Metanet Forums

All right, so, as recently as last week, I was under the impression that my Dad was dead, or at least, missing. His car was said to be found abandoned in a lot, he and his girlfriend had broken up, and he hadn't contact anybody.

Well, it turns out that he isn't dead. He is, in fact, in jail, in the United States, for suspicion of terrorism. Thanks, Patriot Act!

My Dad went down to Vermont to buy tires there, because they are cheaper, and as the place was putting on his tires, he was hanging around the garage. Homeland Security approached him, and asked him questions about what he was doing there. He explained he was buying the tires, going to go talk to the fireman who was at the scene he attended last night (our fire station is so close to the border that it is often called to Vermont fires) and get a bite to eat, and then head back. They seemed to accept this, so they let him go. Twenty minutes later, they pull him over, and accuse him of lying to them. He asks why, and apparently, he had a charge for telemarketing fraud ten years ago that he was supposed to inform them about. Suddenly, he was arrested. His car was not searched, and was, in fact, left on the side of the road. Nobody contacted us until just recently. He's been in jail two months without being allowed to contact anybody or even being charged with anything yet, and his bail is 25,000$.

What the fuck, America.

Don't worry, that kind of crap only happens in Vermont; down here in Texas we're way more civilized.

I hate when that happens.

I hate when that happens.

Bah, pesky government.

What is it specifically that you are critiquing? It's obvious that there is corruption and inefficiency like this within our government, and that it is bad and such. Were you suggesting specific reform, or just saying "it's bad that my dad was thrown in jail for no reason"? I'm not saying you shouldn't be whining about it, just that it doesn't belong in Debate if it's a Discussion.

yungerkid wrote:

I hate when that happens.

Bah, pesky government.

What is it specifically that you are critiquing? It's obvious that there is corruption and inefficiency like this within our government, and that it is bad and such. Were you suggesting specific reform, or just saying "it's bad that my dad was thrown in jail for no reason"? I'm not saying you shouldn't be whining about it, just that it doesn't belong in Debate if it's a Discussion.

I'd actually like to hear any sort of justification for this or things like it.

This is why I don't consider Vermont a state.

EDIT: I thought these dudes usually give one phone call or something. I smell something fishy going on around here. 25k bail is simply outrageous.

Yeah, that's totally unjustified. I'm terribly sorry though.

Like, can you guys justify something like this happening to someone relatively innocent if it is for the greater good?

Like, can you guys justify something like this happening to someone relatively innocent if it is for the greater good?

Does the moral correctness of an action lie in the action or in its consequences? I'd say neither. Moral correctness does not lie within objects, save what is perceived to be moral correctness. When one says that something is morally correct, one is merely tagging that thing with words, and saying that that thing is desirable. Morality is not truly inherent in anything except as we define it - thus I would say that not only is morality unimportant, it is also not objective. Unless we all agree to one standard (which will not make it objectively right, or objective at all), morality will continue to be found in entirely different ways, and thus I would say that no individual system is "correct" except as it conforms to another standard (which does not make it objectively correct, and the statement extends).

What standard, then, to use? Logic. Can I justify that action? No, I cannot, because it was not for the greater good. Logic dictates that the ultimate purpose is ultimately important.

yungerkid wrote:

Like, can you guys justify something like this happening to someone relatively innocent if it is for the greater good?

Does the moral correctness of an action lie in the action or in its consequences? I'd say neither. Moral correctness does not lie within objects, save what is perceived to be moral correctness. When one says that something is morally correct, one is merely tagging that thing with words, and saying that that thing is desirable. Morality is not truly inherent in anything except as we define it - thus I would say that not only is morality unimportant, it is also not objective. Unless we all agree to one standard (which will not make it objectively right, or objective at all), morality will continue to be found in entirely different ways, and thus I would say that no individual system is "correct" except as it conforms to another standard (which does not make it objectively correct, and the statement extends).

What standard, then, to use? Logic. Can I justify that action? No, I cannot, because it was not for the greater good. Logic dictates that the ultimate purpose is ultimately important.

Fuck you so hard, yungerkid. Fuck you for this staggeringly tactless post. Get the fuck out of this thread.

That's truly fucking awful to hear, Slaps. I'm terribly sorry, for whatever that's worth. I hope those power-tripping retards get noticed by a responsible supervisor and lose their jobs over it.

Unfortunately, I've been hearing stories like this increasingly often. I was reading one the other day (an old story, though) about a 16-year old who brought a knife to school to show it to some friends. It was found in his locker, and the FBI ended up involving themselves in the matter. The 16 year old kid who brought a small knife to school was charged as an enemy combatant and was denied a trial. There were appeals, obviously, but all the while he was sharing cells with muggers and drug addicts.
This country's going down the fucking tubes, man.

