This goes out to everyone that doesn't understand comparisons between statism & rape

[Stizzel]

US Troops Sexually Assault 54 Underage Girls, Won�t Face Charges

That's right. Through the magic of statism, rape goes from an abhorrent evil to not a crime at all.

American soldiers and military contractors who sexually abused at least 54 Colombian girls between 2003 and 2007 will not face charges for their horrific crimes due to diplomatic immunity.

An 809-page report entitled �Contribution to the Understanding of the Armed Conflict in Colombia�, was commissioned by the Colombian government and rebel group FARC as part of ongoing peace negotiations between the two factions. The document details how US troops and contractors were exempt from prosecution while they were stationed in the South American nation.

According to Renan Vega of the Pedagogic University in Bogota, one of the 14 scholars who contributed to the historic paper, �there exists abundant information about the sexual violence, in absolute impunity thanks to the bilateral agreements and the diplomatic immunity of United States officials.�

Vega specifically noted one case from 2004 near the central Colombian town of Melga. The incident involved 53 underage girls who were sexually assaulted by US military contractors �who moreover filmed [the abuse] and sold the films as pornographic material.�

Another occurrence cited by the historian � which garnered significant media attention within Colombia � concerned US sergeant Michael J. Coen and defense contractor Cesar Ruiz. The duo purportedly drugged and raped a 12-year-old girl on a military base in 2007. Prosecutors were not allowed to arrest either man due to diplomatic arrangements between the US and Colombia. Neither Coen or Ruiz has ever been indicted and were in fact flown out of the country under terms of the US-Colombian Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which grants U.S. personnel immunity from local laws.

The 12-year-old victim was eventually forced to flee her hometown because of pressures applied by US-allied groups.

�In 2006 there were 23 reported cases of sexual abuse committed by active American soldiers and another 14 in 2007,� according to Colombian newspaper El Tiempo.

While the details of this article have been covered by a few international news outlets, the United States corporate media has conveniently blackballed the story. CNN, FOX News, and NBC have all chosen to turn a blind eye to reporting truth. The allegations outlined above are not some fringe claims that are unsubstantiated. If you feel that this story deserves the attention of the people, please share as you see fit.

God bless the troops, all hail the state.

http://theantimedia.org/us-troops-se...nderage-girls/

[ZzBrahh]

waiting for nutsy to come in and disagree with the op like always, brb sucking the gubbermint's d1ck

[stealth_swimmer]

Pretty sure most people see this sorta thing as wrong. Only thing is some people think it's only the people who did it rather than a structured/systemic problem. Not saying it's like that everywhere, or even in all parts of our own military, but one of my relatives said when he was in the marines, the higher ups basically encouraged everyone to do stuff like that. Then again, maybe some things have changed. I also have a friend who was in the airforce that said they had to report every little thing, from people being killed (whether enemies or not) to why their ammo was used, etc.

[Tamorlane]

US Troops Sexually Assault 54 Underage Girls, Won’t Face Charges

That's right. Through the magic of statism, rape goes from an abhorrent evil to not a crime at all.

How would it be a crime in a free society? (anarchy/chaos)

[Stizzel]

How would it be a crime in a free society? (anarchy/chaos)

Exhibit A: Utterly unable to determine right from wrong in any context other than law. It is legal, therefor it is right; it is illegal, therefor it is wrong.

[Stizzel]

Pretty sure most people see this sorta thing as wrong. Only thing is some people think it's only the people who did it rather than a structured/systemic problem. Not saying it's like that everywhere, or even in all parts of our own military, but one of my relatives said when he was in the marines, the higher ups basically encouraged everyone to do stuff like that. Then again, maybe some things have changed. I also have a friend who was in the airforce that said they had to report every little thing, from people being killed (whether enemies or not) to why their ammo was used, etc.

Any objective notion of right or wrong is not consistent with statism. Example - if rape is objectively wrong, then the state is demonstrably wrong. If the state is wrong, then how can it be wrong to defy the state?

As for people actually having an objective sense of right and wrong, see above.

[Kiknskreem]

Exhibit A: Utterly unable to determine right from wrong in any context other than law. It is legal, therefor it is right; it is illegal, therefor it is wrong.

lol wut. He didn't say nor imply anything about right or wrong, he asked how it would be a crime.

