TB: You said it yourself, Daredevil was cleared in the public eye—so somebody might come after him if he was active as Daredevil, but it wouldn’t be wise to show up on Matt Murdock’s doorstep for the same reason. That would publicly seem like additional harassment of a blind man. And just because there are heroes on the Pro-Reg side who know that Matt is Daredevil doesn’t mean that anybody turned him in. This isn’t the Senate hearings of the 1950s where every hero is asked to name all of their fellow communist-heroes or face imprisonment. Heck, Tony could enter his name in the rolls and defacto register him himself, if he was of a mind to, or saw the need.
Yeahbuhwhat?
If a hero believes in registration enough to register and continue operating under the government's or SHIELD's orders, why would the same hero then break the law just to protect someone else's secret identity? That's one hell of a poor way to uphold a principle.
While I consider that, I'd like to hear your point as to why Rogers never resorted to violence to protect anyone else's rights like this in the face of a slow justice system? Why was it okay for Rogers to use force to short-cut the justice system here (given that we've established he would have had access to the courts, even in 42) when it wouldn't be okay for a normal criminal in the same situation to do so? Why did Rogers only use force to short-cut the justice system here when he hasn't used it for any of those other criminals?
i would argue that, in fact, rogers resorts to force every day to protect the rights of american citizens. it's what he does. he is not a judge or, as you pointed out, a lawyer and his job is to go out and battle people to uphold 'the dream', as he puts it. i'm not arguing that it was okay for him to start a guerrilla war, but i believe that he genuinely felt that because he wasn't ready to support the rounding up of his friends, he was going to be incarcerated for an unknown period of time until it was deemed that he was no longer a threat to shra, at which point he could then begin the appeals process and etc etc, but at that point the damage would have been done already. he chose to try and prevent what he saw as a disaster, to support people he felt deserved his support, people who had earned his support fighting by his side. if he'd waited, he couldn't know what kind of damage might be done to their lives through the enforcement of the act, and chose instead, right or wrong, to make a stand.
a 'criminal', as you say, would be unlikely to be in a similar situation, with people he loved and to whom he felt the world owed a debt put in danger.
cap hasn't done it before because, i suppose, why would he? it's the criminal justice system for a reason and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work, but what it does is try to prosecute criminals to the best of its ability, and cap believed the people it might prosecute were not criminals and didn't deserve the violence that would come their way inevitably in a trial situation. as someone pointed out, you had to appear in court as 'peter parker' in order to argue your case, and whether or not you chose to register, a trial would result in the public revelation of many superhero identities and families. i doubt he always agrees with the justice system, perhaps he even has a 'free mumia' bumpersticker, but i think essentially cap has to be content to allow the justice system to do its thing while he does his, until they start coming for people he does not believe to be criminals.
i think it's also important to consider that cap isn't doing this out of some abstract concept of who should be a criminal and who shouldn't, but rather the fact that these men and women have stood by his side and saved millions of lives time and again. to him, no matter what the law says of their actions, they will never be criminals
The only law he resorted to violence against was the law that would finally make Captain America responsible for his actions as Captain America.
hardly. he's a registered shield agent and has been ever since he got unfrozen and joined the avengers, and was a soldier in the US army before that.
cap, more than any other hero in the marvel universe has always been responsible for his actions
A good point to think about. Given that I'm not 100% on Hill's giving the cape-killers the order to fire, I'll get back to you on it. The point, however, is still true for every single other anti-reg hero in Rogers' army.
While I consider that, I'd like to hear your point as to why Rogers never resorted to violence to protect anyone else's rights like this in the face of a slow justice system? Why was it okay for Rogers to use force to short-cut the justice system here (given that we've established he would have had access to the courts, even in 42) when it wouldn't be okay for a normal criminal in the same situation to do so? Why did Rogers only use force to short-cut the justice system here when he hasn't used it for any of those other criminals?
Because he hasn't encountered any other instances where the justice system forces everyone who has superpowers regardless of their intent to use them or not to join a military force and go beat the shit out of their friends that don't want to join up.
Also probably because they fucking shot at him.
Yeah, you didn't answer my question at all. Besides that, you're talking about a version of SHRA that we now know never existed.
My question was this: why is it okay for Rogers to use force to shortcut the justice system for one law, but not for the other? Why is it okay for Rogers, but not for all criminals?
Just because you believe a law is immoral doesn't mean you violate it and flee from punishment: it means you violate it, and then face punishment, using the legal system to bring about the changes you believe are right.
That's what so many of you seem to be unable to get: the lesson of MLK, Jr. and the rest of the Civil Rights Movement. If you believe in the system, then you cannot place yourself above it. The only time - now - when violence is the appropriate response to an injustice is when the injustice cannot be remedied in the justice system. Just because it takes five years doesn't mean you get the right to use violence. That's what Cap didn't get, and that's what many of you don't get.
