Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

[audrey_girl]

sickening:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Munger]

sickening:

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>


Frightening.

I hate to stir the pot, but I would like to point out that it is refreshing to see a commentator hold to principle and critique a politician they pushed for. I have noticed it is not uncommon for other "liberal" commentators do so as well.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

I must say Obama has been an almost total dissappointment. Should have been expected.

[rabot10]

sickening:


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT>

OMG things are even worse than i thought, I may start watching Alax Jones (for real)

This is starting to be like a freaken B movie

[rabot10]

Frightening.

I hate to stir the pot, but I would like to point out that it is refreshing to see a commentator hold to principle and critique a politician they pushed for. I have noticed it is not uncommon for other "liberal" commentators do so as well.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

I must say Obama has been an almost total dissappointment. Should have been expected.

What he said!!

[Andreuccio]

sickening:

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

Okay, but, they're terrorists, right? I mean, as long as they're just coming for the terrorists, communists, Jews, trade unionists, and Catholics, what's the big deal. It's not like they're coming for me. :(





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[jiimbergin]

Frightening.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

.

Then you missed all the criticism about illegal immigration, excessive spending, medicare part D, and many others.

jim

[jiimbergin]

Then you missed all the criticism about illegal immigration, excessive spending, medicare part D, and many others.

jim

forgot Harriet Myers!!

[metalman]

OMG things are even worse than i thought, I may start watching Alax Jones (for real)

This is starting to be like a freaken B movie

anyone know a free country that i can move to?

[Mega]

An example of British using anti-terror laws, note the "Threat":-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nExMONA_-Lg&feature=related
Mike

[rabot10]

Okay, but, they're terrorists, right? I mean, as long as they're just coming for the terrorists, communists, Jews, trade unionists, and Catholics, what's the big deal. It's not like they're coming for me. :(





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Trade unionists? Don't you watch the news these are the real people they send lot's of money to the MAN and will be protected at all costs

[Chris Coles]

First of all we must put up the actual words rather than a link:

<DL><DD>"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; </DD></DL><DL><DD>And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; </DD></DL><DL><DD>And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; </DD></DL><DL><DD>And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." </DD></DL>Then we should ask; who wrote the speech?

[metalman]

First of all we must put up the actual words rather than a link:

<dl><dd>"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; </dd></dl><dl><dd>And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; </dd></dl><dl><dd>And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; </dd></dl><dl><dd>And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." </dd></dl>Then we should ask; who wrote the speech?

the nadir of freedom... in the year 2000, before 9/11?

it's been downhill ever since.

[doharra]

Hey guys,

I think Obama's position is far more nuanced and credible than what's being argued here. It appears to me that he's trying to grapple with the issue of how the U.S. government can identify and then deal with committed enemy combatants -- people who will continue to kill Americans and mount attacks if released.

I'm not happy about it, and the idea should be scrutinized in every way. But it's not the cartoon reported on MSNBC....

Read the speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print)!

Here's the relevant excerpt:

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

[babbittd]

the nadir of freedom... in the year 2000, before 9/11?

it's been downhill ever since.

I think you're romanticizing the period.

In the 80s the drug war government power exploded. Asset forfeitures, various efforts to get around the 4th amendment, etc.

In the 90s we watched the compound in Waco burn at the hands of ATF agents.

After the OKC bombing and the first attempt on the World Trade Center in New York, landmark anti-terrorism legislation was passed in 1996.

In the 90s, we found out about Echelon, the global communications spying efforts at NSA.

I do recall after the breakup of the Soviet Union there was talk about a peace dividend or some shit. That apparently never materialized. They were bombing Serbia before you could celebrate the good vibes.

[metalman]

I think you're romanticizing the period.

In the 80s the drug war government power exploded. Asset forfeitures, various efforts to get around the 4th amendment, etc.

In the 90s we watched the compound in Waco burn at the hands of ATF agents.

After the OKC bombing and the first attempt on the World Trade Center in New York, landmark anti-terrorism legislation was passed in 1996.

In the 90s, we found out about Echelon, the global communications spying efforts at NSA.

I do recall after the breakup of the Soviet Union there was talk about a peace dividend or some shit. That apparently never materialized. They were bombing Serbia before you could celebrate the good vibes.

you're right. the nadir was probably 1777.

[Munger]

anyone know a free country that i can move to?

<object width="480" height="400" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" id="ordie_player_b5108dcd4a"><param name="movie" value="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=b5108dcd4a" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed width="480" height="400" flashvars="key=b5108dcd4a" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" name="ordie_player_b5108dcd4a" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:480px;"><a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b5108dcd4a/new-freeland-from-mrshow_fan" title="from mrshow_fan">New Freeland</a> - watch more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/" title="on Funny or Die">funny videos</a></div>

[don]

Surprised? No.

Empires tend to concentrate power in their executive branch and when in peril become progressively more repressive.

That's the historical record.

If McCain was fronting for the same things- the above, the financial oligarch bailouts, expanding the wars, etc. would the responses be any different? That's a question of, albeit minor, interest.

[Rajiv]

First of all we must put up the actual words rather than a link:

<dl><dd>"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; </dd></dl><dl><dd>And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; </dd></dl><dl><dd>And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; </dd></dl><dl><dd>And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." </dd></dl>Then we should ask; who wrote the speech?


First they came... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...) ---- is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Poem (1976 version)

<table border="0" cellpadding="10"> <tbody><tr> <th>Original</th> <th>Translation</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
</td> <td>When the Nazis came for the communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist),
I remained silent;
I was not a communist. Then they locked up the social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat),
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union),
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews),
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[metalman]

can always count on rajiv to get to the source. thx!

and kudos to maddow... no matter that i usually cannot stand to watch her kieth oberman imitation. how long before ej eats his obama endorsement?

[Sharky]

I'm no Obama fan by a long shot, and I'm against indefinite detention. These are prisoners of war that he's talking about, right? Are prisoners of war normally covered by the constitution? If not, then how can his proposal be seen as violating "the rule of law," etc? Shouldn't something like the Geneva Convention provide the appropriate guidelines here?

[BadJuju]

I'm no Obama fan by a long shot, and I'm against indefinite detention. These are prisoners of war that he's talking about, right? Are prisoners of war normally covered by the constitution? If not, then how can his proposal be seen as violating "the rule of law," etc? Shouldn't something like the Geneva Convention provide the appropriate guidelines here?

Generally, you would be correct; however, it is the definition of terrorist that is murky. According to the law, anyone could be a terrorist, regardless of the fact that they may even be American nationals. And that is where the problem stems from.

[Rajiv]

Are prisoners of war normally covered by the constitution?

They are covered by the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

[babbittd]

Generally, you would be correct; however, it is the definition of terrorist that is murky. According to the law, anyone could be a terrorist, regardless of the fact that they may even be American nationals. And that is where the problem stems from.

Not only that, but the permanent nature of a war on terror (sic).

[audrey_girl]

Hey guys,

I think Obama's position is far more nuanced and credible than what's being argued here. It appears to me that he's trying to grapple with the issue of how the U.S. government can identify and then deal with committed enemy combatants -- people who will continue to kill Americans and mount attacks if released.