[Stizzel]

lol wut. He didn't say nor imply anything about right or wrong, he asked how it would be a crime.

Do you have any understanding of what the concept of crime entails other than in terms of state law?

[gachase21]

even considering the source.....

Title - "US Troops Sexually Assault 54 Underage Girls, Won�t Face Charges"

however in the story

The incident involved 53 underage girls who were sexually assaulted by US military contractors

Then the story goes on to talk about 1 troop.

[Kiknskreem]

It is legal, therefor it is right; it is illegal, therefor it is wrong.

He said nor implied anything of the sort.

Off your meds today Stizz?

[Tamorlane]

Do you have any understanding of what the concept of crime entails other than in terms of state law?

How is the crime handled? By who? That was the point that went over your head. If some authority handles it, then they represent the state. If nothing; chaos, unbridled liberty, free reign.

[Stizzel]

He said nor implied anything of the sort.

Off your meds today Stizz?

How rich.

The state said this rape was not a crime. Now you want to know how you will know it's a crime without the state.

Derp

How is the crime handled? By who? That was the point that went over your head. If some authority handles it, then they represent the state. If nothing; chaos, unbridled liberty, free reign.

Handle what? There's nothing to handle. Absent a state you'll have no idea whether rape is a crime or not.

[GreatOldOne]

Handle what? There's nothing to handle. Absent a state you'll have no idea whether rape is a crime or not.

Thanks Obama.

[Indivdude]

Diplomatic immunity. The fun one can have.



Although diplomatic immunity doesn't say that the crime didn't happen, just that the person that did the crime can't be prosecuted. So its not saying a crime didn't happen cuz statism, just that a person can't be charged cuz statism.

Plz get your statism criticism straight. Gosh.

-Your friendly statist,

Indivdude

[flairon]

Exhibit A: Utterly unable to determine right from wrong in any context other than law. It is legal, therefor it is right; it is illegal, therefor it is wrong.

but you didn't answer the question

[Stizzel]

Diplomatic immunity. The fun one can have.



Although diplomatic immunity doesn't say that the crime didn't happen, just that the person that did the crime can't be prosecuted. So its not saying a crime didn't happen cuz statism, just that a person can't be charged cuz statism.

Plz get your statism criticism straight. Gosh.

-Your friendly statist,

Indivdude

What should happen to people that protect rapists? What should happen to people who attempt to punish rapists?

[Stizzel]

Rape is good

[Stizzel]

The moral magic of statism.



That feel when you find yourself defending rape

[Indivdude]

What should happen to people that protect rapists? What should happen to people who attempt to punish rapists?

"Should" being the operative word here.

Aye they shouldn't escape punishment but that's a moral judgment on our parts, not an ought.

Due to the might behind governments and the agreements between governments, one can escape punishment through diplomatic immunity.

Might makes right basically.

I fail to see how through an abolishment of governments, this would no longer occur in similar ways. But you know I've said this before.

[Stizzel]

"Should" being the operative word here.

Aye they shouldn't escape punishment but that's a moral judgment on our parts, not an ought.

Due to the might behind governments and the agreements between governments, one can escape punishment through diplomatic immunity.

Might makes right basically.

I fail to see how through an abolishment of governments, this would no longer occur in similar ways. But you know I've said this before.

Exactly. In the statist religion, might makes right. Rape is not wrong, unless might says it is. Obedience to authority > an objective sense of right and wrong.

For example, when slave owners raped slaves, that wasn't wrong, and it wasn't criminal, because authority said it was okay.

Hence the comparisons of statism to rape. People think that rape is fundamentally wrong, but they are incorrect. For statists, it's all about what authority says at any given time.

[dweeegs]

Handle what? There's nothing to handle. Absent a state you'll have no idea whether rape is a crime or not.

Now I am even more confused

[Stizzel]

Now I am even more confused

Just repeating his previous comment

[Indivdude]

Exactly. In the statist religion, might makes right. Rape is not wrong, unless might says it is. Obedience to authority > an objective sense of right and wrong.