Of you supporters of Cap, I'd really like to hear whether you'd be okay with people who possess personal amounts of pot - a practice I believe should be legally protected - violently fighting off the police?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why it's okay to shortcut the justice system.
It was okay for Cap to fight the SHRA because the SHRA was wrong. Forced conscription of everyone with and kind of metahuman abilities, and severe criminal penalties for those who didn't want SHIELD telling them how to live their lives.
You're honestly defending an act that had them telling the long retired and new mother Jessica Jones that she had to enlist even if she had no intention of ever fighting crime again and they'ed 'find something for her to do."
You're defending and act that had them kick in Luke Cages door and forcably drag him out not 5 seconds after the act went into law because he was sitting on his couch watching tv.
You're defending an act that has them throw heroes, people who saved countless lives, into an extra-dimensional prison with well documented effects of damaging peoples mental states.
You're defending folks who hire Norman Osbourne, Bullseye, and Venom (all know sociopaths and murderes) to 'arrest' said heroes, and not being to upset when said murderers do what they do.
You're defending people who start wars with foriegn superpowers to sway public opinion.
You're defending folks who've opened fire on children with heavy weapons, and attempted to kill one child when they learned he was a robot, because "robots don't count."
As for Cap not listening to MLK, seems to me he listens more to the Founding Fathers.
i would argue that, in fact, rogers resorts to force every day to protect the rights of american citizens. it's what he does. he is not a judge or, as you pointed out, a lawyer and his job is to go out and battle people to uphold 'the dream', as he puts it.
For Rogers, the only reason that was permitted was that he was already a SHIELD employee. For everyone else, they were just vigilantes, and the fact that every supervillain keeps getting out indicates that these criminals aren't keep kept away legally.
i'm not arguing that it was okay for him to start a guerrilla war, but i believe that he genuinely felt that because he wasn't ready to support the rounding up of his friends, he was going to be incarcerated for an unknown period of time until it was deemed that he was no longer a threat to shra, at which point he could then begin the appeals process and etc etc, but at that point the damage would have been done already.
This, AT BEST, gives an explanation for his initial flight and escape. If we assume that's okay, that still provides no explanation why he didn't immediately make his appeal to the populace through the news media nor why he didn't get a lawyer. This provides zero - absolutely zero - explanation for why he continued to lead a rebellion.
he chose to try and prevent what he saw as a disaster, to support people he felt deserved his support, people who had earned his support fighting by his side. if he'd waited, he couldn't know what kind of damage might be done to their lives through the enforcement of the act, and chose instead, right or wrong, to make a stand.
Again, this shows his massive misunderstanding of the legal system, not to mention his disrespect for the legal process. He's apparently content to let the slow, inefficient justice system handle all these other problems, but not his own or those of his friends. When it's a poor black kid in Harlem busted for a gram of pot, he's okay with that kid spending years in jail while trying to fight the constitutionality of those laws. When it's a woman getting paid 3/4 of what a man makes, he's cool with her having to work her way through the civil litigation process. But when he and his costumed friends don't get to play policeman without following any rules of due process, all of a sudden he can't deal with how slow and inefficient the justice system is.
Just because you have powers, that doesn't mean you don't have to wait for the justice system.
a 'criminal', as you say, would be unlikely to be in a similar situation, with people he loved and to whom he felt the world owed a debt put in danger.
Your status as a criminal is purely based on whether you follow the laws. Rogers broke it. Whether he's a good man or not, whether he's a hero or not, he's still a criminal. This has nothing to do with the constitutionality of SHRA. In the same way, Stark is apparently a criminal, despite having not been arrested.
Cap hasn't done it before because, i suppose, why would he?
Because there's no difference. Cap only launched a rebellion because it affected him and his friends. He's been content to never launch such a rebellion over any of the other problems.
it's the criminal justice system for a reason and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work, but what it does is try to prosecute criminals to the best of its ability, and cap believed the people it might prosecute were not criminals and didn't deserve the violence that would come their way inevitably in a trial situation.
Are you kidding? You're admitting that the only reason Rogers didn't do it before is because now it's his friends. Or, are you suggesting that Rogers believes that people who possess a small amount of drugs deserve 3-5 years in jail? Or that kids who drink while they're 18 - despite being old enough to serve - deserve criminal prosecution?
Apparently Cap is okay with all these other people being in jail unjustly while they fight those laws, but he's not okay with Cap and his costumed friends doing so.
This is Cap being hyper-selfish. It only matters if his friends are subject to the unjust laws...he's uninterested in the other ones.
as someone pointed out, you had to appear in court as 'peter parker' in order to argue your case, and whether or not you chose to register, a trial would result in the public revelation of many superhero identities and families.
(a) There is no pure constitutional right to privacy. It exists as a penumbral right, emanating from several amendments. Just because you're keeping it a secret doesn't mean you have a right to do so, much less an inviolable right to do so.
