Politician wants Schwarzenegger to lose citizenship

[AMX]

Perhaps you'd like to show how Schwarzenegger's refusal to step in and stop the execution has harmed Austria's image? Until you (or someone else) can show that Austria's image has been substantially damaged by his actions (even though he's easily the most popular and famous of their expatriots) then he has violated no laws.

Austria is stricktly anti-capital punishment.
Being our most popular expatriate, Schwarzenegger is shaping the international opinion about Austria.
If he supports capital punishment by action or inaction, he creates the image that Austria has no problem with capital punishment.
Which is considered as damage to our image, since capital punishment is barbaric and unnecessary.

If this Green whacko is so concerned with Austria's image, why doesn't he propose to posthumously strip the most well-known Austrian of the 20th Century of his citizenship?:P

Because Hitler renounced his citizenship.
There's nothing left to strip.

[Glocksman]

Because Hitler renounced his citizenship.
There's nothing left to strip.

Link?

IIRC, he looked into renouncing it in the mid 20's because he was afraid of being deported from Germany back to Austria (He did acquire German citizenship in the early 30's, but I don't know if that required him to renounce his Austrian citizenship)

[Glocksman]

Because Hitler renounced his citizenship.
There's nothing left to strip.

Link?

IIRC, he looked into renouncing it in the mid 20's because he was afraid of being deported from Germany back to Austria (He did acquire German citizenship in the early 30's, but I don't know if that required him to renounce his Austrian citizenship)

Forgot to add:

I recall that he looked into it, but don't remember reading that he actually went through the process of formally renouncing it.

I don't know if it's true, but I read something about him choosing Berchtesgaden for his hideaway because it was close to the Austrian border and he could slip across if the German police came to arrest him.

[Master of Ossus]

Austria is stricktly anti-capital punishment.

Yes. So?

Being our most popular expatriate, Schwarzenegger is shaping the international opinion about Austria.

Really? Prove it. Find someone who believes that Austria supports capital punishment, and formed that opinion based only on Governor Schwarzenegger's actions. Further show that this person thinks less of Austria as a result of the belief that Austria supports capital punishment.

If he supports capital punishment by action or inaction, he creates the image that Austria has no problem with capital punishment.
Which is considered as damage to our image, since capital punishment is barbaric and unnecessary.

According to you, but not necessarily according to the person who absorbs that information.

[Rogue 9]

Perhaps you'd like to show how Schwarzenegger's refusal to step in and stop the execution has harmed Austria's image? Until you (or someone else) can show that Austria's image has been substantially damaged by his actions (even though he's easily the most popular and famous of their expatriots) then he has violated no laws.

Austria is stricktly anti-capital punishment.
Being our most popular expatriate, Schwarzenegger is shaping the international opinion about Austria.
If he supports capital punishment by action or inaction, he creates the image that Austria has no problem with capital punishment.
Which is considered as damage to our image, since capital punishment is barbaric and unnecessary.

And it's barbaric and unnecessary because... you say so? Brilliant line of reasoning, there. I just love unsupported assertions, don't you?

Arnold is hardly creating that sort of image. If it wasn't for this thread, I wouldn't have even known about this case, much less pondered long and hard about Austria's image because of it. I would wager that this is the case with the vast majority of people. You'd have a stronger case for revoking his citizenship by saying that he made people think Austrians are evil robots from the future; at least most people are aware of the Terminator and Schwarzenegger's role in it.

[Glocksman]

Arnold is hardly creating that sort of image. If it wasn't for this thread, I wouldn't have even known about this case, much less pondered long and hard about Austria's image because of it. I would wager that this is the case with the vast majority of people. You'd have a stronger case for revoking his citizenship by saying that he made people think Austrians are evil robots from the future; at least most people are aware of the Terminator and Schwarzenegger's role in it.

Heh.
In the US, Austria's 'image problem' is that all too many Americans confuse 'Austria' with 'Australia'.
'Austria? Isn't that where the Kangaroos are?'

On a more serious note, while Arnie may have damaged Austria's reputation in the eyes of the Watermelon* party, it's pretty clear from the BBC article that the government will probably give this petition all the consideration it deserves and shitcan it.

*Green on the outside, Red on the inside

[AMX]

Link?

