If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   The price for two years of being kept in a New Mexico prison in solitary without a trial? $15.5 million   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 177
    More: Followup, New Mexico, first receiver, NBC News  
•       •       •

12866 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 3:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 01:12:17 PM

StoPPeRmobile: generallyso: And no one responsible will suffer meaningful consequences.

As God intended. That's why we are a Christian nation.

Besides he is probably guilty of something.


Whatever dude. He's WHITE.

That changes EVERYTHING.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:00 PM

mediablitz: Amos Quito: Yes, that's it.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Citizen.

So he got a 15 million judgement for something that is "perfectly legal"? That's what you are going with?



No, what this man went through was NOT perfectly legal.

My comparison to the draconian NDAA was intended to point to the VERY BAD direction "legality" is headed in recent years.

"America" is going down the shiatter - and it is not by accident or simple happenstance.

It is an intentional reshaping of society, culture, and the roles of the government and the rights of the governed.

This does not bode well for the latter.
 
2013-03-07 01:26:51 PM

BafflerMeal: evaned: TFA:"he was forced to pull out his own tooth because he said he wasn't allowed to see a dentist"

Hell, I'm not sure I would do even just that for $15 million. That's seriously f'ed up.

Actually, that's not even that uncommon.  I have a family member in the clink.  While being held for 18mos pre-trial he was denied eyeglasses, dental services, etc...  (not to mention having to buy their own toilet paper and toothpaste, which is a tax on families) My family member was actually happy when the verdict went the wrong way, simply because once in 'real' jail, bad teeth could be pulled pulled and could get eyeglasses.



Where did this happen?


/Sounds like a 3rd world prison
//Or possibly Arizona
///Same thing, I know
 
2013-03-07 01:33:23 PM

Amos Quito: BafflerMeal: evaned: TFA:"he was forced to pull out his own tooth because he said he wasn't allowed to see a dentist"

Hell, I'm not sure I would do even just that for $15 million. That's seriously f'ed up.

Actually, that's not even that uncommon.  I have a family member in the clink.  While being held for 18mos pre-trial he was denied eyeglasses, dental services, etc...  (not to mention having to buy their own toilet paper and toothpaste, which is a tax on families) My family member was actually happy when the verdict went the wrong way, simply because once in 'real' jail, bad teeth could be pulled pulled and could get eyeglasses.


Where did this happen?


/Sounds like a 3rd world prison
//Or possibly Arizona
///Same thing, I know



Close, Louisiana.

http://www.tpso.org/tangipahoa-parish-prison.html

"Built in 1984, the Tangipahoa Parish Prison can house a maximum capacity of 504 men and 22 women prisoners. A majority of the prisoners held at the jail are parish detainees awaiting court appearances."

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/05/154352977/how-louisiana-became-the-wor ld s-prison-capital
 
2013-03-07 01:51:50 PM

Amos Quito: No, what this man went through was NOT perfectly legal.

My comparison to the draconian NDAA was intended to point to the VERY BAD direction "legality" is headed in recent years.

"America" is going down the shiatter - and it is not by accident or simple happenstance.


Ah. So your comment had nothing to do with this story. You just wanted to rail, and yell at clouds.

Got it...
 
2013-03-07 02:21:09 PM

Amos Quito: mediablitz: Amos Quito: Yes, that's it.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Citizen.

So he got a 15 million judgement for something that is "perfectly legal"? That's what you are going with?


No, what this man went through was NOT perfectly legal.

My comparison to the draconian NDAA was intended to point to the VERY BAD direction "legality" is headed in recent years.

"America" is going down the shiatter - and it is not by accident or simple happenstance.

It is an intentional reshaping of society, culture, and the roles of the government and the rights of the governed.

This does not bode well for the latter.


I agree with you and it doesn't matter to me what letter you put in parens after a politician's name - I feel like they're almost all just fine with eroding our rights.

/But in happy news - I'm going to be a dad to a little boy in a few weeks
//I'll make sure he knows what his rights are, what priveleges are, and how to fight for the difference.
///The Fifth Amendment is not a privelege.
 
2013-03-07 02:23:34 PM

jpk_ks: Amos Quito: mediablitz: Amos Quito: Yes, that's it.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Citizen.

So he got a 15 million judgement for something that is "perfectly legal"? That's what you are going with?


No, what this man went through was NOT perfectly legal.

My comparison to the draconian NDAA was intended to point to the VERY BAD direction "legality" is headed in recent years.