I'm not happy about it, and the idea should be scrutinized in every way. But it's not the cartoon reported on MSNBC....

Read the speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print)!

Here's the relevant excerpt:

excuse me, but WTF is wrong with the constitutional way of handling these cases???

with a speedy, trial by jury under the view of a non-biased judge, and with the right to an attorney.

didn't we just have an election here to throw out the previous gang of thieves and torturors? for what? to be replaced by another group?

this is a very dangerous road we have started down -

I don't understand Americans anymore, have they lost the ability to think? Does all it take is a new, cutesy turn-of-phrase to make something ugly and evil OK and alright to do??

Quantative Easing- how about illegal money printing, and stealing from seniors, the poor, and those on fixed incomes...

Enhanced interrogations - how about illegal torture and killings in an offshore gulag called Gitmo

Now "Prolonged Detention"????

give me a break

[metalman]

excuse me, but WTF is wrong with the constitutional way of handling these cases???

with a speedy, trial by jury under the view of a non-biased judge, and with the right to an attorney.

didn't we just have an election here to throw out the previous gang of thieves and torturors? for what? to be replaced by another group?

this is a very dangerous road we have started down -

I don't understand Americans anymore, have they lost the ability to think? Does all it take is a new, cutesy turn-of-phrase to make something ugly and evil OK and alright to do??

Quantative Easing- how about illegal money printing, and stealing from seniors, the poor, and those on fixed incomes...

Enhanced interrogations - how about illegal torture and killings in an offshore gulag called Gitmo

Now "Prolonged Detention"????

give me a break

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5464625623984168940&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

[Mn_Mark]

excuse me, but WTF is wrong with the constitutional way of handling these cases???

with a speedy, trial by jury under the view of a non-biased judge, and with the right to an attorney.

In my opinion the proper way to handle these cases is the way they would have been handled up to about 1945: when you capture an enemy who is not wearing a uniform, murders civilians, violates every rule of war, you first interrogate him and then you hang him or at best put him up against a wall before a firing squad.

This idea that these people deserve to be treated as though they were entitled to the protections of the U.S. legal system is preposterous. By this logic, every enemy spy or other violator of the Geneva Conventions that we ever killed (like the Nazis who dressed up as US soldiers to infiltrate our lines) was terribly wronged by us.

You have to understand there is a difference between an enemy in a war and someone who commits a crime on our soil.

That's what's so ridiculous about all this. All this concern about the rights of people who by any historical standard would be considered the lowest of the low enemy combatants. Hang them and be done with it. It sets no bad precedent for our freedoms any more than it did all the times in the past when enemy combatants were punished in this way.

[BadJuju]

I think that is an atrocious way to handle things. It is barbaric and essentially says life is forfeit if you are not one of us. Not to mention that anyone, even an American citizen, can be labeled a terrorist and thus an enemy combatant. Furthermore, soldiers, those that wage the war, are never involved in going to war to begin with, and are usually there for economic reasons.

[loweyecue]

OMG things are even worse than i thought, I may start watching Alax Jones (for real)

This is starting to be like a freaken B movie

Excellent news coverage here. Guess the audacity of hope is now dead. Watching her make her points I was having flashes of Orwellian description of the pigs starting to walk like men. Big brother is back. There is only one universal truth about politicians, they will eventually sell there ideals to stay in power.

[audrey_girl]

In my opinion the proper way to handle these cases is the way they would have been handled up to about 1945: when you capture an enemy who is not wearing a uniform, murders civilians, violates every rule of war, you first interrogate him and then you hang him or at best put him up against a wall before a firing squad.

This idea that these people deserve to be treated as though they were entitled to the protections of the U.S. legal system is preposterous. By this logic, every enemy spy or other violator of the Geneva Conventions that we ever killed (like the Nazis who dressed up as US soldiers to infiltrate our lines) was terribly wronged by us.

You have to understand there is a difference between an enemy in a war and someone who commits a crime on our soil.

That's what's so ridiculous about all this. All this concern about the rights of people who by any historical standard would be considered the lowest of the low enemy combatants. Hang them and be done with it. It sets no bad precedent for our freedoms any more than it did all the times in the past when enemy combatants were punished in this way.

with the utmost respect...

didn't we provide these basic rights to even the horrible Nazis leadership during the Nuremberg trials?

There is a historical precedent here.

[metalman]

with the utmost respect...

didn't we provide these basic rights to even the horrible Nazis leadership during the Nuremberg trials?

There is a historical precedent here.

the measure is how you treat nazi leaders vs followers. leaders get a fair trial. followers get a bullet to the head... or torture if captured. has always been so.

[Master Shake]

First of all we must put up the actual words rather than a link:



<DL><DD>"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; </DD></DL><DL><DD>And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; </DD></DL><DL><DD>And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; </DD></DL><DL><DD>And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." </DD></DL>Then we should ask; who wrote the speech?

I think you're all a bunch of drama queens. Stateless terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and certainly not the U.S. Constitution. President Teleprompter Q. Empty-Suit is best suited for community activism or law review head who doesn't publish articles rather than POTUS, but he's right when it comes dealing with terrorism and terrorists.

Long live Club Gitmo!

[Master Shake]

I'm no Obama fan by a long shot, and I'm against indefinite detention. These are prisoners of war that he's talking about, right? Are prisoners of war normally covered by the constitution? If not, then how can his proposal be seen as violating "the rule of law," etc? Shouldn't something like the Geneva Convention provide the appropriate guidelines here?

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to stateless combatants/terrorists.

[Master Shake]

In my opinion the proper way to handle these cases is the way they would have been handled up to about 1945: when you capture an enemy who is not wearing a uniform, murders civilians, violates every rule of war, you first interrogate him and then you hang him or at best put him up against a wall before a firing squad.

This idea that these people deserve to be treated as though they were entitled to the protections of the U.S. legal system is preposterous. By this logic, every enemy spy or other violator of the Geneva Conventions that we ever killed (like the Nazis who dressed up as US soldiers to infiltrate our lines) was terribly wronged by us.

You have to understand there is a difference between an enemy in a war and someone who commits a crime on our soil.

That's what's so ridiculous about all this. All this concern about the rights of people who by any historical standard would be considered the lowest of the low enemy combatants. Hang them and be done with it. It sets no bad precedent for our freedoms any more than it did all the times in the past when enemy combatants were punished in this way.

Thanks for the breath of sanity Mark. There are lots of people with their heads up their bee-hinds on this issue.

[Raz]

Frightening.

I hate to stir the pot, but I would like to point out that it is refreshing to see a commentator hold to principle and critique a politician they pushed for. I have noticed it is not uncommon for other "liberal" commentators do so as well.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

I must say Obama has been an almost total dissappointment. Should have been expected.

