Here's two articles on the current Roger Clemens' rights being grossly violated situation:
"Burden of Proof is on Clemens."
Physical Evidence Against Clemens.
I don't care whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids, and Congress shouldn't care either. So Stephen Lynch says the burden of proof is on Clemens? The way I see it, the burden of proof is on Stephen Lynch to show whether or not he still deserves the right to exist. It would be morally justified for Clemens to kill him, and no, I am not exaggerating.
16 comments:
"The way I see it, the burden of proof is on Stephen Lynch to show whether or not he still deserves the right to exist. It would be morally justified for Clemens to kill him, and no, I am not exaggerating."
You wanna clarify this one a little bit? Maybe start with the basics of when it is and isn't justified to kill someone, and build it from there.
In addition, does Clemen's moral right to take a human life hinge at all on whether or not he's actually guilty of steroid use, or is it independent of it?
No, I would say it has nothing to do with whether or not he used steroids. He should have the right to use as many steroids as he wants, at least legally. What the MLB does about steroids is a private matter so that's different, but Congress should not be involved. What Congress is doing to Clemens right now is, in effect, equivalent to them taking his life. By not allowing him to live as a human being should live---as a rational and free human being---the men on this Committee demonstrate that they have no respect for rights whatsoever and thus would not hesitate to literally kill him if they stood to gain from it and could get away with it. They are stealing his time, purposely humiliating him, threatening him, denying him the right to a fair trial, etc. The main thing here is that they are forcing him to go to great lengths to prove something that morally he is not required to have to prove at all.
Since when is it an offense punishable by 5 years in jail to lie to Congress? I can understand perjury in a true court of law being a punishable offense, but as far as Congress is concerned I believe the right to free speech covers the right to lie as well (is this true Mom?).
Here is what I was trying to say put into much better words in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government:
"Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.
Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it."
Basically my view is that what is at stake here for Clemens is not just a small matter within his life, but, in effect, nothing short of his life itself.
Well, I'm not Mom. But, if I were Roger Clemens, there would be murder in my heart. He is being lynched. George Mitchell is a despicable human being and a sanctimonious snob.
What congress is doing to clemens is WORSE than taking his life. They are taking any shred of dignity that he had, and he has to live with it. And I have never been a big fan of Clemens' dignity. I remember him throwing that bat at Mike Piazza saying, "I thought it was the ball!" Yeah, right, Roger. Still, I would not wish what is happening to him on (almost) anybody. I hope he stonewalls them until he can't anymore and then says FU, you bastards. I also hope his family understands.
Really, it just makes me sick to my stomach. Which is an organ INSIDE the abdomen, and not the abdomen itself.
I, in fact, am Mom. And I agree that somewhere in there with the baseball thing with steroids and Goerge Mitchell, somebody forgot about a little detail in the Constitution called due process. However, since you asked, it is a crime to lie to Congress -- a felony, in fact. Here's the statute. Remember that this law does not necessarily control what a person DOES. It controls only whether that person tells the truth about it.
I haven't been nuts about Roger Clemens since I learned, way back when he was still playing for the Red Sox, that he was charging little kids for his autograph. Still, this -- guilt without a trial -- shouldn't be happening to anybody.
Man, I can't imagine how upset you guys must get about people being held without trial in Guantanamo Bay.
I find it hard to have much pity for Roger. Luke, you can shade it in all the pseudoethical terms you want, but his actions, if he's guilty, were against federal law (again, whether you agree with it or not) and against the rules of the organization in which he chose to partake. If he's not guilty, the paraphenelia that McNamee turned over should clear him pretty soon, at which point Clemens' lawsuit will have plenty of ammunition and targets. And yes, his name will be permanently associated with steroids, which is a damn shame for sure...and not much else. I mean, what's it REALLY mean? If he knows he's innocent, and his family knows he's innocent, he's got all he needs.
And you can correct me, but I'm fairly certain the committee isn't stopping Roger Clemens from living as a rational and free human being at all. They are most definitely impugning his character and defaming him, but I don't think that equates to "they would not hesitate to literally kill him." Cause I'm pretty sure they would. Hesitate, that is.
Mitchell launched an investigation into steroid use in baseball as a result of Bug Selig and Congress. Blame them, for starters. Then, in the report he was obligated to make, he specifically stated that no one there was guilty until proven so, and also that making what he had found public was the only way that it would be taken seriously by anyone, and the only way Selig and Congress would accept it.
Basically, I completely agree that Congress shouldn't be involved. It's idiotic. Much like Congress. And while you may feel that he has the right to use as many steroids as he wants, most people disagree with you, which is why it's illegal. Again, it's illegal. It's not like he took them as a form of civil disobedience, either.