"America" is going down the shiatter - and it is not by accident or simple happenstance.

It is an intentional reshaping of society, culture, and the roles of the government and the rights of the governed.

This does not bode well for the latter.

I agree with you and it doesn't matter to me what letter you put in parens after a politician's name - I feel like they're almost all just fine with eroding our rights.

/But in happy news - I'm going to be a dad to a little boy in a few weeks
//I'll make sure he knows what his rights are, what priveleges are, and how to fight for the difference.
///The Fifth Amendment is not a privelege.


Better have money for lawyers.
 
2013-03-07 02:44:51 PM
$21,000 per day?  Sounds like that place we stayed at on Grand Cayman.
 
2013-03-07 02:48:10 PM
i.imgur.com

Meh, this guy has been in solitary at Supermax since 1985
 
2013-03-07 03:03:09 PM

mediablitz: Amos Quito: No, what this man went through was NOT perfectly legal.

My comparison to the draconian NDAA was intended to point to the VERY BAD direction "legality" is headed in recent years.

"America" is going down the shiatter - and it is not by accident or simple happenstance.

Ah. So your comment had nothing to do with this story. You just wanted to rail, and yell at clouds.

Got it...



This guy's experience was something of an anomaly. These things should NEVER happen in the US, and in his case, the injustice was recognized as ILLEGAL. The settlement $ he received served as a token of said recognition.

Under NDAA (currently US law) any person can be held indefinitely without evidence being presented, without charges, without hearing, without bail, and without recourse - LEGALLY.

So my point was, if you like the injustice that was done to this guy, you're going to LOVE the "justice" under NDAA.


/You sound like a terrorist
 
2013-03-07 03:04:28 PM

BafflerMeal: Amos Quito: BafflerMeal: evaned: TFA:"he was forced to pull out his own tooth because he said he wasn't allowed to see a dentist"

Hell, I'm not sure I would do even just that for $15 million. That's seriously f'ed up.

Actually, that's not even that uncommon.  I have a family member in the clink.  While being held for 18mos pre-trial he was denied eyeglasses, dental services, etc...  (not to mention having to buy their own toilet paper and toothpaste, which is a tax on families) My family member was actually happy when the verdict went the wrong way, simply because once in 'real' jail, bad teeth could be pulled pulled and could get eyeglasses.


Where did this happen?


/Sounds like a 3rd world prison
//Or possibly Arizona
///Same thing, I know


Close, Louisiana.

http://www.tpso.org/tangipahoa-parish-prison.html

"Built in 1984, the Tangipahoa Parish Prison can house a maximum capacity of 504 men and 22 women prisoners. A majority of the prisoners held at the jail are parish detainees awaiting court appearances."

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/05/154352977/how-louisiana-became-the-wor ld s-prison-capital



LOL!

Louisiana would have been my second guess.
 
2013-03-07 03:29:35 PM
TFA: "the same people are running it"

It seems to me that it's a logical impossibility to have someone treated so horribly that they're awarded $15.5 million, yet have the people responsible for such treatment *not even lose their jobs*.
Personally, I would think they'd be up for some criminal charges.  But I guess we just have to make our peace with the political reality our for-profit prison industry and unlimited corporate lobbying has given us.
 
2013-03-07 04:09:45 PM

Amos Quito: Under NDAA (currently US law) any person can be held indefinitely without evidence being presented, without charges, without hearing, without bail, and without recourse - LEGALLY.


Just to make things clear, the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is signed into law EVERY YEAR by the President in order to authorize military spending, including payment of soldiers as well as defense contractors providing essential services to troops in the field who can legally withhold their services if they are not paid.. The President has no line item veto power, so he must either sign onto the whole bill or veto the whole bill. The President did not ask for this authority; it was amended into the bill whether he wanted it or not. Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.

You are falling directly into the trap Congressional Republicans laid for him; he would have had to choose "sympathizing with the terrorists" over paying the troops, and it would still have been overridden.

Congressional Democrats who voted for this bill in that form are every bit as much at fault as the Republicans who sponsored it; however, they would be subject to being branded as "terrorist sympathizers" who chose the terrorists over American troops getting paid as well.

Obama didn't want this power, and he gave a speech saying what a bad idea it was. The plan was for Romney to take the White House and use the indefinite detention while saying, "but it was Obama's idea!".