Yes of course, Munger, I do know how it pains you to attack anyone you perceive to be "conservative".
I'm sure it tears at your rightous soul.:rolleyes:

You are confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". This country hasn't had one since Eisenhower. Other than two excellent appointments to the Supreme Court I can't think of a "conservative" thing George W. Dumbass did during his eight year wrecking job.
Perhaps you should read the eight year archive of Pat Buchanan's commentaries at WorldNetDaily.com. He was opposed to the stupid "Messinpotamia" before 2003, has been railing about the insane trade policies of the United States since the early 1990s, and after the fall of the Soviet Union said that we should withdraw from NATO. That would have kept us from bombing Yugoslavia back to the nineteenth century. And WE wouldn't be in Russia's face, pushing NATO onto her front porch.
I have a Liberal friend in South Carolina who took my suggestion and told me several months later he was amazed at how much he agreed with the Paleoconservative view.

Sean Hannity is a lightweight and a Republican Hack. But that's not as bad as the condescending hate spewed by Olbermann and his ilk.

And if you believe "W" the Dumbass made a mess of our economy, just give Barry, Timmy, Nancy and "Bubbles" Ben a few years.

[Glenn Black]

He was a priest. Pastor Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller) (1892–1984)

[vinoveri]

you're right. the nadir was probably 1777.

did you per chance mean the "zenith" of freedom?

[c1ue]

Meet the New Boss.

Same as the Old Boss.

Get on my knees and pray - we don't get fooled again. Oops too late.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rp6-wG5LLqE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rp6-wG5LLqE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Munger]

Yes of course, Munger, I do know how it pains you to attack anyone you perceive to be "conservative".
I'm sure it tears at your rightous soul.:rolleyes:

You are confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". This country hasn't had one since Eisenhower. Other than two excellent appointments to the Supreme Court I can't think of a "conservative" thing George W. Dumbass did during his eight year wrecking job.
Perhaps you should read the eight year archive of Pat Buchanan's commentaries at WorldNetDaily.com. He was opposed to the stupid "Messinpotamia" before 2003, has been railing about the insane trade policies of the United States since the early 1990s, and after the fall of the Soviet Union said that we should withdraw from NATO. That would have kept us from bombing Yugoslavia back to the nineteenth century. And WE wouldn't be in Russia's face, pushing NATO onto her front porch.
I have a Liberal friend in South Carolina who took my suggestion and told me several months later he was amazed at how much he agreed with the Paleoconservative view.

Sean Hannity is a lightweight and a Republican Hack. But that's not as bad as the condescending hate spewed by Olbermann and his ilk.

And if you believe "W" the Dumbass made a mess of our economy, just give Barry, Timmy, Nancy and "Bubbles" Ben a few years.

You are correct about Buchanan - and I do recall him criticizing Bush often enough. I have come to respect him for that, and actually agree with him on many points.

The incessant echo-chamber of ignorance that currently comprise the most visible aspects of the American right is nepenthe for cogent conservative thought. Unfortunately, it seems that the true conservatives (with whom I more than occasionally agree) have been marginalized.

[Chris Coles]

Hey guys,

I think Obama's position is far more nuanced and credible than what's being argued here. It appears to me that he's trying to grapple with the issue of how the U.S. government can identify and then deal with committed enemy combatants -- people who will continue to kill Americans and mount attacks if released.

I'm not happy about it, and the idea should be scrutinized in every way. But it's not the cartoon reported on MSNBC....

Read the speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print)!

Here's the relevant excerpt:

The French could have said the same thing about the Free French and their partisans that fought throughout the period their nation was under the control of the Germans during WW2, or again the German people could have used exactly the same terms to describe all the allied soldiers that fought against them.

The difference was that they, we all, took these people into our homes and they stopped fighting. Why? Because we removed the reason for the fighting, we brought the war to an end. Not just in the battlefield, but also in the hearts and minds of our opponents.

Turning to the speech. Overnight I have come to the conclusion that Obama is giving us what we might describe as a form of message in a bottle. But this time it is a coded message embedded in his speech.

You, the American people, have elected a sensible, honourable man, with a fine wife and family, and the end result is you place them right at the heart of the original den of monsters that started the whole process in the first place.

What is he supposed to do?

He knows full well, (we only have to remember the fate of previous presidents, or for that matter, the shield in front of him at his inaugural speech, or again, the way his body guards have prevented him freely walking the streets in his own nation), that his life is in danger every day he is in office.

He sits down in the same rooms wherein the original monsters perpetrated the ideas and methods that lie at the heart of the present debate; the White House, the Pentagon and the fine buildings "somewhere in Virginia".

What is he supposed to do?

I believe that he is reaching out to the LAW of the nation; the people that make and administer the law; asking them to take responsibility for the fate of the detainees. That he has discovered he is powerless to do more than make such a speech and hope that everyone outside recognises he needs help.

[GRG55]

...how long before ej eats his obama endorsement?

I think that's already happened...at least as far as making real progress on the "New, New Deal".


[Then again if you can't recall or find the reference, then maybe I am imagining things...;)]

[metalman]

did you per chance mean the "zenith" of freedom?

yes i did! unconsciously... my mind went right to where we're headed, the nadir. the zenith was 1777.

[we_are_toast]

The French could have said the same thing about the Free French and their partisans that fought throughout the period their nation was under the control of the Germans during WW2, or again the German people could have used exactly the same terms to describe all the allied soldiers that fought against them.

The difference was that they, we all, took these people into our homes and they stopped fighting. Why? Because we removed the reason for the fighting, we brought the war to an end. Not just in the battlefield, but also in the hearts and minds of our opponents.

Turning to the speech. Overnight I have come to the conclusion that Obama is giving us what we might describe as a form of message in a bottle. But this time it is a coded message embedded in his speech.

You, the American people, have elected a sensible, honourable man, with a fine wife and family, and the end result is you place them right at the heart of the original den of monsters that started the whole process in the first place.

What is he supposed to do?

He knows full well, (we only have to remember the fate of previous presidents, or for that matter, the shield in front of him at his inaugural speech, or again, the way his body guards have prevented him freely walking the streets in his own nation), that his life is in danger every day he is in office.

He sits down in the same rooms wherein the original monsters perpetrated the ideas and methods that lie at the heart of the present debate; the White House, the Pentagon and the fine buildings "somewhere in Virginia".

What is he supposed to do?

I believe that he is reaching out to the LAW of the nation; the people that make and administer the law; asking them to take responsibility for the fate of the detainees. That he has discovered he is powerless to do more than make such a speech and hope that everyone outside recognises he needs help.

Absolutely right! What is he supposed to do? Another complete mess left to him by the most incompetent, morally disgusting administration to ever occupy the white house.

Put them on trial? There was no evidence collected for any crimes! Many of these detainees were turned over to the military by their neighbors just to collect the big monetary rewards that were offered. They will finally be able to go home. But what about those who freely admit to being Al Qaeda? There is no evidence that they've committed any "crimes", but they are sworn to do harm to Americans and others. What can you do with them? Most countries don't want them. Are you going to send them to Afghanistan to kill the local populations? Or do you hold them in indefinite detention until Al Qaeda changes or is defeated?