But seriously...the right to kill? Locke's a brilliant philosopher, but if you honestly believe his argument, how can you NOT extrapolate that to EVERY person being tried for a crime? To every innocent man being taken in for questioning by the police? If a man who knows he's innocent is accused of murder and tried, does it give him the right to kill the DA? Police blotters publish peoples' names on a regular basis, long before they're tried for crimes. Can they take out the newspaper editor?
Caleb, are you sure about the illegal part? Steroids covers a lot of substances. Were the particular substances against the law or was a prescription required? Did we know what the subastances were exactly? Wasn't this 6-8 years ago? Is there not a statute of limitations? If he was charged with breaking a particular law, I'm unaware of it. Instead, his name was smeared with the assertion that he used steroids. When you say "if he's guilty" I'm not sure exactly what the charge is. Is there a charge?
I see no moral equivalence between terrorists who have waged war against us and Roger Clemens injecting steroids a few times.
No, I'm not sure. I looked up Stanozolol, the anabolic steroid that McNamee says he injected Clemens with over a dozen times, but I only have a few minutes and couldn't find anything concrete on its legal status in '01. It's currently in medical use now, with a prescription. I am fairly certain it's illegal to take prescription drugs without a prescription, but I can't back that up.
I'm not arguing moral equivalency in their crimes, just pointing out that they're all being held without trial. The case against Clemens is fully and presumably completely in the public arena, their cases are classified. Clemens lives at home with his family, they live in cells in Cuba. Clemens is free to spend yesterday walking around Washington making his case to various senators, they're assigned government lawyers who may or may not do anything to help them. Clemens is not charged with a crime, and I'm not really sure they are either.
So let me ask you...are you sure about the terrorist part? Terrorism covers a lot of activities these days. Are you sure that one of them wasn't fingered inaccurately by some asshole they might have pissed off, or by someone who was threatened and abused before he gave their names? Are you sure they're guilty? 'Cause it seems to me that no one can be, we just have to take the word of the government. And the government can be a little flawed. I watched "In the Name of the Father" the other day (Daniel Day Lewis as Gerry Conlon, falsely convicted as an IRA bomber). Great movie, even better acting. Shows what can happen when a government responds to terrorism by removing police oversight and due process protections.
I only mention them because you guys are rightfully nauseated and disgusted by the lack of due process, by them practically taking his life, threatening him, defaming him, etc., and I'm trying to figure out if these are categorical principles or if they only apply to baseball players.
From the Mitchell Report:
"Since 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has prohibited distribution of all prescription drugs except when...under the physician’s
supervision.
In 1970...Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act, which among other things established criminal penalties for drug offenses.56 The act created five schedules of controlled substances that
categorized pharmaceuticals and drugs of abuse based on their “potential for abuse, accepted
medical utility, and safety of use under medical supervision.”
The categories ranged from
Schedule I, which was reserved for drugs such as heroin...to Schedule V, for drugs that have a “currently accepted medical use” and a “low potential for abuse.”58
...
The 1990 amendment, called the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990...reclassified
anabolic steroids as Schedule III controlled substances, effectively raising penalties for their
illegal possession or distribution to levels similar to those applicable to narcotics."
Mostly concerns distribution, but there's some mention of possession in there...no idea how it all relates to use.
Gotta go wrestle some heifers so more later, but I did find that testosterone and some other anabolic steroids were made exempt from the CSA in 1997.
Good replies, Caleb. If ya wanna put anything up about working in the swine barn I'd love to know what it was like.
We're actually bringing a camera with us tonight, so I should have good info and hopefully pictures. We've been asked not to post too much online, actually, in terms of pictures, because they don't pictures falling into the hands of PETA, etc., and getting twisted. There's a lot of controversy around swine farming these days.
I thought about it all morning and decided to back off of my guantanamo bay comparisons. It's a very interesting and divisive legal and ethical area, but POWs can't really be compared to US Citizens, especially when talking about the impact of constitutional protections. I do believe that the right to due process is a natural right, not one that requires a government to institute it, and is thus a right belonging to anyone and everyone...but a war situation is such a gray area.
The rest of it I stand by, and I'd really like to return to the whole "right to kill" part, which I find just mindboggling.
Wow lots of comments since I last looked at this. A few things:
1. I'm not gonna talk about Guantanamo Bay. No, I'm not trying to avoid it, I just honestly still don't know very much about it (I'll get around to it eventually). Caleb you may or may not be right about it, I honestly don't know.