Please don't play the Republicans' cards here. You can look at the facts and see who is really at fault for that bullsh*t being signed into law. You're better than this.
 
2013-03-07 04:14:27 PM

ringersol: Personally, I would think they'd be up for some criminal charges.


That would be nice, but the fact is that while his rights were clearly violated, they followed procedures. It is the procedures and regulations that are at fault here. Had those people refused to follow those procedures and regulations, they would have lost their jobs and the people in charge would have found someone else who would do what they were told.

It's these kinds of stupid regulations that were made with good intentions (the safety of the other inmates) but poor foresight - just like "zero tolerance" policies.
 
2013-03-07 06:46:58 PM

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: Under NDAA (currently US law) any person can be held indefinitely without evidence being presented, without charges, without hearing, without bail, and without recourse - LEGALLY.

Just to make things clear, the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is signed into law EVERY YEAR by the President in order to authorize military spending, including payment of soldiers as well as defense contractors providing essential services to troops in the field who can legally withhold their services if they are not paid.. The President has no line item veto power, so he must either sign onto the whole bill or veto the whole bill. The President did not ask for this authority; it was amended into the bill whether he wanted it or not. Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.



SO FARKING WHAT?

Are you claiming that the poor widdle pwesident's hands were tied? That he had no choice? Would he have signed it if it contained language stipulating that the President must conduct all press conferences in a clown suit, and be staked nude to a fire-ant mound for three hours on the second Tuesday of each month?

Give me a farking break!


ox45tallboy: You are falling directly into the trap Congressional Republicans laid for him; he would have had to choose "sympathizing with the terrorists" over paying the troops, and it would still have been overridden.



Ya think? The President has media access and political clout like no other person on the planet. All he had to do was point to the hideously draconian text buried in the bill, REFUSED to sign it, and let them override if necessary. He could have raised a stink that reverberated around the planet AND used it as political leverage that would have been so powerful that the anyone who supported it would have gone down in flames last November.

The moment he called a press conference and told the American People, IN PLAIN TERMS, what that cute little rider attached to the NDAA means, and how it shakes to the foundations the core of Western civilization, Democrats and Republicans alike would have lined up behind him like tin soldiers.

He would have come off looking like a hero, because NO rational person, Republican or Democrat, Left, Right or Center would accept this hatcheting of our most BASIC rights and liberties if Obama were to have stood his ground and made his case.

NO ONE.

This could not have been pulled off by either the Republicans or Democrats alone. It required COLLUSION between BOTH parties AND a President that fully supported the measure.

In my mind, this is nothing short of treason - against both the Constitution AND the American People.

Now, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why. Because I would REALLY LIKE to believe that our elected leaders are actually serving our best interests, but at the moment, I am finding that very hard to swallow.

Thanks.
 
2013-03-07 06:55:24 PM

dabbletech: $21,000 per day?  Sounds like that place we stayed at on Grand Cayman.


how many bitcoins is that? :)
 
2013-03-07 07:18:35 PM

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: Under NDAA (currently US law) any person can be held indefinitely without evidence being presented, without charges, without hearing, without bail, and without recourse - LEGALLY.

Just to make things clear, the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is signed into law EVERY YEAR by the President in order to authorize military spending, including payment of soldiers as well as defense contractors providing essential services to troops in the field who can legally withhold their services if they are not paid.. The President has no line item veto power, so he must either sign onto the whole bill or veto the whole bill. The President did not ask for this authority; it was amended into the bill whether he wanted it or not. Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.

You are falling directly into the trap Congressional Republicans laid for him; he would have had to choose "sympathizing with the terrorists" over paying the troops, and it would still have been overridden.



HEY!

I just thought of a better solution:

Obama should have signed the NDAA WITH the nasty rider, and then immediately ARRESTED every Republican AND Democrat in Congress who supported the measure as "suspected terrorists", and ordered them held WITHOUT evidence, trial or bail until the "end of hostilities - OR until hell freezes over - whichever comes first.

Brilliant, no?


/It's not too late, you know
//He could do it tomorrow
///Maybe a petition is in order?
 
2013-03-07 08:38:49 PM
Trials?  We don't need no stinking trials!
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-08 01:48:56 AM

Amos Quito: ox45tallboy: Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.

SO FARKING WHAT?


Hmmm. The fact that you have this sort of attitude is proof positive you don't have any family or friends in the armed service. I know damned well you would never say this in front of a service member.