Obama was left with another huge mess that has no good solutions. New laws and policies will need to be developed and they will challenge the principles of civilized societies that must deal with an uncivilized threat.

[Sapiens]

There is nothing new under the sun. If you want to read an account of how the game is played, including how the legal code is liberally interpreted to suit the need of the at anytime present administration, read this book :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago

The Gulag Archipelago (Russian: Архипелаг ГУЛАГ, Arkhipelag GULAG) is a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn based on the Soviet forced labor and concentration camp system. The three-volume book is a massive narrative relying on eyewitness testimony and primary research material, as well as the author's own experiences as a prisoner in a Gulag labor camp. Written between 1958 and 1968 (dates given at the end of the book), it was published in the West in 1973, thereafter circulating in samizdat (underground publication) form in the Soviet Union until its official publication in 1989.

...



Solzhenitsyn tells you how hardly anyone resists arrest. But you must read the first chapters of this book to really understand why they do not resist.

[flintlock]

Frightening.

I hate to stir the pot, but I would like to point out that it is refreshing to see a commentator hold to principle and critique a politician they pushed for. I have noticed it is not uncommon for other "liberal" commentators do so as well.

I cannot recall many times when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Fox News etc held to their principles and critiqued Bush, especially before late in his term when his approval ratings were in the dump.

I must say Obama has been an almost total dissappointment. Should have been expected.

Savage ranted against Bush all the time, so I wouldn't throw him in with the others. Hannity makes me sick he's so fanatically loyal to his party. Rush is a party hack too, but at least has some original thoughts every now and then. Hannity just reads from the party handbook.

I also think Obama always codes messages into his speeches. Nothing is off the cuff, he's laying down things "for the record" so pay attention carefully to what he says.

As for terrorists, I have mixed feelings about their treatment. I do think the use of torture is being abused at the least and that it should be used at most in only the most extreme cases. Torturing some foot soldier for "information" isn't likely to produce much of use. The high ranking terrorists, that's another story

The British considered some of the American partisans fighting in the Revolution terrorists also. No uniforms. Ambushes. Murders even. Just something to think about.

[Rajiv]

As for terrorists, I have mixed feelings about their treatment. I do think the use of torture is being abused at the least and that it should be used at most in only the most extreme cases. Torturing some foot soldier for "information" isn't likely to produce much of use. The high ranking terrorists, that's another story

I think you should read the following articles

The Torture Myth (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html)

Torture doesn't work - It erodes national security and democracy. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1114/p09s01-coop.html)

Military, Intelligence and Law Enforcement Officers Opposing Torture (http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/military-intelligence-and-law-enforcement-officers-opposing-torture/page.do?id=1031036)

FBI interrogator: Torture doesn't work, breeds jihad (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/10/fbi-interrogator-tor.html)

Why Is Torture Ineffective? - And why is it still used today? (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Torture-is-Ineffective-68846.shtml)

I could not find any articles that had a cogent argument that torture works -- the only argument that is proposed in such articles is "torture obviously works in producing good information -- otherwise it would not be used!"

[LargoWinch]

There is nothing new under the sun. If you want to read an account of how the game is played, including how the legal code is liberally interpreted to suit the need of the at anytime present administration, read this book :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago



Solzhenitsyn tells you how hardly anyone resists arrest. But you must read the first chapters of this book to really understand why they do not resist.

Thanks Sapiens, I am always looking for great book recommendations from the community. I am getting the above-noted.

[audrey_girl]

Absolutely right! What is he supposed to do? Another complete mess left to him by the most incompetent, morally disgusting administration to ever occupy the white house.

Put them on trial? There was no evidence collected for any crimes! Many of these detainees were turned over to the military by their neighbors just to collect the big monetary rewards that were offered. They will finally be able to go home. But what about those who freely admit to being Al Qaeda? There is no evidence that they've committed any "crimes", but they are sworn to do harm to Americans and others. What can you do with them? Most countries don't want them. Are you going to send them to Afghanistan to kill the local populations? Or do you hold them in indefinite detention until Al Qaeda changes or is defeated?

Obama was left with another huge mess that has no good solutions. New laws and policies will need to be developed and they will challenge the principles of civilized societies that must deal with an uncivilized threat.

You make some good points, but by denying even the Al Qaeda detainees their basic human rights we are creating a very dangerous precedent here that I have no doubt will one day be turned on American citizens.

Robert Bolt, Man for All Seasons:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMqReTJkjjg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WMqReTJkjjg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[LargoWinch]

I believe that he is reaching out to the LAW of the nation; the people that make and administer the law; asking them to take responsibility for the fate of the detainees. That he has discovered he is powerless to do more than make such a speech and hope that everyone outside recognises he needs help.

That is a deep and interesting theory. Could this echoes Eisenhower's farewell address?


Meanwhile...Ron Paul is -as always- a lot more direct on the issue(s), as seen here in his May 19 "bad dream" speech (4min.).

He does explicitly in this speech warn of "Revolutionary Changes in the not so distant future".

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2IU3iE8nC2M&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2IU3iE8nC2M&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Wild Style]

How is what Obama said any different from what Bush said/did? Sounds like he is just towing the line. I think people are getting all bent out of shape because they bought into the propaganda and now they feel like they have egg on their faces. I guess this will teach people one valuable lesson, the game is rigged.

[LargoWinch]

Ventura was furious this week about water boarding:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tp2BnmslF8k&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tp2BnmslF8k&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Rajiv]

Then there is this article - Ice Water and Sweatboxes - The long and sadistic history behind the CIA's torture techniques. (http://www.slate.com/id/2213959)

[Raz]

Absolutely right! What is he supposed to do? Another complete mess left to him by the most incompetent, morally disgusting administration to ever occupy the white house.

Put them on trial? There was no evidence collected for any crimes! Many of these detainees were turned over to the military by their neighbors just to collect the big monetary rewards that were offered. They will finally be able to go home. But what about those who freely admit to being Al Qaeda? There is no evidence that they've committed any "crimes", but they are sworn to do harm to Americans and others. What can you do with them? Most countries don't want them. Are you going to send them to Afghanistan to kill the local populations? Or do you hold them in indefinite detention until Al Qaeda changes or is defeated?

Obama was left with another huge mess that has no good solutions. New laws and policies will need to be developed and they will challenge the principles of civilized societies that must deal with an uncivilized threat.

I agree with some of your points, and being a PaleoConservative I probably blame "W" for more than you do.
But, in all fairness Clinton left Bush a mess with Al Quaida - which "W" the Dumbass managed to make into a far BIGGER mess.

The most incompetent, morally disgusting administration to ever occupy the White House?

Incompetent, yes; morally disgusting? Only if you develop amnesia for the period from January 20, 1993-January 20, 2001:(

[Diarmuid]

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to stateless combatants/terrorists.

Military Commissions Act (PDF) (http://balkin.blogspot.com/military_commissions_bill_1.pdf).According to this Act, an "unlawful enemy combatant" is to be defined as:
"an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant." This basically means that if a person is not a soldier in the service of a foreign government, but is nevertheless engaging in "hostilities" against the United States, then this person is an unlawful enemy combatant. Notice that this definition does not require that such a person be an "alien," which accordingly leaves open the possibility that this designation could also be applied to an American citizen.