(b) If you engage in vigilantiism - something that not only is illegal, but something whose illegality hasn't been challenged once by these costumed heroes - then you don't have a right to keep your identity private. Any one of these heroes could already be arrested for vigilantiism and be forced to reveal their identity in court.
i doubt he always agrees with the justice system, perhaps he even has a 'free mumia' bumpersticker, but i think essentially cap has to be content to allow the justice system to do its thing while he does his, until they start coming for people he does not believe to be criminals.
Except his thing is illegal. Besides, again, he only does something about it when it affects him or his friends. For a guy who is supposed to be a superhero, and the symbol of our country, that's pretty immature.
i think it's also important to consider that cap isn't doing this out of some abstract concept of who should be a criminal and who shouldn't, but rather the fact that these men and women have stood by his side and saved millions of lives time and again. to him, no matter what the law says of their actions, they will never be criminals
Actually, your status as a criminal is purely defined by the law. This isn't a word like "hero" that is a subjective evaluation. It's a straightforward term: if you break a law without a legal justification or excuse* then you're a criminal.
*: An excuse nullifies the crime - e.g. self-defense is an excuse for murder - whereas a justification removes culpability - e.g. necessity is an excuse for theft in some situations. In the former case (excuses) you have no civil liability, while in the latter case (justifications) you have some or all civil liability.
It was okay for Cap to fight the SHRA because the SHRA was wrong. Forced conscription of everyone with and kind of metahuman abilities, and severe criminal penalties for those who didn't want SHIELD telling them how to live their lives.
Do you not get yet that there is no forced conscription? There's forced registration, and if you want to fight crime you're forced to license. Now, given that you've yet to advance an argument against a general draft, nor against the existence of a supervillain threat, I'm waiting for you to start your argument.
You're honestly defending an act that had them telling the long retired and new mother Jessica Jones that she had to enlist even if she had no intention of ever fighting crime again and they'ed 'find something for her to do.
She had to register. Not fight crime.
You're defending and act that had them kick in Luke Cages door and forcably drag him out not 5 seconds after the act went into law because he was sitting on his couch watching tv.
This was either Stark or Hill being overzealous. It has nothing to do with the validity of the act.
You're defending an act that has them throw heroes, people who saved countless lives, into an extra-dimensional prison with well documented effects of damaging peoples mental states.
Well documented? Where?
By the way, as the editors have explained, 42 was temporary for heroes: only villains would be stored there long-term. The heroes were only stored during Rogers' Rebellion.
You're defending folks who hire Norman Osbourne, Bullseye, and Venom (all know sociopaths and murderes) to 'arrest' said heroes, and not being to upset when said murderers do what they do.
Wow, you're not only wrong, but you're wrong within a page or two of me explaining that the whole Thunderbolts thing was a massive mistake. That doesn't say anything about SHRA. It just says Stark and SHIELD picked a poor enforcement mechanism.
You're defending people who start wars with foriegn superpowers to sway public opinion.
Sigh, see the above. You're going to have to learn to distinguish a law from the people who enforce it, and more importantly to distinguish a law from the mechanisms chosen to enforce it.
You're defending folks who've opened fire on children with heavy weapons, and attempted to kill one child when they learned he was a robot, because "robots don't count."
Again, see above. You're getting pretty repetative here.
As for Cap not listening to MLK, seems to me he listens more to the Founding Fathers.
Which ones? The ones who had slaves? The ones who believed women were second-class citizens? The ones who believed that only property owners should have a vote? The ones who didn't believe in a Supreme Court with the ability to declare a law unconstitutional?
The Founding Fathers did a lot of great stuff, but they had a lot of awful ideas too. They weren't infallible.
Are you honestly saying that MLK, Jr. wasn't pursuing the right way to achieve civil rights? Seriously?
This was either Stark or Hill being overzealous. It has nothing to do with the validity of the act.
They act may or may not be valid ( I think it's a decent idea, but simply can't work in the 616 Universe.) But if I'm a hero in the Marvel U, and I see how SHIELD and the Iron Youth are enforcing the act, I sure as hell ain't signing up.
That's....that's not fair at all. You leave pot out of this, you son of a bitch!
But to answer the one question you posed:
My question was this: why is it okay for Rogers to use force to shortcut the justice system for one law, but not for the other? Why is it okay for Rogers, but not for all criminals?
The context is different because he's a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and up to this point they've many a shifty action lately.
i think you weren't following the line of reasoning there, in that i wasn't arguing that cap was afraid of himself or his friends going to jail, but rather that the public revelation of their identities would destroy their lives and the lives of their families, perhaps literally (remember, johnny storm was beaten nearly to death by people who weren't even villains). he believed he was literally protecting his friend's lives, no less than they deserve for saving the world over and over when it isn't even their job to do so.
as for the rest, i don't necessarily disagree with you. i agree that cap should have gone to the media certainly, rather than start some kind of war. i think drug laws are silly too, and perhaps cap should spend all his time campainging to keep people out of jail when they're thrown in only because they're black or there's some outside force framing them or whathaveyou, but in the marvel universe that would mean that there would be nobody left to stop hydra and frankly, cap has more important things to do all day than try to get an 18 year old out of an MIP charge.
i do think it's not particularly valid to compare drug possession laws and draft laws in terms of how 'unjust' they may be, as they are, at best, nothing alike (unless you're talking about the real world, in which case we would be more in agreement)
Should Civil War's ability to polarize the nerd community like no other comics storyline or debate topic before it be viewed as evidence of a success, at least conceptually, or are most of us just taking our frustration over the series out on each other in a grand display of misdirected rage?
