the idea that the powerful ones have the control and make the rules is true. In democratic communities, the community has power in elections and determining law. In fascism, the guy with the guns has it. In monarchies, the king has it. In religions, the spiritual leaders have it.

That was a quote from a senior Bush administration official to a journalist.

I was not doing that at all, but was using it in examples to show that enforcement is how we uphold legality. In the US the people institute the power, so as such it is derived from the community. The people enact it in this way, but it is the policing and judicial forces that maintain the law, and hence uphold the legality of it. I distinguished this from other social structures, such as dictatorships and monarchies.

That quote being from a Bush administration official has no bearing on the point I'm getting across. Like I said before, I do not wish for that to be the case, but unfortunately through example after example, it has proven itself to be the case. The problem is when folks advocate for that and push it in their self-interest. Bush does this, and I am against it. Bush does what I've been arguing happens in the international arena, and I am against it.

[Canis]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law

lol argument over a term which can be found in a dictionary.

Not really, but rather an argument over its applicability in various circumstances, namely the international arena. Not solely this, but also in societies and the differences between these situation (international vs societal), and what it means to claim illegality in various situations.

[Foo]

Saying that the legality of something is irrelevant makes sense, but to then state that becuase it's irrelevant, it's not illegal, is doublethink.

[R00k]

You have spent all this time and effort to open our eyes and tell us "how it is."

Nevermind being active and promoting change - I guess that would be a waste of time.

You never disputed that things were technically illegal - although that's the way you started out - but just thought you should let everyone know that "Hey, people escape accountability all the time, so what!"

[Canis]

Saying that the legality of something is irrelevant makes sense, but to then state that becuase it's irrelevant, it's not illegal, is doublethink.

Ah! Well, the claim of illegality is then just a condemnation, is it not? Its no different than saying "Our little (or big) group of like-minded folks disagrees with what you've done". That's the extent of what that does. The notion of legality has an "effect" connotation to it that if something is found to be illegal, repercussive action will be taken. Otherwise, legality is no different than morality.

[R00k]

BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

[Canis]

You have spent all this time and effort to open our eyes and tell us "how it is."

Nevermind being active and promoting change - I guess that would be a waste of time.

You never disputed that things were technically illegal - although that's the way you started out - but just thought you should let everyone know that "Hey, people escape accountability all the time, so what!"

I dont really care if folks open their eyes to it, but folks seemed to have wanted to discuss it, and many seemed to want to just fight over it. I have disputed things were technically illegal based on the premise of illegality as requiring enforcement capability and motivation. I've refined my argument to not dispute conceptual illegality, but I see no difference between that and morality. Folks seem to see this as a change in my whole position and therefore are claiming hypocracy.

Its not "Hey. people escape accountability all teh time, so what?', but rather "people know they will escape accountability and will say 'so what' because folks dont have the motivation and means to hold them accountable by the laws they enact (in the international arena)".

[Canis]

BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

That's just limited to the claim of illegality, which has no EFFECT! My point revolves around the distinction between morality and illegality as morality being conceptual and taken into account because of desire for community, and illegality being more than that in having an enforcement support (pre-defined and existing) for those morals that are accepted as law.

[R00k]

I dont really care if folks open their eyes to it, but folks seemed to have wanted to discuss it, and many seemed to want to just fight over it. I have disputed things were technically illegal based on the premise of illegality as requiring enforcement capability and motivation. I've refined my argument to not dispute conceptual illegality, but I see no difference between that and morality. Folks seem to see this as a change in my whole position and therefore are claiming hypocracy.

Its not "Hey. people escape accountability all teh time, so what?', but rather "people know they will escape accountability and will say 'so what' because folks dont have the motivation and means to hold them accountable by the laws they enact (in the international arena)".

The reason people called it hypocritical, is that it took 15 pages of debating in order to say what you meant; when it could easily have been said in a couple of sentences. And you were being argumentative right back, making it sound like you were in opposition to what people were saying.

Are you now saying that the atrocities committed in Vietnam were conceptually illegal?

[Canis]

It took a while to clarify that this was the distinction, for everyone involved.

I'm saying that conceptual illegality is the same as morality, and in this sense I've not disagreed since day 1. However, what I've been arguing agains (and in part what has taken so long to distinguish) was the idea of practical illegality, which in my view is what distinguishes legality in its entirety from morality.

Those definitions established, there is no effect, and therefore relevance in just claiming conceptual illegality in an action and not enacting pracitical legality over that action.