The term is just legal crap used to deny habeas corpus and due process, which are basic human rights and do not or should not require citzenship of any particular state. If they are guilty try and convict under the US legal system, otherwise release them, there is no complication.

I dont think George Washington when addressing congress for the final time in 1796 had in mind pre-emptive wars, cronny capitalism, oligarchy,the dismantling of the justice system, etc. when he impeached the almighty for providential care to be extended to the United States


"and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual."
..Washington's final annual message to congress - december 7, 1796

[metalman]

protection of liberties long ago took a back seat to protection of the 'right to consume'.

[Sapiens]

Thanks for the laugh, you reminded me of this passage from Frederick Douglas' book My Bondage and My Freedom:

<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=QPNdgtQ1P64C&dq=frederick%20douglass%20slaves%20comparing%20abo ut%20their%20masters&as_brr=1&pg=PA118&ci=108,246,802,988&source=bookclip"><img src="http://books.google.com/books?id=QPNdgtQ1P64C&pg=PA118&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2bCuVeRawu4577emHRa8YM86TkcA&ci=108%2C246%2C802%2C988&edge=1" border="0" alt="Text not available"/></a><br/><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=QPNdgtQ1P64C&dq=frederick%20douglass%20slaves%20comparing%20abo ut%20their%20masters&as_brr=1&pg=PA118&ci=108,246,802,988&source=bookclip">My Bondage and My Freedom ... By Frederick Douglass</a>

[Judas]

The poor helpless president is using overreaching executive power to squash rights, law, and the economy while breaking every single campaign promise... the nice, honorable Chicago Dem/Rezko/ACORN/Alinski/Brzezinski/youth corp/banker/etc. politician needs our help!

The fact that this thread is starting to become an apologia for state abuse and somehow making Obama into a victim sending coded messages for help is sad, delusional, and pathetic.

EDIT: That came out harsher than I meant. But seriously, Obama is not an honorable victim- he is a powerful politician doing crappy things. We should not be anything but derisive.

[Munger]

Ventura was furious this week about water boarding:

<object width="480" height="385">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tp2BnmslF8k&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded: lasts 6 seconds before admitting it is "absolutely torture":
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/

Also:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wgarV13g6QM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wgarV13g6QM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[cmalbatros]

The only thing that's changed is the illusion.

[Raz]

The only thing that's changed is the illusion.

You hit the Bullseye, albatros !

The two major political parties have for the most part
become one: The RepubliCrat Party.

Without a viable Third Party we are doomed.:(

[Master Shake]

Military Commissions Act (PDF) (http://balkin.blogspot.com/military_commissions_bill_1.pdf).According to this Act, an "unlawful enemy combatant" is to be defined as:
"an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant."
This basically means that if a person is not a soldier in the service of a foreign government, but is nevertheless engaging in "hostilities" against the United States, then this person is an unlawful enemy combatant. Notice that this definition does not require that such a person be an "alien," which accordingly leaves open the possibility that this designation could also be applied to an American citizen.

The term is just legal crap used to deny habeus corpus and due process, which are basic human rights and do not or should not require citzenship of any particular state. If they are guilty try and convict under the US legal system, otherwise release them, there is no complication.

I dont think George Washington when addressing congress for the final time in 1796 had in mind pre-emptive wars, cronny capitalism, oligarchy,the dismantling of the justice system, etc. when he impeached the almighty for providential care to be extended to the United States


"and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual."
..Washington's final annual message to congress - december 7, 1796

George Washington has nothing to do with this and this is not just legal crap. People who want to extend Constitutional protections to stateless terrorists are, at best, incredibly naive and/or cognitatively impaired.

Now, I would agree that United States citizens are entitled to the full protections of the Constitution, regardless whether they are traitors or not. But non-citizens who are not part of the armed forces of a soverieign nation are entitled to neither the protection of the Constitution, nor the Geneva Conventions.

[Rajiv]

I presume that you have never heard of Habeas Corpus (http://habeascorpus.net/hcwrit.html).

[raja]

Hey guys,

I think Obama's position is far more nuanced and credible than what's being argued here. It appears to me that he's trying to grapple with the issue of how the U.S. government can identify and then deal with committed enemy combatants -- people who will continue to kill Americans and mount attacks if released.

I'm not happy about it, and the idea should be scrutinized in every way. But it's not the cartoon reported on MSNBC....

Read the speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print)!

Here's the relevant excerpt:
I agree with doharra . . . and I agree with Obama.

What a novel idea -- read the speech -- don't just listen to the media entertainer.

Obama said, "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
You're not dealing with with your average murderer or battlefield soldier here, who might or might not go out and commit another murder. You are dealing with people who would like to kill as many Americans in an attack as possible -- in other words, mass murderers -- who believe that they will get a free pass to Muslim Heaven to enjoy innumerable virgins . . . certainly a thousand times better than their current life.

These are religious fanatics IMO, who are eager to die for their holy work. As Obama said, these are people who have "made it clear that they want to kill Americans". In my mind, such a strong level of intent, while not the same as the crime itself, is certainly a crime worthy of "prolonged detention".

It would be a crime to allow them to go back to their stated work . . . .

[Sapiens]

It would be a crime to allow them to go back to their stated work . . . .

Why don't we just kill them outright and claim self-defense? What the hell, taking their stuff, killing their family should not be motive for them to seek revenge. See, that is the problem with those radicals, they will just not accept the fact that they have been placed on this earth to serve the mighty dollar... :rolleyes:

[Chris Coles]

The poor helpless president is using overreaching executive power to squash rights, law, and the economy while breaking every single campaign promise... the nice, honorable Chicago Dem/Rezko/ACORN/Alinski/Brzezinski/youth corp/banker/etc. politician needs our help!

The fact that this thread is starting to become an apologia for state abuse and somehow making Obama into a victim sending coded messages for help is sad, delusional, and pathetic.

EDIT: That came out harsher than I meant. But seriously, Obama is not an honorable victim- he is a powerful politician doing crappy things. We should not be anything but derisive.

Judas, for the record, I was laughing as I read that, no problem; I have been called far worse than that in my time.:D Chris.

[Judas]

Judas, for the record, I was laughing as I read that, no problem; I have been called far worse than that in my time.:D Chris.

Good, I really wasn't trying to launch an attack. I apologize that it came out that way at first.

I just had a bit of a meltdown trying to think of arguably the most powerful human being on the planet abusing his power as a victim. A gasket popped. ;)

[flintlock]

So what's your point? That torture is horrible? No kidding.:rolleyes: I never said it wasn't. The fact that lying politicians try to claim it isn't torture to try and weasel out of their responsibilities, that doesn't surprise me.

Like I said, save this for the worst cases. Like child molesters.:D

By worst case I mean like if you know he put a nuke in a major city but he won't say where. That kind of thing. Not "Where do you keep the camels?"