How would you like it if someone told you, in relation to your paycheck that your mortgage and FOOD for your family, not to mention child support withdrawal that could put you in jail, relied upon, "So farking what?"

Amos Quito: The moment he called a press conference and told the American People, IN PLAIN TERMS, what that cute little rider attached to the NDAA means, and how it shakes to the foundations the core of Western civilization, Democrats and Republicans alike would have lined up behind him like tin soldiers.


You are so precious.

Amos Quito: NO ONE.


Not even the people who had already voted for it?

Amos Quito: Now, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why. Because I would REALLY LIKE to believe that our elected leaders are actually serving our best interests, but at the moment, I am finding that very hard to swallow.


You're at fault for blaming the President, instead of Congress. And yes, that includes Congressional Democrats who didn't want to face their own constituents for voting against soldiers getting their paychecks. The only way in which your point would be valid were if the President had a line item veto but chose not to use it.

Amos Quito: Thanks.


You're certainly welcome. Glad to have been of assistance.
 
2013-03-08 01:51:47 AM

Amos Quito: HEY!

I just thought of a better solution:

Obama should have signed the NDAA WITH the nasty rider, and then immediately ARRESTED every Republican AND Democrat in Congress who supported the measure as "suspected terrorists", and ordered them held WITHOUT evidence, trial or bail until the "end of hostilities - OR until hell freezes over - whichever comes first.

Brilliant, no?


Yes. That's a wonderful solution. You are truly the epitome of Republican ideology. If only people would listen to what you have to say, the whole world's problems could be solved so easily!

Damn, you are S-M-R-T Smrt!
 
2013-03-08 02:56:29 AM

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: Under NDAA (currently US law) any person can be held indefinitely without evidence being presented, without charges, without hearing, without bail, and without recourse - LEGALLY.

Just to make things clear, the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is signed into law EVERY YEAR by the President in order to authorize military spending, including payment of soldiers as well as defense contractors providing essential services to troops in the field who can legally withhold their services if they are not paid.. The President has no line item veto power, so he must either sign onto the whole bill or veto the whole bill.

[snip]

And, like all presidents do, he made the wrong choice.
 
2013-03-08 06:31:00 AM

BafflerMeal: evaned: TFA:"he was forced to pull out his own tooth because he said he wasn't allowed to see a dentist"

Hell, I'm not sure I would do even just that for $15 million. That's seriously f'ed up.

Actually, that's not even that uncommon.  I have a family member in the clink.  While being held for 18mos pre-trial he was denied eyeglasses, dental services, etc...  (not to mention having to buy their own toilet paper and toothpaste, which is a tax on families) My family member was actually happy when the verdict went the wrong way, simply because once in 'real' jail, bad teeth could be pulled pulled and could get eyeglasses.


OK that story is almost as farked up as the main one.

Not being a great believer in the Good Book I still like some of the messages, surely any sane, rational (non-sociopathic) person can get behind Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' "

Or even the sentiment behind Corinthians 15:10 "But by the grace of G*d..."
 
2013-03-08 06:41:54 AM
jpk_ks:

/But in happy news - I'm going to be a dad to a little boy in a few weeks

Gratz :D

Happiest sentence in this thread - I'm getting another niece next week, so looking forward to seeing her non-comprehending, screwed up, old persons face before she becomes another star in my sky.
 
2013-03-08 06:43:51 AM
Maybe the 'non-comprehending' should have been 'fully comprehending' - I have never been sure....
 
2013-03-08 06:55:25 AM

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: Under NDAA (currently US law) any person can be held indefinitely without evidence being presented, without charges, without hearing, without bail, and without recourse - LEGALLY.

Just to make things clear, the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is signed into law EVERY YEAR by the President in order to authorize military spending, including payment of soldiers as well as defense contractors providing essential services to troops in the field who can legally withhold their services if they are not paid.. The President has no line item veto power, so he must either sign onto the whole bill or veto the whole bill. The President did not ask for this authority; it was amended into the bill whether he wanted it or not. Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.

You are falling directly into the trap Congressional Republicans laid for him; he would have had to choose "sympathizing with the terrorists" over paying the troops, and it would still have been overridden.

Congressional Democrats who voted for this bill in that form are every bit as much at fault as the Republicans who sponsored it; however, they would be subject to being branded as "terrorist sympathizers" who chose the terrorists over American troops getting paid as well.