Should Civil War's ability to polarize the nerd community like no other comics storyline or debate topic before it be viewed as evidence of a success, at least conceptually, or are most of us just taking our frustration over the series out on each other in a grand display of misdirected rage?
I'm definitely in the latter group.
Snake Gandhi on
XBL: That Stone Dude
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
Which one is the, I don't feel it's worth analyzing because it's so stupid, group fall under?
I mean, the inherent idea, that superheros should register with the government and recieve training and pay in exchange for what they do, is not a bad one. Hell, I love Invincible and the Incredibles and both of them have registered heroes.
But a) it just doesn't work in the Marvel U, where every government and agency has shown that they can't keep secrets for shit. In fact, the was a mini not to long ago about some villians breaking into SHIELD and stealing a disk with all the secret id's SHIELD knew about. And now you wanna give them everyones id? $20 says that the Red Skull of Green Goblin have it within a week.
and then theres b) the writing and editing have been utter trash. Instead of an even handed, both sides have a point look we got one side being complete faschists yet still being the good guys of the story, everyone acting idiotically and out of character, and books completely contradicting each other.
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Then why the hell did they make that garbage they call "Civil War"?
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Then why the hell did they make that garbage they call "Civil War"?
Well, American laws override SHIELD too. SHIELD isn't even an American organization.
That's....that's not fair at all. You leave pot out of this, you son of a bitch!
But to answer the one question you posed:
My question was this: why is it okay for Rogers to use force to shortcut the justice system for one law, but not for the other? Why is it okay for Rogers, but not for all criminals?
The context is different because he's a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and up to this point they've many a shifty action lately.
Edit: WAS a SHIELD agent.
At best, that would explain why it might be okay for him, but not for all the other heroes.
Of course, it doesn't explain why it's okay for Rogers to use force instead of using the same criminal and civil justice system the rest of the nation has to use.
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Where was this? I must have missed it, obviously.
The thing is, SHRA - as later legislation - would override whatever it was that gave him Champion status.
i think you weren't following the line of reasoning there, in that i wasn't arguing that cap was afraid of himself or his friends going to jail, but rather that the public revelation of their identities would destroy their lives and the lives of their families, perhaps literally (remember, johnny storm was beaten nearly to death by people who weren't even villains). he believed he was literally protecting his friend's lives, no less than they deserve for saving the world over and over when it isn't even their job to do so.
One more time: you don't have a right to privacy when engaging in a crime. Vigilantiism is a crime in every state. It's straightforward: no superhero has a right to privacy as to his secret identity. The poor enforcement of existing anti-vigilanty laws doesn't mean that they have any more such right.
BTW, Johnny Storm's identity has been public since he got powers. Never seemed to be a problem before.
as for the rest, i don't necessarily disagree with you. i agree that cap should have gone to the media certainly, rather than start some kind of war. i think drug laws are silly too, and perhaps cap should spend all his time campainging to keep people out of jail when they're thrown in only because they're black or there's some outside force framing them or whathaveyou, but in the marvel universe that would mean that there would be nobody left to stop hydra and frankly, cap has more important things to do all day than try to get an 18 year old out of an MIP charge.
That only works from an editorial stance. For Steve Rogers, in his America, there is no moral reason for him to believe he had the right to revolt violently when those other criminals didn't have a right to revolt.
I'm not saying Rogers should be campaigning for the end to the War on Drugs (though, actually, I think he should): I'm saying that if Rogers had the right to launch an insurrection, then so do the normal - unpowered - Marvel Americans who believe that some other law is unjust. If Rogers can revolt against the SHRA, then those kids who are being targeted for drug possession can, and the blacks who think they're being discriminated against systematically can, etc.
It's not about Rogers, its about EVERYONE.
i do think it's not particularly valid to compare drug possession laws and draft laws in terms of how 'unjust' they may be, as they are, at best, nothing alike (unless you're talking about the real world, in which case we would be more in agreement)
I'm not clear what you mean here.
Justice is justice, and injustice is injustice. Either it's permissible to revolt, violently, because you believe a law is unjust, or it's not permissible. Either injustice is a sufficient cause for insurrection, or it isn't.
Either Rogers and everyone else can revolt because they believe they are the subject of an unjust law, or no one can. Either everyone must use the legal system, or no one must.
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Where was this? I must have missed it, obviously.