But realistically, that kind of extreme situation would almost never happen. I'm against torture. But to rule it out would be foolish in my opinion. Never say never.

[Master Shake]

I presume that you have never heard of Habeas Corpus (http://habeascorpus.net/hcwrit.html).

Non-sequiteur. Stateless terrorists have no rights. No Geneva Conventions, no US Constitution.

The majority of those kept at Club Gitmo were living large compared to life in the countries they came from. All this gnashing of teeth and rending of garments because we didn't observe Marquis of Queenbury rules when dealing with these murderous scumbags is every bit a symptom of our decay as is the corruption in our economy and political institutions.

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."

-George Orwell

[BadJuju]

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."

-George Orwell


George Orwell also wrote a book named '1984' that detailed the plight of people in a dystopian future in which their daily lives were severely oppressed by their own government. So I fail to see how anyone can sleep peacefully at night knowing that their government is developing a 'Legal framework' to apprehend them and hold them indefinitely on the basis of preventing a crime before it happens. And to know that the definition of terrorist, at least that held by the government, is so ambiguous that anyone can be labeled one and tried as such should send shivers down the spine of every citizen.

[Diarmuid]

George Washington has nothing to do with this and this is not just legal crap. People who want to extend Constitutional protections to stateless terrorists are, at best, incredibly naive and/or cognitatively impaired.

Now, I would agree that United States citizens are entitled to the full protections of the Constitution, regardless whether they are traitors or not. But non-citizens who are not part of the armed forces of a soverieign nation are entitled to neither the protection of the Constitution, nor the Geneva Conventions.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument


This is not some high brow intellectual argument, it is a founding principle for protection of individual liberty enshrined in common law, the US Constitution and else where - Jefferrson et al did not say this principle was solely reserved for US citizens they explicitly stated the right was unalienable to MAN, all men, they understood well what can be granted by government can be taken away by government and clearly understood the nature of tyranny.

Any excuse can be contrived for the state to remove liberties as demonstrated through out history. You accuse those who say as such as "incredibly naive and/or cognitatively impaired." I would and do say the same to those who would throw out the legal protections afforded to individuals as unalienable and acknowledged by legal scholars through history and replace them with rights afforded to certain groups of people who fall into certain fictious legal categories such as "citizens".

[Rajiv]

Habeous corpus is common law and does not rely on the constitution -- it predates the US Constitution by many many centuries -- from the previously linked source

Habeas Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ - a legal procedure to which you have an undeniable right.

[D-Mack]

I haven't seen much of her, but I heard she was an Obama cheerleader before the election.

I'm surprised about it.

[ThePythonicCow]

how long before ej eats his obama endorsement?Let it be remembered that I was first to predict this would happen. ;)

While the election polls were open on November 4, 2008, in post 27 (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpost.php?p=58933&postcount=27) of EJ's thread Vote for Obama. Here's why. (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6274), I wrote:

If Obama wins (I hope he doesn't) then I predict you, ej, will rue the day you made this choice.

[flintlock]

Let it me remembered that I was first to predict this would happen. ;)

While the election polls were open on November 4, 2008, in post 27 (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpost.php?p=58933&postcount=27) of EJ's thread Vote for Obama. Here's why. (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6274), I wrote:

Good call. But what choice did we have really?

[Master Shake]

George Orwell also wrote a book named '1984' that detailed the plight of people in a dystopian future in which their daily lives were severely oppressed by their own government. So I fail to see how anyone can sleep peacefully at night knowing that their government is developing a 'Legal framework' to apprehend them and hold them indefinitely on the basis of preventing a crime before it happens. And to know that the definition of terrorist, at least that held by the government, is so ambiguous that anyone can be labeled one and tried as such should send shivers down the spine of every citizen.

I worry about government gone amuck using asset forfeiture laws, RICO, eminent domain land seizure, wetlands legislation to achieve de facto taking of property, cap-and-trade carbon credit bullshit and even speed cameras. There's plenty to be worried about in terms of the assault on individual liberty. However, worrying about the so-called rights of stateless terrorists is not a cause for concern. Not to me.

[Master Shake]

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument


This is not some high brow intellectual argument, it is a founding principle for protection of individual liberty enshrined in common law, the US Constitution and else where - Jefferrson et al did not say this principle was solely reserved for US citizens they explicitly stated the right was unalienable to MAN, all men, they understood well what can be granted by government can be taken away by government and clearly understood the nature of tyranny.

Any excuse can be contrived for the state to remove liberties as demonstrated through out history. You accuse those who say as such as "incredibly naive and/or cognitatively impaired." I would and do say the same to those who would throw out the legal protections afforded to individuals as unalienable and acknowledged by legal scholars through history and replace them with rights afforded to certain groups of people who fall into certain fictious legal categories such as "citizens".

When Jefferson became President, he did not deal with the Barbary pirates by arresting them and bringing them back to stand trial. He dealt with them by use of and threat of deadly force. The Barbary pirates had no legal protections under our Constitution; neither do the Islamic terrorists at Club Gitmo.

[Raz]

Good call. But what choice did we have really?

How about the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party?

They're not perfect, but it sure was a sounder, more principled exercise that voting Demonrat or Repukelican.

[ThePythonicCow]

They are covered by the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
No.

More or less all of the prisoners of this current war on terror are not "prisoners of war" under these Geneva Conventions, because they (deliberately, I presume) fail one or more of the following conditions, quoted directly from the above link:* Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In other words, those who hide in civilian clothes behind the skirts of women and children do not qualify. This was quite intentional from what I understand. The creators of these Geneva Conventions intended to reward those "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" by granting them special consideration when taken prisoner.

[ThePythonicCow]

Good call. But what choice did we have really?
A good single malt whiskey?

[ThePythonicCow]

A good single malt whiskey?
On second thought, the Russians have more experience in these matters and apparently go with ordinary vodka. It costs less.

[Rajiv]

But then they are NOT "prisoners of war" and would be considered common criminals and treated as such.

Thus it was far more dangerous to be a member of the French Resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance) during World War II than an allied soldier, because the Geneva conventions did not apply to them. The third geneva convention on "Prisoners of War" was signed in 1929 - the latest revision being in 1949

In reprisal for resistance activity, the authorities established harsh methods of collective punishment. The increased militancy of communist resistance in August 1941 led to thousands of hostages being taken from among the general population,[26] of whom "at each further incident a number reflecting the seriousness of the crime shall be shot."[27] Over the course of the occupation, 30,000 French civilians were shot as hostages for acts of resistance.[28] Occasionally, German troops would engage in massacres, such as the destruction of Oradour-sur-Glane, where an entire village was razed and the population killed for resistance activities in the vicinity.[29][30]

In early 1943, the Vichy authorities established a paramilitary group, the Milice, to combat the resistance alongside the German forces that were stationed in all of France by the end of 1942.[31] The group collaborated closely with the Nazis and was the Vichy equivalent to the Gestapo security forces in Germany.[32] Their actions were often very brutal and included the torture and executions of suspected resistance members. After the liberation of France, many of the estimated 25,000 to 35,000 miliciens[31] were themselves executed for collaboration. Many of those who escaped arrest fled into Germany, where they were incorporated into the Charlemagne Division of the Waffen SS.[33]

Also according to Protocol I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I) adopted in 1977 -- This is where all the contoversies come from.