At the website of a certain movie

1925
...
30. April: Hitler wird auf Antrag aus der österreichischen Staatsbürgerschaft entlassen und ist seither staatenlos.

Meaning Hitler is "released" from Austrian citizenship, becoming stateless.

Really? Prove it. Find someone who believes that Austria supports capital punishment, and formed that opinion based only on Governor Schwarzenegger's actions. Further show that this person thinks less of Austria as a result of the belief that Austria supports capital punishment.

Luckily, I don't have to show that.
Because, as already pointed out, I don't care.

According to you, but not necessarily according to the person who absorbs that information.

Most importantly, according to the guy making the demand.

And it's barbaric and unnecessary because... you say so? Brilliant line of reasoning, there. I just love unsupported assertions, don't you?

There's a second debate about exactly this question going on in this very thread.

[Glocksman]

Link?

At the website of a certain movie

1925
...
30. April: Hitler wird auf Antrag aus der österreichischen Staatsbürgerschaft entlassen und ist seither staatenlos.

Meaning Hitler is "released" from Austrian citizenship, becoming stateless.

Thanks.

[Master of Ossus]

Really? Prove it. Find someone who believes that Austria supports capital punishment, and formed that opinion based only on Governor Schwarzenegger's actions. Further show that this person thinks less of Austria as a result of the belief that Austria supports capital punishment.

Luckily, I don't have to show that.
Because, as already pointed out, I don't care.

You don't care if he's actually committed the crime of which he's been accused?

Are you saying that in Austrians don'e believe in the presumption of innocence? And you complain about the American justice system? You've just done far more to hurt your country's reputation than anyone has shown Arnold to have done.

You came into the thread saying that the measure was legal, and that he was damaging Austria's image. Back your shit up.

Most importantly, according to the guy making the demand.

Wrong. In order for him to have damaged Austria's reputation with this matter, a person who believes erroneously based on his actions that Austria uses capital punishment would have to look down upon the country for that.

There's a second debate about exactly this question going on in this very thread.

So? That doesn't give you free reign to state your opinions without bothering to back them up.

[AMX]

You don't care if he's actually committed the crime of which he's been accused?

Are you saying that in Austrians don'e believe in the presumption of innocence? And you complain about the American justice system? You've just done far more to hurt your country's reputation than anyone has shown Arnold to have done.

Sorry, wasn't quite awake yet...

What I, personally, don't care about are Arnold's actions as governor, and I don't think it's very likely that he's doing anything detrimental to our reputation.

Of course we do believe in the presumption of innocence; that's not what I don't care about.
And yes, I did screw that up up there.

You came into the thread saying that the measure was legal, and that he was damaging Austria's image. Back your shit up.

Making the demand is, in fact, perfectly legal (he's got reason to believe that Austria's image has been damaged by an Austrian working for a foreign government).
Actually carrying the measure out would be a different matter (there's no proof that Austria's image has, in fact, been damaged by said person).

Wrong. In order for him to have damaged Austria's reputation with this matter, a person who believes erroneously based on his actions that Austria uses capital punishment would have to look down upon the country for that.

Strictly speaking, yes.
But we don't want people to think that of us.

So? That doesn't give you free reign to state your opinions without bothering to back them up.

It does tell you my sources.
Which should be enough, right?

[VT-16]

Yes, without his execution there would have been no resolution (however minor) for the families of his victims that wanted to see him dead.

So them getting revenge is better than him rotting in prison?

Plus his execution perpetuates a sense of justice in our society, that our most heinous criminals will be punished greatest extent possible for their crimes.

Death is the easy way out, better to see them caged up forever.

[VT-16]

And it's barbaric and unnecessary because... you say so? Brilliant line of reasoning, there. I just love unsupported assertions, don't you?

Personally, I love seeing evidence which proved a convicted man innocent pop up years after his execution.

[wautd]

That faggot had it coming. I'd signed the death sentence myself if I could

[Petrosjko]

Plus his execution perpetuates a sense of justice in our society, that our most heinous criminals will be punished greatest extent possible for their crimes.

Death is the easy way out, better to see them caged up forever.

I've always found that argument interesting, because aside from the arguments about judicial reliability, it's another path often trod by death penalty opponents.