2. I mentioned some things in my other posts that were pretty superfluous, like how Congress is embarrassing Clemens. That has nothing to do with my argument and I shouldn't have mentioned it. No one has a natural right to live free of embarrassment, that'd be ridiculous. You're also right when you say that his name being tarnished isn't really a big deal. His personal dignity is all that he needs. The issue here is that Congress is using the threat of force (jail time) to make Clemens do something that he shouldn't have to do at all, and it's not just a minor thing. I couldn't justify killing someone if they stole a tissue from me, but if I were walking down the street and carrying a gun, and someone pick-pocketed my wallet, I think it would be okay to shoot them on the spot.
3. Mom: Okay so it is illegal to lie to Congress, kind of scares me. Are you still allowed to plead the 5th and say nothing at all?
4. Caleb I don't pity Clemens either. In fact I know just about nothing about his character or what he deserves and doesn't deserve, and I don't care to know. I also don't care what the FDA says, it shouldn't even exist as far as I'm concerned. I also don't care that most people disagree with me about steroids. Legality and morality are not the same thing and are sometimes quite contradictory to each other.
5. I don't understand what you mean by the word pseudoethical. I'm not trying to shade anything here, I honestly believe this stuff.
6. I disagree about the people on the Committee and whether or not they would hesitate to kill Clemens. I can't know for sure what they would do, but they have demonstrated that they don't have respect for rights. I do think that when someone demonstrates that, you can assume that that applies in any scenario, especially when it is YOUR rights being violated. Try to imagine a situation in which these guys could gain a lot of power or money or whatever from killing Clemens, and that they could also get away with it. Maybe these guys aren't malicious at all, they are just stupid and actually believe they are doing something good. Their intent does not matter to me. I would argue, although it's impossible to quantify, that throughout history the stupid have done a lot more damage than the malicious. Also, is the threat of jail any different from the threat of death? I would say hardly.
7. You bring up interesting points about just when and why is it okay to kill someone. The tough thing about these situations is that they are usually the result of collective action, in which nobody and everybody is to blame. For example, if you are an innocent man on death row, would it be justified for you to kill all of the guards in order to escape? I'm not sure and it is tough to say because no one person is really responsible for you being in jail. This is certainly a situation of collective action, but it appears that Stephen Lynch is happy to take as much responsibility and credit for what is going on here as he can. He basically has named himself the perpetrator here, and thus I think Clemens would be justified in killing him. Keep in mind that I'm not saying Clemens SHOULD kill him, I'm saying that if he did, I'd be okay with it. Mercy would also be justifiable, as it usually is. It could be that I'm just extremely biased against politicians who get their sustenance by leeching off of society and violating individual rights while producing absolutely nothing of value in return, and this bias is clouding my rationality. This could be the case, but I certainly can't think of any better group to be unfairly biased against.
8. I remember in middle school being taught Hamurabi's Code, an eye for an eye, and then being taught how wrong it was. I agree that it was wrong, but for different reasons---it should have been TWO eyes for an eye.
Sorry if all that stuff seems like incoherent rambling. Normally I proof-read, but I am le tired.
Caleb, I'm happy to let the Gitmo comparison go, too, since, as you stated, comparing the rights of US citizens and POWs is difficult. But I want to answer a few of your questions first.
In contrast to my conservative brethren, I don't believe in any "natural" or god-given rights. Any right is only as good as a society's ability to protect it. It's where the individual needs the collective. The rights of Roger Clemens are vastly different from the rights of non-citizens (as you point out) especially those who were shooting at us or connected to those who made missiles of our people in our airplanes and killed thousands of innocents. Basically, I care not a whit about the rights of those at Gitmo. Fortunately for them, the military is running the show, not me, and I trust the military to do the right thing. From all I can gather, the prisoners are well-treated (certainly more well-treated than I would treat them) and they are being processed and released in many cases. If it's not happening fast enough or their due process is not getting its due, I guess I just don't care. They were lucky to get captured by the most generous and humane country on the face of the earth.
And, no, I don't know that they are all terrorists, but I don't know a lot of things and it's not one I'm worried about. I have to trust the military to do the right thing, and I do. ABsolutely, government can be flawed. Government does almost nothing well. There may be people there who shoudln't be there. It's not a big worry of mine, but, also, I have huge respect for the jobs our military does. I'm leaving it to them.
And, so, the POWS are stuck in their cells and Roger Clemens can talk to his congressman but that illustrates my denial of natural rights. RC's rights, as a US citizen, are conferred by the Constitution and protected by our government. The natural rights of the POWs, if they exist, are not conferred or protected by us. So they are worthless. They should have considered that before they took up arms against us.