For example, when slave owners raped slaves, that wasn't wrong, and it wasn't criminal, because authority said it was okay.

I really should have said "inb4 stizzel takes might makes right literally".

However, yes in this scenario, the government had the foresight to make an agreement with another government to give their contractors diplomatic immunity and had the might to enforce the agreement.

So sure. Unless you're able to overthrow its supporters or get them to renege on their agreement, not much you can do.

Do the same scenario without a government, its the same thing. If you had 2 groups working together and they agreed that a certain group of people from group 1 were protected from group 2's laws and they followed it even when some of those protected members raped/killed/stole from some of group 2's people, the same scenario occurs. Unless whoever is in charge of group 1 or 2 (or enough people in either group) decide not to let it go.

And in that scenario, if the groups were small, more than likely they wouldn't or perhaps they would. Who knows? But things like that are rarely determined by right or wrong but political factors. You can say only governments would do such a thing but.. you're missing your own point that people make up governments.

[Tamorlane]

Exactly. In the statist religion, might makes right. Rape is not wrong, unless might says it is. Obedience to authority > an objective sense of right and wrong.

In human nature might makes right, which is why the state exists in the first place. In a failed state, warlords take power and fight for it. Remember the beginning of blackhawk down? Food arrives to be dispersed, warlord's goons show up and take it for themselves. How? Because they have access to military equipment and firepower that the regular poverty citizens don't. The food gets taken from the weak and given to the powerful. There is no official state, just human greed, a power vacuum and a new authority ushering its will on the weak.

Hence the comparisons of statism to rape. People think that rape is fundamentally wrong, but they are incorrect. For statists, it's all about what authority says at any given time.

Right and wrong are just words taken from one's perspective. We consider things like rape 'bad' because of it's unskillful qualities that it produces. And 'statists' support the existence of a state. There are people who disagree with all sorts of laws and regulations...

[dweeegs]

Just repeating his previous comment

The original question's tonality implied that he was asking what would happen if, in an anarchic society, 50 people sexual assaulted / raped others. As in, how would it be handled differently... in terms of punishment and courses of action individuals could take to rectify the situation

[Stizzel]

In human nature might makes right, which is why the state exists in the first place. In a failed state, warlords take power and fight for it. Remember the beginning of blackhawk down? Food arrives to be dispersed, warlord's goons show up and take it for themselves. How? Because they have access to military equipment and firepower that the regular poverty citizens don't. The food gets taken from the weak and given to the powerful. There is no official state, just human greed, a power vacuum and a new authority ushering its will on the weak.




Right and wrong are just words taken from one's perspective. We consider things like rape 'bad' because of it's unskillful qualities that it produces. And 'statists' support the existence of a state. There are people who disagree with all sorts of laws and regulations...

If might makes right then unless a rape victim can protect herself, the rapist is right.

Statists

[Stizzel]

The original question's tonality implied that he was asking what would happen if, in an anarchic society, 50 people sexual assaulted / raped others. As in, how would it be handled differently... in terms of punishment and courses of action individuals could take to rectify the situation

If its true that crime is a function if state law, then why would you worry about crime when there is no state?

If the concept of crime is independent of state law, then it is possible for the state to be criminal. If the state is criminal, then it is a crime to obey it.

Basic logic my friend.

[Stizzel]

In human nature might makes right, which is why the state exists in the first place. In a failed state, warlords take power and fight for it. Remember the beginning of blackhawk down? Food arrives to be dispersed, warlord's goons show up and take it for themselves. How? Because they have access to military equipment and firepower that the regular poverty citizens don't. The food gets taken from the weak and given to the powerful. There is no official state, just human greed, a power vacuum and a new authority ushering its will on the weak.




Right and wrong are just words taken from one's perspective. We consider things like rape 'bad' because of it's unskillful qualities that it produces. And 'statists' support the existence of a state. There are people who disagree with all sorts of laws and regulations...

There is no right and wrong = rape is never wrong = rape laws are a mistake

[Stizzel]

The moral magic of statism.



That feel when you find yourself defending rape

Please refer to the flow chart to understand why you're having so much trouble with something so basic

[flairon]

Every time stizzel comes out with what he thinks is some hard hitting post for the sheeple he gets clowned