Obama didn't want this power, and he gave a speech saying what a bad idea it was. The plan was for Romney to take the White House and use the indefinite detention while saying, "but it was Obama's idea!".

Please don't play the Republicans' cards here. You can look at the facts and see who is really at fault for that bullsh*t being signed into law. You're better than this.


dbrunker: Trials?  We don't need no stinking trials!
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 485x640]


Ya know I break that rule with comments all the time -

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: ox45tallboy: Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.

SO FARKING WHAT?

Hmmm. The fact that you have this sort of attitude is proof positive you don't have any family or friends in the armed service. I know damned well you would never say this in front of a service member.

How would you like it if someone told you, in relation to your paycheck that your mortgage and FOOD for your family, not to mention child support withdrawal that could put you in jail, relied upon, "So farking what?"

Amos Quito: The moment he called a press conference and told the American People, IN PLAIN TERMS, what that cute little rider attached to the NDAA means, and how it shakes to the foundations the core of Western civilization, Democrats and Republicans alike would have lined up behind him like tin soldiers.

You are so precious.

Amos Quito: NO ONE.

Not even the people who had already voted for it?

Amos Quito: Now, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why. Because I would REALLY LIKE to believe that our elected leaders are actually serving our best interests, but at the moment, I am finding that very hard to swallow.

You're at fault for blaming the President, instead of Congress. And yes, that includes Congressional Democrats who didn't want to face their own constituents for voting against soldiers getting their paychecks. The only way in which your point would be valid were if the President had a line item veto but chose not to use it.

Amos Quito: Thanks.

You're certainly welcome. Glad to have been of assistance.


Sounds like it would be the perfect way to get REAL CHANGE, the military not getting paid -> "No, I am not invading the country you say I have to".

Strikes me as if no one has the balls to truly change the system and each person you elect is just a face of the system - personally I would start with the monetary system and the banks (start with the most powerful and work down - because the banks make ALL other industries together look like children playing in a sand pit), take control of debt creation.

Thankfully I am not a politician or else that suggestion would probably result in me dying of natural (or violent) causes.
 
2013-03-08 01:05:13 PM

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: ox45tallboy: Had he vetoed this bill, SOLDIERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAID UNTIL CONGRESS OVERRODE HIS VETO.

SO FARKING WHAT?

Hmmm. The fact that you have this sort of attitude is proof positive you don't have any family or friends in the armed service. I know damned well you would never say this in front of a service member.

How would you like it if someone told you, in relation to your paycheck that your mortgage and FOOD for your family, not to mention child support withdrawal that could put you in jail, relied upon, "So farking what?"



How many US soldiers have sacrifices their lives in the hopes of PRESERVING the freedoms that you are willing to throw in the trash for the sake of securing the next paycheck?

Is there no right, liberty or freedom that you would not allow to be held hostage by these treasonous bastards?

ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: The moment he called a press conference and told the American People, IN PLAIN TERMS, what that cute little rider attached to the NDAA means, and how it shakes to the foundations the core of Western civilization, Democrats and Republicans alike would have lined up behind him like tin soldiers.

You are so precious.

Amos Quito: NO ONE.

Not even the people who had already voted for it?



Not if the president had shown a backbone, and exposed this rider as the enemy of public liberty that it is. Every one of those politicians would be scrambling to save their political lives.

But he showed no backbone.


ox45tallboy: Amos Quito: Now, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why. Because I would REALLY LIKE to believe that our elected leaders are actually serving our best interests, but at the moment, I am finding that very hard to swallow.

You're at fault for blaming the President, instead of Congress. And yes, that includes Congressional Democrats who didn't want to face their own constituents for voting against soldiers getting their paychecks. The only way in which your point would be valid were if the President had a line item veto but chose not to use it.



Apparently you missed the part where I said: "This could not have been pulled off by either the Republicans or Democrats alone. It required COLLUSION between BOTH parties AND a President that fully supported the measure. In my mind, this is nothing short of treason - against both the Constitution AND the American People."


You know, ox45tallboy, when you selectively quote in your responses, intentionally ignoring and deleting material that directly contradicts that which you accuse me of, it makes you look disingenuous, dishonest, even.


I'll ask you again: Is there no right, liberty or freedom that you would not allow to be held hostage by these treasonous bastards?
 
2013-03-08 01:55:16 PM
Lose 50 lbs and grow a cool hipster beard? I'd do that for $15 mil.

Bonus: Being in solitary means no anal rape.
 
Displayed 27 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report