I'm actually not concerned so much about RC's "rights". He's the greatest pitcher the game has known. Some years ago, he made a bad decision about using some questionable substances that hundreds of his colleagues were using and that may or may not have helped them stay on top of their game. He trusted his trainer to keep his mouth shut. Then along comes this steroid witch hunt led by Senators and Congressmen who are the definition of preening sanctimoniousness, and most of whom have never done a productive thing in their lives, and they find out they can take Roger Clemens down. And they do. And Roger gets ripped to pieces in the sports press and by venomous fans. And he is destroyed. For a trifling. And if I were a public person, and congress looked into my past, they would be able to destroy me, too.
I could go on, but, man this is time consuming.
I am no expert on Guantanamo Bay, and I am certainly no sympathizer with terrorists. But I do want to say that the problem with the argument that whatever happens there is fine because the detainees are terrorists is that, in the absence of due process, we cannot know in any kind of just or reliable way, whether they are terrorists or not. As Dad says, we have to trust the military on that one. On this particular question, I probably DO trust the military, but that's not the point. The point is that having to place that kind of trust in any single branch of government erodes the whole system of checks and balances on which our government is built, and therefore erodes the constitutional government itself.
Yes, it is war, we are dealing with an extreme risk, and the people in question are not citizens and are almost certainly serious bad guys. They are obviously not entitled to the constitutional protections of US citizens. But when a constitutional government behaves unconstitutionally towards anyone, citizen or not, it risks undercutting the whole foundation of its strength.
We consent to be governed, in this country. We base that consent on trust. Not trust in this branch of the government or that, but trust in the whole Constitutional structure -- which is actually built on a fundamental, and very wise, distrust of governmental power. The Constitution is structured so that each branch of government is checked and controlled by the others. It's supposed to mean that we don't HAVE to ask ourselves whether we can trust the military, because we can trust the Constitutional structure as a whole. When the government does not behave according to that structure, the trust of those governed -- and therefore their consent, and therefore the foundation of the entire nation -- is placed in jeopardy. The purpose of due process is not to be nice to bad guys. Instead, it is to protect the ability of the good guys to go on being good. I understand the imperatives at work here, truly I do. But I hope -- though sadly, under these circumstances, cannot trust -- that the risks we are taking with what is best about us are worth the cost.
I don't have the energy for these long posts you guys make, but RC is obviously being targeted. The steroid witch hunters found out they could take down the biggest name in baseball and they are jumping at it like rabid dogs. Sure, he probably took them, but I bet lots and lots of other players took them too. No one is bothering with them because they aren't Roger Clemens. I don't like him much, but what is happening to him is a shame. Still, I don't think he has a right to kill anybody, and I think it takes a lot more than what is happening to him before someone has a "right" to kill anyone. I see grey areas in the burglary case. I don't think you should kill someone who takes your purse on the street, but if someone wants to enter your home, if only with the intent to burgle, I would not disapprove of anyone who killed the burglar.
I can't reason right now. I'm very tired.
Every day in Rochester men, women and children are getting shot over ridiculous issues, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I am disgusted and terrified by it. I'm not religious, but human life is incredibly precious, and I'd rather people settle their stupid issues that I don't even care about without killing each other. When you kill someone, they are gone. Forever. They will never come back, they will never have a chance to make amends. Its not just a punishment, its an end.
Thats not to say that I am not in favor of the death penalty. I actually don't know if I am or am not. I usually would say that I am not, but when you hear about those people who do horrible things and kill children, my gut reaction is that that person should die. So, I just don't know. I guess I am just trying to say that I think we should be careful about killing people off.
I am rambling and not with it.
The one situation I presented about the prisoner on death row was ridiculous. Of course it's not okay to kill the guards to get out of prison. The guards have no way of knowing who is innocent and who is guilty, and shouldn't have to worry about it, they should just do their jobs. Now in the Soviet Union or in a concentration camp it's a completely different story.
Mom you make a lot of really good points. Again, I don't know much about Guantanamo so I really can't comment.
Laura I understand the value of a human life, but I think it goes beyond just being physically alive. I guess I don't really see quite a lot of these congressmen as fully human anymore. A human does not devote himself to destruction, but creation. A human being is not an animal that savagely takes whatever he wants just because he has the opportunity to take it, he must earn it. Nyquils kicking in and I don't think that last sentence made grammatical sense. Anyway I think it is very possible for a human being to go too far down the wrong path, to the point where he no longer deserves life. Also I don't know if I would still approve of Clemens just killing this guy for the sake of revenge. Maybe, but I'm not sure, I'd have to think about it when I didn't just take Nyquil. It's a no-brainer to me, however, that if he was headed to jail and killing Stephen Lynch could stop him from going there, then he should do it. The problem with a code of non-violence is that it HURTS those who are most virtuous and follow the code, and HELPS those who don't. A moral code should be designed with the opposite results. Okay now the Nyquil is really hitting me hard and it's bedimte.
Post a Comment