The thing is, SHRA - as later legislation - would override whatever it was that gave him Champion status.
I've never heard of this title, though.
There is no real guarantee that it would override his status as we have neither the specifics of the law or the wording / legal explaination of his champion status or what actions can cause it to be exempt.
I was just mentioning it as I thought it was interesting and might be something they could build upon in future issues.
Potential Captain America 25 spoiler.
Then again since he's rumored to die by the machinations of Red Skull, maybe not.
i think you weren't following the line of reasoning there, in that i wasn't arguing that cap was afraid of himself or his friends going to jail, but rather that the public revelation of their identities would destroy their lives and the lives of their families, perhaps literally (remember, johnny storm was beaten nearly to death by people who weren't even villains). he believed he was literally protecting his friend's lives, no less than they deserve for saving the world over and over when it isn't even their job to do so.
One more time: you don't have a right to privacy when engaging in a crime. Vigilantiism is a crime in every state. It's straightforward: no superhero has a right to privacy as to his secret identity. The poor enforcement of existing anti-vigilanty laws doesn't mean that they have any more such right.
BTW, Johnny Storm's identity has been public since he got powers. Never seemed to be a problem before.
as for the rest, i don't necessarily disagree with you. i agree that cap should have gone to the media certainly, rather than start some kind of war. i think drug laws are silly too, and perhaps cap should spend all his time campainging to keep people out of jail when they're thrown in only because they're black or there's some outside force framing them or whathaveyou, but in the marvel universe that would mean that there would be nobody left to stop hydra and frankly, cap has more important things to do all day than try to get an 18 year old out of an MIP charge.
That only works from an editorial stance. For Steve Rogers, in his America, there is no moral reason for him to believe he had the right to revolt violently when those other criminals didn't have a right to revolt.
I'm not saying Rogers should be campaigning for the end to the War on Drugs (though, actually, I think he should): I'm saying that if Rogers had the right to launch an insurrection, then so do the normal - unpowered - Marvel Americans who believe that some other law is unjust. If Rogers can revolt against the SHRA, then those kids who are being targeted for drug possession can, and the blacks who think they're being discriminated against systematically can, etc.
It's not about Rogers, its about EVERYONE.
i do think it's not particularly valid to compare drug possession laws and draft laws in terms of how 'unjust' they may be, as they are, at best, nothing alike (unless you're talking about the real world, in which case we would be more in agreement)
I'm not clear what you mean here.
Justice is justice, and injustice is injustice. Either it's permissible to revolt, violently, because you believe a law is unjust, or it's not permissible. Either injustice is a sufficient cause for insurrection, or it isn't.
Either Rogers and everyone else can revolt because they believe they are the subject of an unjust law, or no one can. Either everyone must use the legal system, or no one must.
Either there is a rule of law, or there isn't.
i think you're missing my point still
i'm not saying that they have the constitutional right to privacy
i'm saying that, based on no laws or constitutional readings, captain america decided that the heroes earned a right to privacy through their service to the world. there is no legal ground for this. i know.
and as to the second part, i do believe that everyone has the right to revolt if they don't agree with a law, i absolutely believe that. cap has the right, same as a black kid who's being treated unfairly by the police. the government, in the end, does not automatically get to control my actions unless i want to let it do so. i'm not saying it's a good idea or a feasible idea every single time you get a traffic ticket, but to argue that you have to obey the law because everyone else does is pretty silly. if you don't want to, guess what. you don't have to. there may, nay perhaps will be consequences, but nevertheless, until the government puts a chip in the brain that controls motor functions, you don't have to obey the law. if you feel it's in your best interests, or the best interests of your friends or family or loved ones, and i mean really truly in their best interests like they might be murdered by supervillains if their identies become public knowledge, then maybe that's worth fighting for
let me ask you this- how do you feel about the black panther party or john africa's MOVE, particularly the tenets of those organizations that led them to arm themselves as a defense for their families against government sanctioned police attack?
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Where was this? I must have missed it, obviously.
The thing is, SHRA - as later legislation - would override whatever it was that gave him Champion status.
I've never heard of this title, though.
There is no real guarantee that it would override his status as we have neither the specifics of the law or the wording / legal explaination of his champion status or what actions can cause it to be exempt.
I was just mentioning it as I thought it was interesting and might be something they could build upon in future issues.
Potential Captain America 25 spoiler.
Then again since he's rumored to die by the machinations of Red Skull, maybe not.
More on CA#25 from a second Newsarama thread on it.
In a follow-up in Captain America #25, Steve Rogers is shot in the shoulder by a sniper on his way up the steps to the Federal Court. In the ensuing crowd chaos, he is shot three times in the gut with a pistol, and later appears to die of his injuries. It is later revealed that the plan was orchestrated by the Red Skull; the sniper was Crossbones, and Sharon Carter, under a hypnotic suggestion by Dr.Faustus, was the person who had shot Rogers in the stomach.
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Where was this? I must have missed it, obviously.