The fact is that sentencing somebody to a real life sentence without parole is functionally equivalent to the death penalty inasmuch as in both cases it is essentially a judicial determination that a person is beyond salvage. Therefore in both cases no meaningful attempts at rehabilitation are made.

So saying that 'Death is the easy way out, better to see them caged up forever.' is sadism in practice, because rather than simply killing them, we extend their suffering by locking them away for thirty to forty years.

Who, precisely, does such an action serve? Society? Those close to the victim? The perpetrator?

[Broomstick]

Although the "Protect Law" linked to above may mean there has been a shift... but also, I wonder if anyone convincted under it might appeal based on the idea that US jurisdiction ends at the US border. It might be an interesting test case... or not.

It could be an interesting issue. I suspect that the outcome would be very much dependent on the crime involved and other factors, such as how much damage not trying them can cause to the country PR-wise (though in the past the US has seemed to have zero concern for this) and how much of a bad precedent it would set.

You are correct in that such decisions in the past have not considered the PR factor. Nor will they in the future. The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional, not whether or not it's good for the country. The notion that they should consider another country's opinion of the US in making such a decision would be met with great hostility in this country.

In the past, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions that were extremely unpopular with the public, or large segments of the public. If they're willing to face the wrath of their fellow citizens, what possible effect would the disapproval of foreigners have?

Some of this attitude has to do with certain European countries trying to meddle in our affairs during the 19th Century. After all, the US fought two wars to kick the British out of our territory, and the big colonial powers of the time did feel free to mess with us until we had the guns to make them back off. (Granted, we ourselves exhibited colonial empire traits as well during that time - never said we weren't hypocritical about it.)

[Edi]

It could be an interesting issue. I suspect that the outcome would be very much dependent on the crime involved and other factors, such as how much damage not trying them can cause to the country PR-wise (though in the past the US has seemed to have zero concern for this) and how much of a bad precedent it would set.

You are correct in that such decisions in the past have not considered the PR factor. Nor will they in the future. The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional, not whether or not it's good for the country. The notion that they should consider another country's opinion of the US in making such a decision would be met with great hostility in this country.

In the context that assuming the SCOTUS decides cases can be pursued and the courts don't take cases (has been happening just recently with the gitmo detainees). My point is also contingent on the US having jurisdiction over the case (as can quite persuasively be argued in light of the internatonal protocols). The thing is that if you allow your citizens to e.g. get away with murder as long as they did it somewhere else (even though there are arguments for your jurisdiction, it puts into question the whole idea of the rule of law). As for taking cases just because of PR, I agree with you. Ain't no fucking way we're going to let Russia dictate what our courts should and should not do.

In the past, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions that were extremely unpopular with the public, or large segments of the public. If they're willing to face the wrath of their fellow citizens, what possible effect would the disapproval of foreigners have?

This is something that would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the cases involved, but if there is enough public disapproval abroad, it's going to make trying to push any kind of international cooperation on issues that are the least bit controversial a nightmare, as recent events (the Iraq War) have proven.

I don't think we have very different positions here. I think I've put it better in the past, but right now I'm bloody pressed for time. In fact, need to go this second, so we can continue later if there is more to discuss.

Edi

[Edi]

Okay, found another empty PC lab, so I can continue.

As was about to say before I got booted out of the lab my previous classes were in, the PR factors are not a significant issue and it was in fact not a very good idea to bring it up in the first place. So I might as well concede that portion right now.

Like we have already established, the biggest problems come from the explicit law vs. implied power, and in the issue of where jurisdiction applies, the implications come from the trinity formed by the concepts of state, sovereignty and jurisdiction. All of these concepts are assumed to be true for the purposes of the US constitution, or the document would have no foundation. The same is true of all other nations as well.

Edi

[salm]

I never said imprisonment isn't punishment, dumbass. My point has been that's it expensive to maintain a prison system for inmates who IMO should just be executed.

liar:

but irrefuteably murderous scumbags who show no remorse get put away for life? Punishment my ass. Free meals, free luxuries. Oh, they can't go anywhere. Big deal.

It's not the only criteria. It's a permanent solution,

so is life in prison.

great deterrent

so is life in prison.