So far, this is as refined as I can get it. If it took so long, apologies, but I dont think myself or anyone else was aware of this distinction in this argument before it being clarified today. (or were just making assumptions over the distinction)

[R00k]

So you are saying that calling something illegal is silly (irrelevant), if there is no one around to punish the perpetrator.

Also, you think worldwide condemnation of an action is useless, if no military/political action winds up being taken.

[Canis]

Im saying to just do that is irrelevant, and that is what claiming illegality in the international arena is, especially given that its anarchic in nature and there is no governing authority that can do anything about it.

Its not pointless in that it shows condemnation of the act, but thats all it can be, unless folks resort to military action or economic sanctions. In that it has no effect in stopping the actions it is useless, but not for the expression of values. That, however, doesnt seem to have much effect. It only is used by politicians to give additional weight to their justification of their actions, and even this is minimal in affecting any outcome, especially given that political offices are held for too short of a time for such vocalizations to have that minimal effect before elections come up again.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

[R00k]

Im saying to just do that is irrelevant, and that is what claiming illegality in the international arena is, especially given that its anarchic in nature and there is no governing authority that can do anything about it.

Its not pointless in that it shows condemnation of the act, but thats all it can be, unless folks resort to military action or economic sanctions. In that it has no effect in stopping the actions it is useless, but not for the expression of values. That, however, doesnt seem to have much effect. It only is used by politicians to give additional weight to their justification of their actions, and even this is minimal in affecting any outcome, especially given that political offices are held for too short of a time for such vocalizations to have that minimal effect before elections come up again.

So you think all the atrocities committed in Vietnam were technically (conceptually) illegal, but to actually say so is irrelevant and pointless.

[Canis]

You're driving at absolutes and turning this into black and white, despite what I've said.

Its not pointless to in that it shows condemnation, but that is all it can be. Is voicing opinion pointless? I dont think so, but it hasnt proven to have much affect in changing international policy. Voting does that. Its point is to show support or lack thereof for a given action, and hopefully influence elections (even that doesnt change it, as was demonstrated in the last US election). It has little effect if any on those in power during the time of the condemnation.

[R00k]

No, I'm just having a hard time figuring out why you have put things the way you have, and hence having a hard time believing you at all.

When we first began this, and the question of legality in Vietnam came up, you could have very concisely clarified your stance by saying something along these lines:

"Yes, it was technically illegal, but unfortunately that doesn't mean a lot in the international community, unless someone gets a spine and does something about it to hold the perpetrators accountable."

Shit, even I would agree with a statement like that.

Instead you said something more like:

"No, that wasn't illegal."

[Canis]

I wasnt viewing legality as seen in two parts as others seem to have defined it, one part being conceptual and the other being practical. I was rather seeing the notion of conceptual legality as no different than morality. I still see no difference, but if it makes it any easier on folks I'm using that in my argument. To me, legality encompases morality, but to others, the view of legality is seemingly both separate and the same as morality. This has been the premise of the whole argument, and as such I've denied the definition of legality as folks here have claimed it to be, but just recently have resorted to it for the sake of conversational clarity.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

lay off the acid.

that's my advice.

[Canis]

lay off the acid.

that's my advice.

Ok there....geoff.

[LazyLLama]

dave is saying he is stoopid but even he know oreilly is full of crap...thats ownage...ur a moron...

No, he's NOT a moron, and NO, thats not "ownage"
The problem with this world is people like yourself who refuse to realize your mesmerized by the liberal media and Hollywood. Bill O' Reilly is one of the few people on television actually debating issues that matter to this country (assuming your from the U.S.). And if you've watched his show you'll realize he's probably the only balanced news caster/debater out there. He's also one of the only people out there who realizes this country needs to stop bitching and moaning and start realizing we're fighting terrorists in Iraq and everything our troops are doing overseas for us is preventing the fight from coming here.

Secondly, Letterman is the Moron for saying O' Reilly is "full of crap" when he's "never even watched his show"!! How could someone argue another's point of view if he has no idea what he is talking about. I can tell you right now, even if you don't like O'Reilly, atleast he's not a far left bomb throwing liberal like Letterman who appeases to the crowd to save him when O'Reilly asks him important, REAL questions that matter, not some entertainment bullshit to make the crowd laugh like "your 60% full of crap."

P.S. I can tell your a real "class act" by your "respectful" signature...(sarcasm intended)