The thing is, SHRA - as later legislation - would override whatever it was that gave him Champion status.
I've never heard of this title, though.
There is no real guarantee that it would override his status as we have neither the specifics of the law or the wording / legal explaination of his champion status or what actions can cause it to be exempt.
I was just mentioning it as I thought it was interesting and might be something they could build upon in future issues.
Potential Captain America 25 spoiler.
Then again since he's rumored to die by the machinations of Red Skull, maybe not.
More on CA#25 from a second Newsarama thread on it.
In a follow-up in Captain America #25, Steve Rogers is shot in the shoulder by a sniper on his way up the steps to the Federal Court. In the ensuing crowd chaos, he is shot three times in the gut with a pistol, and later appears to die of his injuries. It is later revealed that the plan was orchestrated by the Red Skull; the sniper was Crossbones, and Sharon Carter, under a hypnotic suggestion by Dr.Faustus, was the person who had shot Rogers in the stomach.
if thats true, we all know there is NO way that Cap is going down by anything less then 6 shots in the head. A shoulder and gut injuries won't do shit to him, and he'll be back before long.
the fifth day of questions seems to be a lot more intersesting than the last four
but ol tb slipped in this little zinger relevant to that argument that happened a few days ago
TB: I don’t think they ever represented themselves as having Gods on their side to the American people (most of whom don’t believe in Thor’s divinity in the first place, and just think he’s another superhuman with delusions of grandeur).
there's pie on my face (or possibly his if he is forgetting about the bringing asgard to earth thing)
Posts
Yeahbuhwhat?
If a hero believes in registration enough to register and continue operating under the government's or SHIELD's orders, why would the same hero then break the law just to protect someone else's secret identity? That's one hell of a poor way to uphold a principle.
i would argue that, in fact, rogers resorts to force every day to protect the rights of american citizens. it's what he does. he is not a judge or, as you pointed out, a lawyer and his job is to go out and battle people to uphold 'the dream', as he puts it. i'm not arguing that it was okay for him to start a guerrilla war, but i believe that he genuinely felt that because he wasn't ready to support the rounding up of his friends, he was going to be incarcerated for an unknown period of time until it was deemed that he was no longer a threat to shra, at which point he could then begin the appeals process and etc etc, but at that point the damage would have been done already. he chose to try and prevent what he saw as a disaster, to support people he felt deserved his support, people who had earned his support fighting by his side. if he'd waited, he couldn't know what kind of damage might be done to their lives through the enforcement of the act, and chose instead, right or wrong, to make a stand.
a 'criminal', as you say, would be unlikely to be in a similar situation, with people he loved and to whom he felt the world owed a debt put in danger.
cap hasn't done it before because, i suppose, why would he? it's the criminal justice system for a reason and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work, but what it does is try to prosecute criminals to the best of its ability, and cap believed the people it might prosecute were not criminals and didn't deserve the violence that would come their way inevitably in a trial situation. as someone pointed out, you had to appear in court as 'peter parker' in order to argue your case, and whether or not you chose to register, a trial would result in the public revelation of many superhero identities and families. i doubt he always agrees with the justice system, perhaps he even has a 'free mumia' bumpersticker, but i think essentially cap has to be content to allow the justice system to do its thing while he does his, until they start coming for people he does not believe to be criminals.
i think it's also important to consider that cap isn't doing this out of some abstract concept of who should be a criminal and who shouldn't, but rather the fact that these men and women have stood by his side and saved millions of lives time and again. to him, no matter what the law says of their actions, they will never be criminals
Yeah, you didn't answer my question at all. Besides that, you're talking about a version of SHRA that we now know never existed.
My question was this: why is it okay for Rogers to use force to shortcut the justice system for one law, but not for the other? Why is it okay for Rogers, but not for all criminals?
Just because you believe a law is immoral doesn't mean you violate it and flee from punishment: it means you violate it, and then face punishment, using the legal system to bring about the changes you believe are right.
That's what so many of you seem to be unable to get: the lesson of MLK, Jr. and the rest of the Civil Rights Movement. If you believe in the system, then you cannot place yourself above it. The only time - now - when violence is the appropriate response to an injustice is when the injustice cannot be remedied in the justice system. Just because it takes five years doesn't mean you get the right to use violence. That's what Cap didn't get, and that's what many of you don't get.
Of you supporters of Cap, I'd really like to hear whether you'd be okay with people who possess personal amounts of pot - a practice I believe should be legally protected - violently fighting off the police?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why it's okay to shortcut the justice system.
You're honestly defending an act that had them telling the long retired and new mother Jessica Jones that she had to enlist even if she had no intention of ever fighting crime again and they'ed 'find something for her to do."
You're defending and act that had them kick in Luke Cages door and forcably drag him out not 5 seconds after the act went into law because he was sitting on his couch watching tv.
You're defending an act that has them throw heroes, people who saved countless lives, into an extra-dimensional prison with well documented effects of damaging peoples mental states.