, satisfaction for affected persons/family, etc.

so is life in prison.

Except that magical thing called money needed to provide that lifetime imprisonment as opposed to just putting a bullet in them.

so you admit that all of these points you listed (permanent solution, deterrent and satisfaction) were merely a bunch of red herrings then?

What the fuck are you talking about? You seriously think executing guilty criminals is more expensive than taking care of them for the rest of their lives?

yes it is, according to wikipedia it´s more expensive by a factor of 10

With mandatory appeals and enhanced procedural and evidentiary requirements for capital cases in the USA, the cost of a death penalty case far exceeds (usually by a factor of ten) the cost of a trial and life imprisonment.

source

In case you didn't realize it, your dumbass point about how executing criminals is "more expensive" is because it takes so fucking long to get through the damn paperwork, and taking care of them in the meantime. You know, imprisonment, free meals, security, legal fees...all of which are expensive costs after they've been found guilty.

obviously you´re too stupid to understand the concept of the possibility to appeal. go look it up, then read my last post again in which i said something about "minimum standard".

[The Yosemite Bear]

Deterrent factor is neglible, as hardened criminals will kill witnesses and cops as they "Have nothing to loose". Furthermore I pointed out already that during the 1800's the notion of deterrent was blown out of the water, as those who could be executed for theft, & rape used hangings as a means of camoflauge.

[The Yosemite Bear]

ALso, not mentioned but evident in the superme court desision of the 1970's and in some recent govenatorial moritoriums on capitol punishment, is that the system becomes an instrument of Terrorism and class warfare. As a purson with a great deal of money can commit a very haneous murder and not face the death penalty, or even be convicted thanks to being able to afford the best lawyers. Wilst your average death row inmate is a lower class individual who can not afford a decent attorney, given instances of tampered evidence over the last 20 years, the person who is going to be executed may actually have a better chance of being innocent, rather then the individual who can afford an atterney.

The second factor with the Class warfare arguement is that after incidents like CRASH in LA, the Noteriety of the murders and drug sales committed by the New Orleans Police department, some elements of society could be honestly be seeing police authority as soldiers of tyranny and an actual threat that needs to be defended against.

[Robert Walper]

I never said imprisonment isn't punishment, dumbass. My point has been that's it expensive to maintain a prison system for inmates who IMO should just be executed.

liar:

but irrefuteably murderous scumbags who show no remorse get put away for life? Punishment my ass. Free meals, free luxuries. Oh, they can't go anywhere. Big deal.

You obviously don't grasp english very well. Punishment is a relative term. You could literately slap someone on the wrist for murdering someone, and label it "punishment". Most people would hardly consider that punishment, despite the fact you can accurately label it so.

Except that magical thing called money needed to provide that lifetime imprisonment as opposed to just putting a bullet in them.

so you admit that all of these points you listed (permanent solution, deterrent and satisfaction) were merely a bunch of red herrings then?

Being executed is not a permanent solution, deterrent or source of satisfaction(for some)? How fucking stupid are you?

What the fuck are you talking about? You seriously think executing guilty criminals is more expensive than taking care of them for the rest of their lives?

yes it is, according to wikipedia it´s more expensive by a factor of 10

With mandatory appeals and enhanced procedural and evidentiary requirements for capital cases in the USA, the cost of a death penalty case far exceeds (usually by a factor of ten) the cost of a trial and life imprisonment.

Yes, the current system can take decades to execute someone. Hence, why it is more expensive. Fucking duh.

In case you didn't realize it, your dumbass point about how executing criminals is "more expensive" is because it takes so fucking long to get through the damn paperwork, and taking care of them in the meantime. You know, imprisonment, free meals, security, legal fees...all of which are expensive costs after they've been found guilty.

obviously you´re too stupid to understand the concept of the possibility to appeal. go look it up, then read my last post again in which i said something about "minimum standard".

And what part of irrefuteably guilty, remorseless or repeat offenders did you not understand? They're the only ones I'd not hesistate to execute, and by that definition appeals and other time consuming efforts (which jack up the costs) are not necessary.