That has got to be one of the single most fucked up stories I've heard. There isn't a justification for such a thing. Wtf was homeland security doing at a random garage in Vermont anyway?
Just wondering, is he out of jail now and this is how you are learning of this, or what?

smartalco wrote:That has got to be one of the single most fucked up stories I've heard. There isn't a justification for such a thing. Wtf was homeland security doing at a random garage in Vermont anyway?
Just wondering, is he out of jail now and this is how you are learning of this, or what?

He finally got a call last week and used it to call my step-mom and let her know what happened.

I don't...get it. Is it part of the state laws to submit to every law officer you see on the roads a list of everything you were ever caught doing wrong?

Does the moral correctness of an action lie in the action or in its consequences? I'd say neither. Moral correctness does not lie within objects, save what is perceived to be moral correctness. When one says that something is morally correct, one is merely tagging that thing with words, and saying that that thing is desirable. Morality is not truly inherent in anything except as we define it - thus I would say that not only is morality unimportant, it is also not objective. Unless we all agree to one standard (which will not make it objectively right, or objective at all), morality will continue to be found in entirely different ways, and thus I would say that no individual system is "correct" except as it conforms to another standard (which does not make it objectively correct, and the statement extends).

What standard, then, to use? Logic. Can I justify that action? No, I cannot, because it was not for the greater good. Logic dictates that the ultimate purpose is ultimately important.

What the hell? Are you a robot? GLaDOS, is that you?

While being on-topic, that sounds horrible, Slaps. How could they even deduce he was lying in the first place if there wasn't enough evidence to support that he was doing anything wrong in the first place? That makes no sense! This is madness, I say.

I don't know why people have been making jokes in this thread.

I think you should bring this event to attention somehow. It's probably the most ridiculous thing I've heard in shitting ever.

That's insane. What kind of country just abducts people like that? Did it become the People's Democratic Republic of America while I wasn't looking?

Man. I'm sorry about all this. I'm here if you need me. <3

What I don't understand is why people would want to do something like that in the first place. I don't know if there's much you can do besides contact the people holding him, though. It is ridiculous that he is allowed to be held in jail without charges but with bail, and it is ridiculous that he was allowed to be arbitrarily arrested in the first place.

To the people who called me a robot etc., I was responding to Slappy's post asking whether I would justify this action morally or not. I restated his question in my first sentence, and then addressed it. I do condemn such actions and such corruption, and I do sympathize, to the extent that I can, with your situation.

SlappyMcGee wrote:All right, so, as recently as last week, I was under the impression that my Dad was dead, or at least, missing. His car was said to be found abandoned in a lot, he and his girlfriend had broken up, and he hadn't contact anybody.

Well, it turns out that he isn't dead. He is, in fact, in jail, in the United States, for suspicion of terrorism. Thanks, Patriot Act!

My Dad went down to Vermont to buy tires there, because they are cheaper, and as the place was putting on his tires, he was hanging around the garage. Homeland Security approached him, and asked him questions about what he was doing there. He explained he was buying the tires, going to go talk to the fireman who was at the scene he attended last night (our fire station is so close to the border that it is often called to Vermont fires) and get a bite to eat, and then head back. They seemed to accept this, so they let him go. Twenty minutes later, they pull him over, and accuse him of lying to them. He asks why, and apparently, he had a charge for telemarketing fraud ten years ago that he was supposed to inform them about. Suddenly, he was arrested. His car was not searched, and was, in fact, left on the side of the road. Nobody contacted us until just recently. He's been in jail two months without being allowed to contact anybody or even being charged with anything yet, and his bail is 25,000$.

What the fuck, America.

Aren't you Canadian? You should go to the embassy and raise a shitstorm.

The PATRIOT Act has allowed for some gross miscarriages of justice in the past decade. It's really messing up the country.

This single, anecdotal argument against the Patriot Act is unconvincing. I still think it does more good than harm. I've been very safe since its inception and have not experienced any lag in my activities due to its presence. I am the average American.

blue_tetris wrote:This single, anecdotal argument against the Patriot Act is unconvincing. I still think it does more good than harm. I've been very safe since its inception and have not experienced any lag in my activities due to its presence. I am the average American.

Well, and that's what I think should be discussed. Since the average person goes unnaffected by this, is it still an issue?

SlappyMcGee wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:This single, anecdotal argument against the Patriot Act is unconvincing. I still think it does more good than harm. I've been very safe since its inception and have not experienced any lag in my activities due to its presence. I am the average American.

Well, and that's what I think should be discussed. Since the average person goes unnaffected by this, is it still an issue?

No. It's not.

blue_tetris wrote:This single, anecdotal argument against the Patriot Act is unconvincing. I still think it does more good than harm. I've been very safe since its inception and have not experienced any lag in my activities due to its presence. I am the average American.

You'll never get my tiger-proof underpants!

SlappyMcGee wrote:He is, in fact, in jail, in the United States, for suspicion of terrorism.

SlappyMcGee wrote:his bail is $25,000.

Is it only me who's confused by this? How could anybody justify granting bail to a suspected terrorist?