You're defending folks who hire Norman Osbourne, Bullseye, and Venom (all know sociopaths and murderes) to 'arrest' said heroes, and not being to upset when said murderers do what they do.
You're defending people who start wars with foriegn superpowers to sway public opinion.
You're defending folks who've opened fire on children with heavy weapons, and attempted to kill one child when they learned he was a robot, because "robots don't count."
As for Cap not listening to MLK, seems to me he listens more to the Founding Fathers.
This, AT BEST, gives an explanation for his initial flight and escape. If we assume that's okay, that still provides no explanation why he didn't immediately make his appeal to the populace through the news media nor why he didn't get a lawyer. This provides zero - absolutely zero - explanation for why he continued to lead a rebellion.
Again, this shows his massive misunderstanding of the legal system, not to mention his disrespect for the legal process. He's apparently content to let the slow, inefficient justice system handle all these other problems, but not his own or those of his friends. When it's a poor black kid in Harlem busted for a gram of pot, he's okay with that kid spending years in jail while trying to fight the constitutionality of those laws. When it's a woman getting paid 3/4 of what a man makes, he's cool with her having to work her way through the civil litigation process. But when he and his costumed friends don't get to play policeman without following any rules of due process, all of a sudden he can't deal with how slow and inefficient the justice system is.
Just because you have powers, that doesn't mean you don't have to wait for the justice system.
Your status as a criminal is purely based on whether you follow the laws. Rogers broke it. Whether he's a good man or not, whether he's a hero or not, he's still a criminal. This has nothing to do with the constitutionality of SHRA. In the same way, Stark is apparently a criminal, despite having not been arrested.
Because there's no difference. Cap only launched a rebellion because it affected him and his friends. He's been content to never launch such a rebellion over any of the other problems.
Are you kidding? You're admitting that the only reason Rogers didn't do it before is because now it's his friends. Or, are you suggesting that Rogers believes that people who possess a small amount of drugs deserve 3-5 years in jail? Or that kids who drink while they're 18 - despite being old enough to serve - deserve criminal prosecution?
Apparently Cap is okay with all these other people being in jail unjustly while they fight those laws, but he's not okay with Cap and his costumed friends doing so.
This is Cap being hyper-selfish. It only matters if his friends are subject to the unjust laws...he's uninterested in the other ones.
(a) There is no pure constitutional right to privacy. It exists as a penumbral right, emanating from several amendments. Just because you're keeping it a secret doesn't mean you have a right to do so, much less an inviolable right to do so.
(b) If you engage in vigilantiism - something that not only is illegal, but something whose illegality hasn't been challenged once by these costumed heroes - then you don't have a right to keep your identity private. Any one of these heroes could already be arrested for vigilantiism and be forced to reveal their identity in court.
Except his thing is illegal. Besides, again, he only does something about it when it affects him or his friends. For a guy who is supposed to be a superhero, and the symbol of our country, that's pretty immature.
Actually, your status as a criminal is purely defined by the law. This isn't a word like "hero" that is a subjective evaluation. It's a straightforward term: if you break a law without a legal justification or excuse* then you're a criminal.
*: An excuse nullifies the crime - e.g. self-defense is an excuse for murder - whereas a justification removes culpability - e.g. necessity is an excuse for theft in some situations. In the former case (excuses) you have no civil liability, while in the latter case (justifications) you have some or all civil liability.
She had to register. Not fight crime.
This was either Stark or Hill being overzealous. It has nothing to do with the validity of the act.
Well documented? Where?
By the way, as the editors have explained, 42 was temporary for heroes: only villains would be stored there long-term. The heroes were only stored during Rogers' Rebellion.
Wow, you're not only wrong, but you're wrong within a page or two of me explaining that the whole Thunderbolts thing was a massive mistake. That doesn't say anything about SHRA. It just says Stark and SHIELD picked a poor enforcement mechanism.
Sigh, see the above. You're going to have to learn to distinguish a law from the people who enforce it, and more importantly to distinguish a law from the mechanisms chosen to enforce it.
Again, see above. You're getting pretty repetative here.
Which ones? The ones who had slaves? The ones who believed women were second-class citizens? The ones who believed that only property owners should have a vote? The ones who didn't believe in a Supreme Court with the ability to declare a law unconstitutional?
The Founding Fathers did a lot of great stuff, but they had a lot of awful ideas too. They weren't infallible.
Are you honestly saying that MLK, Jr. wasn't pursuing the right way to achieve civil rights? Seriously?
X-men has been telling us for close to 30 years now that registration is bad. Why is it suddenly now good?
Course, it's not like Reed Richards is an expert on the Negative Zone or anything.
But to answer the one question you posed:
My question was this: why is it okay for Rogers to use force to shortcut the justice system for one law, but not for the other? Why is it okay for Rogers, but not for all criminals?
The context is different because he's a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and up to this point they've many a shifty action lately.