[MKSheppard]

And not a peep about the Japs hanging people

With no set execution dates at all Makes for
real great mental torchure on the condemned

[Robert Walper]

And not a peep about the Japs hanging people

With no set execution dates at all Makes for
real great mental torchure on the condemned

I don't see the need to delibrately torment individuals destined for execution. Just get it over with as quickly and humanely as possible.

[Master of Ossus]

What I, personally, don't care about are Arnold's actions as governor, and I don't think it's very likely that he's doing anything detrimental to our reputation.

Cool.

Making the demand is, in fact, perfectly legal (he's got reason to believe that Austria's image has been damaged by an Austrian working for a foreign government).
Actually carrying the measure out would be a different matter (there's no proof that Austria's image has, in fact, been damaged by said person).

I agree with that, although I would still argue that this measure is fairly petty on the part of the guy bringing it up. I guess representative figures have to agree with us all the time.

Strictly speaking, yes.
But we don't want people to think that of us.

I understand and sympathize with your position, but I honestly can't see anyone going through the mental hoops to connect Arnold and capital punishment with Austria and then further assuming that Austria supports the death penalty on the basis that Arnold allows it to go ahead in enforcing California law.

It does tell you my sources.
Which should be enough, right?

Usually when someone asks you to back up your claims they're asking you to explain the reasoning behind them, thus constructing an argument. For example, "I started with this premise, which logically leads to this, which further leads to the conclusion that I've drawn." For a real and not abstract example, if you look back through the thread, you'll see a brief argument I had with someone who was against capital punishment. He argued from the position that the right to life was in fact more fundamental than any of the other human rights and that it provided it with a unique status as being completely inalienable while the other rights could presumably be violated under certain circumstances. While I disagree with his premise (he's sort of drawing an arbitrary line in the sand), his reasoning from that premise was reasonable.

On this board, it's usually not enough to say "My country thinks it's bad and so do I," or "My mom said it was bad and I believed her." Both of those are really just appeals to authority. Instead, it's better reconstruct the underlying logic behind the statement and present that as an argument.

One more example: let's say that there's a moral discussion and someone says "The ends don't justify the means." Their opponent says, "Why not?" Person A is now in a conundrum, since it's very difficult to argue logically that the ends actually don't justify the means, and it's actually considerably easier to argue the other way around (ie. The means don't justify the ends, but the ends can justify the means). It is not sufficient for Person A to respond that he ehard that in church, or his dad told him that, or his country, or a hippie he met on the street, or Allah, or his boss. Instead, he's being asked to explain why the church/dad/hippie/Allah/boss might've come to that conclusion.

[AMX]

I agree with that, although I would still argue that this measure is fairly petty on the part of the guy bringing it up.

Petty.. well, what exactly do you expect from the Green party's security spokesman?
Y'know, his party basically wants to get rid of all military...

I guess representative figures have to agree with us all the time.

Well... they have a higher-than-normal impact, so they are supposed to be more careful than others... kind of, I'm told.

I understand and sympathize with your position, but I honestly can't see anyone going through the mental hoops to connect Arnold and capital punishment with Austria and then further assuming that Austria supports the death penalty on the basis that Arnold allows it to go ahead in enforcing California law.

Me neither.
But Mr Fungus says it'll happen, so at least one person made that connection.

<snip>

Ah, well, what reasons may I have to oppose capital punishment...
-Incorrigible. If the guy turns out to be innocent, you can set him free from prison; but you can't do that when he's dead.
-Psychological impact. If someone knows he'll die for whatever it was he did, he'll be a lot more likely to do anything it takes to avoid capture, maybe even decide to "go out in a blaze of glory", and take as many people with him as possible.
-Rights. Criminals basically have the same rights as anyone else (property, freedom, life, etc.) - and if I have to choose between violating all their rights (killing them will deny them everything, after all), and violating all but one, I'll choose the latter, and lock them up (unless there's a compelling need to kill them. I could see how you'd prefer to execute somebody who can teleport out of his cell or something, but I haven't heard of any case like that).
-Abuse. That's probably a biggie for people over here, if only subconsciously - we had a murderous regime a few decades back, remember?
-Lack of counterarguments. The only actual pro-CP arguments I know are "deterrant" and "savings", neither of which appears to be justified.
Then there are a few "pseudo-arguments" which I understand as simple bloodlust.

I think that's it.