The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) is an amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Adopted on June 8, 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts presided over by Pierre Graber of Switzerland. The protocol entered into force on December 7, 1979 (six months after its adoption by the conference) and is binding for a country six months after it has ratified it. As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq being notable exceptions. However, the United States, Iran and Pakistan signed it on 12 December 1977 with the intention of ratifying it.

The international community outside of the U.S., generally accepts that the additional Geneva Conventions protocols are obligatory on all parties worldwide, as they have become part of customary law.
.
.
.
.
The U.S. has to date not ratified Protocol I although much of its central precepts have been incorporated into the U.S. Army's Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare.



Full Text of Protocol - I (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079)


.
.
.
.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
.
.
.
.

Art 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.


Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

[GRG55]

"Rules" by which to conduct war. How nice...:rolleyes:

[Judas]

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night
because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."

-George Orwell

This causes a conflict for me. I earned my crossed rifles at Ft. Benning, but oppose this kind of government doubletalk and abuse.

Am I one of the lesser men or one of the rough men?

[flintlock]

How about the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party?

They're not perfect, but it sure was a sounder, more principled exercise that voting Demonrat or Repukelican.


I actually voted for Libertarian Bob Barr, ha. Purely a symbolic gesture, because I didn't particularly like Barr when he was in Congress here in GA.

I did prefer Obama over McCain though.

[cjppjc]

This causes a conflict for me. I earned my crossed rifles at Ft. Benning, but oppose this kind of government doubletalk and abuse.

Am I one of the lesser men or one of the rough men?


Yes, this is the conundrum many feel. The place where our highest "Christian ideals meet reality. IMO it is a good thing when we take the time to look in that place.

[cjppjc]

I actually voted for Libertarian Bob Barr, ha. Purely a symbolic gesture, because I didn't particularly like Barr when he was in Congress here in GA.

I did prefer Obama over McCain though.


I know I mentioned this before. I was fortunate to write in Ron Paul. I tell anyone who doesn't know we well, how good I feel about that vote. Those who do know me well, already know this and say they wish they had wrote him in as well.

[Munger]

When Jefferson became President, he did not deal with the Barbary pirates by arresting them and bringing them back to stand trial. He dealt with them by use of and threat of deadly force. The Barbary pirates had no legal protections under our Constitution; neither do the Islamic terrorists at Club Gitmo.

Dealing with an armed combatant in the middle of a conflict is completely dissimilar to dealing with an unarmed prisoner in custody on land in American control. This is well-settled U.S. and international law.

If you are interested in more than chest-pounding and would like to develop an informed opinion of whether these enemy combatants are actually entitled to legal protections, I suggest you read and consider:

(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1)Ex parte Quirin (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0001_ZS.html), 1942.
The Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt was acting under the authority of formal congressional Articles of War (as required by the constitution). We have no such articles for the "war" on terror. Note also that these non-citizen, unlawful combatants, who had come onto U.S. soil, without uniform, were entitled to trial by military tribunal and were represented by counsel. They were not held indefinitely without review.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html), 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. citizen captured in Yemen, detained at Gitmo and deemed an "illegal enemy combatant" was entitled to habeas corpus. The important thing to consider is that this ruling applies specifically to a U.S. citizen; how far does the Court imply this ruling goes to non-U.S. citizens? It is also interesting that Justice Scalia's opinion contains the most striking rebuke of Bush's claims of executive authority. Also note that O'Connor's opinion states that U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike have the right to habeas corpus under the Geneva conventions.

Rasul v. Bush (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZS.html), 2004.
A short and sweet opinion in which the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have the jurisdiction to determine the legality of holding prisoners indefinately in Guantanimo Bay.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html), 2006.
The U.S. government claims that, by congressional act, no detainee in Gitmo is entitled to habeas corpus review of their detention. The Supreme Court patently disagrees, reaffirms the precedent of ex parte Quirin and strengthens it by ruling that a detainee held in Guantanimo has a right to review of the legality of their detention and to trial (albeit by military commission). The Court further held that this trial must conform with the laws of war, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. This is a very interesting case in that there are at least six opinions as to what is required for Gitmo detainees in various concurrences and dissents.

[Master Shake]

This causes a conflict for me. I earned my crossed rifles at Ft. Benning, but oppose this kind of government doubletalk and abuse.

Am I one of the lesser men or one of the rough men?

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

[Rajiv]

So are you saying that if you were, say detained in Malaysia on trumped up charges, it would be okay for them to torture you to extract a confession?

you may want to read - UAE royal family torture video (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099&page=1) about how charges can be trumped up!

Nabulsi, in his lawsuit, says he was falsely arrested on narcotics trafficking charges by Abu Dhabi police when he refused to turn over the tapes and mistreated in prison, where he was held for three months.

"They would stick a finger up his anus and say, 'this is from Sheik Issa, are you going to give us the tapes,'" said Nabulsi's Houston lawyer, Tony Buzbee.

"They would keep him from sleeping, deny him his medications, tell him they were going to rape his wife, kill his child. They made him pose naked while they took pictures," the lawyer alleges.

The UAE government said its review "also confirmed that Mr. Nabulsi was in no way mistreated during his incarceration for drug possession."

After a short trial, Nabulsi was convicted of having prescription medicine without a prescription from a local doctor. Evidence at the trail showed his doctor in Houston had prescribed the medicine.

See also 'Framed' Briton is cleared of drug charge (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/framed-briton-is-cleared-of--drug-charge-673034.html) -- So a person can get falsely framed'.

A British man sentenced to death by a court in Malaysia for drug smuggling was freed yesterday after being cleared of any wrongdoing.

David Chell, a psychiatric nurse from Stoke-on-Trent, has spent two and a half years in prison. He was arrested at Penang airport in October 1998 during a working holiday in Asia. He was convicted of possessing 190 grams of heroin in 133 filled condoms, a crime for which he was sentenced in July last year to death by hanging.

But yesterday the Malaysian Court of Appeal accepted his lawyers' arguments that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Mr Chell has consistently claimed he was framed by local custom officials.

[flintlock]

So are you saying that if you were, say detained in Malaysia on trumped up charges, it would be okay for them to torture you to extract a confession?

you may want to read - UAE royal family torture video (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099&page=1) about how charges can be trumped up!



See also 'Framed' Briton is cleared of drug charge (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/framed-briton-is-cleared-of--drug-charge-673034.html) -- So a person can get falsely framed'.


I never said that. I said elsewhere only in worst case. Meaning dire emergency. I'm totally against what has been going on at Gitmo. Everything isn't all black and white. To rule torture out completely is foolish as you don't know what circumstance MAY occur in the future.

[flintlock]

I know I mentioned this before. I was fortunate to write in Ron Paul. I tell anyone who doesn't know we well, how good I feel about that vote. Those who do know me well, already know this and say they wish they had wrote him in as well.