Edit: WAS a SHIELD agent.
as for the rest, i don't necessarily disagree with you. i agree that cap should have gone to the media certainly, rather than start some kind of war. i think drug laws are silly too, and perhaps cap should spend all his time campainging to keep people out of jail when they're thrown in only because they're black or there's some outside force framing them or whathaveyou, but in the marvel universe that would mean that there would be nobody left to stop hydra and frankly, cap has more important things to do all day than try to get an 18 year old out of an MIP charge.
i do think it's not particularly valid to compare drug possession laws and draft laws in terms of how 'unjust' they may be, as they are, at best, nothing alike (unless you're talking about the real world, in which case we would be more in agreement)
Because I'm in that group.
But a) it just doesn't work in the Marvel U, where every government and agency has shown that they can't keep secrets for shit. In fact, the was a mini not to long ago about some villians breaking into SHIELD and stealing a disk with all the secret id's SHIELD knew about. And now you wanna give them everyones id? $20 says that the Red Skull of Green Goblin have it within a week.
and then theres b) the writing and editing have been utter trash. Instead of an even handed, both sides have a point look we got one side being complete faschists yet still being the good guys of the story, everyone acting idiotically and out of character, and books completely contradicting each other.
As was revealed in New Avengers, Captain America holds champion status. He is fully and legally authorized to put together any group to champion any cause he wants by the United States without approval from anyone. Including a Secret Avengers should he deem it necessary. This status also outranks anyone in SHIELD.
Then why the hell did they make that garbage they call "Civil War"?
What?
Well, American laws override SHIELD too. SHIELD isn't even an American organization.
That's pretty close. It's "Too long; didn't read".
it's too late to read this thread, because mask already date raped it, sucka
Yeah, what Servo said.
Wait, what?
At best, that would explain why it might be okay for him, but not for all the other heroes.
Of course, it doesn't explain why it's okay for Rogers to use force instead of using the same criminal and civil justice system the rest of the nation has to use.
Where was this? I must have missed it, obviously.
The thing is, SHRA - as later legislation - would override whatever it was that gave him Champion status.
I've never heard of this title, though.
BTW, Johnny Storm's identity has been public since he got powers. Never seemed to be a problem before.
That only works from an editorial stance. For Steve Rogers, in his America, there is no moral reason for him to believe he had the right to revolt violently when those other criminals didn't have a right to revolt.
I'm not saying Rogers should be campaigning for the end to the War on Drugs (though, actually, I think he should): I'm saying that if Rogers had the right to launch an insurrection, then so do the normal - unpowered - Marvel Americans who believe that some other law is unjust. If Rogers can revolt against the SHRA, then those kids who are being targeted for drug possession can, and the blacks who think they're being discriminated against systematically can, etc.
It's not about Rogers, its about EVERYONE.
I'm not clear what you mean here.
Justice is justice, and injustice is injustice. Either it's permissible to revolt, violently, because you believe a law is unjust, or it's not permissible. Either injustice is a sufficient cause for insurrection, or it isn't.
Either Rogers and everyone else can revolt because they believe they are the subject of an unjust law, or no one can. Either everyone must use the legal system, or no one must.
Either there is a rule of law, or there isn't.
There is no real guarantee that it would override his status as we have neither the specifics of the law or the wording / legal explaination of his champion status or what actions can cause it to be exempt.
I was just mentioning it as I thought it was interesting and might be something they could build upon in future issues.
Potential Captain America 25 spoiler.
Technically yes. Although they're made legal afterwards when you win.
i think you're missing my point still
i'm not saying that they have the constitutional right to privacy
i'm saying that, based on no laws or constitutional readings, captain america decided that the heroes earned a right to privacy through their service to the world. there is no legal ground for this. i know.
and as to the second part, i do believe that everyone has the right to revolt if they don't agree with a law, i absolutely believe that. cap has the right, same as a black kid who's being treated unfairly by the police. the government, in the end, does not automatically get to control my actions unless i want to let it do so. i'm not saying it's a good idea or a feasible idea every single time you get a traffic ticket, but to argue that you have to obey the law because everyone else does is pretty silly. if you don't want to, guess what. you don't have to. there may, nay perhaps will be consequences, but nevertheless, until the government puts a chip in the brain that controls motor functions, you don't have to obey the law. if you feel it's in your best interests, or the best interests of your friends or family or loved ones, and i mean really truly in their best interests like they might be murdered by supervillains if their identies become public knowledge, then maybe that's worth fighting for
let me ask you this- how do you feel about the black panther party or john africa's MOVE, particularly the tenets of those organizations that led them to arm themselves as a defense for their families against government sanctioned police attack?
More on CA#25 from a second Newsarama thread on it.
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
Brubaker wouldn't do that.
At least that's how I'd like to see it go down.
but ol tb slipped in this little zinger relevant to that argument that happened a few days ago
there's pie on my face (or possibly his if he is forgetting about the bringing asgard to earth thing)