If Paul would have made the cut, he had my vote.

[Rajiv]

Torture does NOT work! It is no good at extracting information or getting to the truth of the matter!

See my previous links and also - What's Not Said Is More Important Than What Is Said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/whats-not-said-is-more-im_b_207151.html) written by Matthew Alexander (author of "How to Break a Terrorist") who led the interrogations that found Zarqawi.

In addition, in his continued defense of harsh interrogation techniques (aka torture and abuse), VP Cheney forgets that harsh techniques have ensured that future detainees will be less likely to cooperate because they see us as hypocrites. They are less willing to trust us when we fail to live up to our principles. I experienced this firsthand in Iraq when interrogating high-ranking members of Al Qaida, some of whom decided to cooperate simply because I treated them with respect and civility.

The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness. An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.

[Chris Coles]

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

With the greatest of respects, your statement breaks all the traditionally accepted mores on the rule of law that has at its core the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The whole basis of the law stands on the idea that someone asks for an authority to investigate an abuse of the law and for the result of that investigation to be then placed in front of a court of our peers, usually a jury, and it is for the court of the law, by due process, to define if in fact a breach of the law has taken place and if that is so proven, to; AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT declare them "terrorists" and it is for that court of the law to issue punishment.

What we have today is an idea afloat, and being used in combat, that all those stages can be relinquished and the individual does not even need to be placed into custody, nor before such investigation has concluded, and for summary punishment meted out. A very good example being the use of drones to conclude, from observation many hundreds of miles away, by no one on the ground with any immediate court authority, (such as a junior officer at the controls of the drone), to mete out punishment with an explosion.

The law is very specific; you may be detained, but you still have rights. No one can ever say for absolute certainty that, without due process, anyone is a "terrorist", for they are innocent until that due process has concluded, as we all are...... in a free county.

What we now hear, from many different directions, is that a substantial number in GITMO are indeed innocent, that due process has so concluded they cannot be brought to a court of the law for they have no charge to answer.

Unless we stand by the full letter of the law, we are ourselves lawless. THAT is the underlying problem at the heart of this debate.

[LargoWinch]

That summary on the issue is pure gold. thanks.

[flintlock]

I respectfully disagree. I may not always work, but I know it would work on me!

[Raz]

With the greatest of respects, your statement breaks all the traditionally accepted mores on the rule of law that has at its core the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The whole basis of the law stands on the idea that someone asks for an authority to investigate an abuse of the law and for the result of that investigation to be then placed in front of a court of our peers, usually a jury, and it is for the court of the law, by due process, to define if in fact a breach of the law has taken place and if that is so proven, to; AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT declare them "terrorists" and it is for that court of the law to issue punishment.

What we have today is an idea afloat, and being used in combat, that all those stages can be relinquished and the individual does not even need to be placed into custody, nor before such investigation has concluded, and for summary punishment meted out. A very good example being the use of drones to conclude, from observation many hundreds of miles away, by no one on the ground with any immediate court authority, (such as a junior officer at the controls of the drone), to mete out punishment with an explosion.

The law is very specific; you may be detained, but you still have rights. No one can ever say for absolute certainty that, without due process, anyone is a "terrorist", for they are innocent until that due process has concluded, as we all are...... in a free county.

What we now hear, from many different directions, is that a substantial number in GITMO are indeed innocent, that due process has so concluded they cannot be brought to a court of the law for they have no charge to answer.

Unless we stand by the full letter of the law, we are ourselves lawless. THAT is the underlying problem at the heart of this debate.

Chris,

Your points are well taken by me. Those who will not be ruled by Law will then be ruled by lawless Men.
My view of the corruption of human nature requires that I prefer bad law to no law.

At the same time it seems that war is, to some degree, a breakdown or failure of civilization and the rule of law, such as an aggressor state like Nazi Germany (perfect example of the "Rule of Men" as opposed to the "Rule of Law"). To demand of those who are attacked by such that they observe a perfect adhearance to the rule of law in the midst of war seems to place not only a severe handicap on the defender, but unrealistic expectations upon men in the heat of battle. This being said, I'm not at all in agreement with our government waterboarding (torturing, relatively mild though it may be) anyone when our laws prohibit such. And I'm far more uncomfortable with the "Patriot" Act which seems to allow men in current positions of power to decide who among their own citizens is a "terrorist" or not! Fundamentalist Christians could simply be labeled "terrorists" as could some Leftist groups who use the tactics of Saul Alinsky.
(As disgusting as I find his methods to be they are not those of "terrorists" by a wide margin.)

I don't have the answers to all of these questions and the thoughts I've laid out might be in error. It's my belief that the best way to avoid terrorist attacks on our country is to ditch the 'friggin Empire and restore the Republic. It's what the Founders intended us to be.
That seems to be the message of Ron Paul and that's why, along with sound money and far less government, I supported him and wished that I could have written his name in for President.

[c1ue]

This is amusing - there seems to be a clear divide on opinion on this subject:

1) The conservatives - Republicans - see this as proof that Obama is <INSERT pejorative>

2) The liberals - Democrats - see this as the fault of the system and Obama's predecessor

3) The libertarians see this as an assault on American freedom, or see the 'furners' as less than human/citizen and thus open to any use/abuse.

From my point of view (as a nonvoting 1):

'W' is an idiot. Probably well meaning, but still an idiot. A good 'ole Texan (transplant from NorthEast) who never pretended to be anything else (but an idiot). That he allowed or ordered abuses of the Constitution and/or various other American 'rights' is not surprising given who he is and what he was mandated to do after 9/11.

However, the whole point of Obama's campaign was principle.

I am amused that all those who believed in the Obama rhetoric are continuing to bend over backwards to preserve the aura of the 'great man' given the rich mountain of evidence already presented in a mere 4 months of Presidency:

1) We will not rebuild our economy on the old model of bubbles and busts. We'll only climb out of the current crisis by creating a new, sustainable foundation for our economy's future -- and make the tough choices to put our economy back on the road to long-term prosperity.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any evidence of this other than the carbon tax. Is a tax a sustainable foundation for the US economy's future? Certainly it is new...

On the other hand we have all kinds of bank bailouts: Citigroup, Bank bailout II, etc etc.

And we have spending. Massive spending. Huge deficits.

New Boss same as the Old Boss? Wannabe FDR?

2) The 21st century can be the next great American century if we make the necessary investments in our children’s education.

I'm not seeing any evidence of this either. But I think we will - in the form of bailouts to the states. The Federal government does hardly squat in terms of primary school education, but equally the states are facing massive cutbacks due to economic collapse and will have to be bailed out by Uncle Obama. So there probably will be 'necessary investments', but equally probably won't be any improvements.

Unless the federal government nationalizes primary school education.

3) America can be the 21st century clean energy leader by harnessing the power of alternative and renewable energy, ending our addiction to foreign oil, addressing the global climate crisis, and creating millions of new jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.

$600B in tax rebates (Bread as in bread and circuses). $20B in tax cuts for renewable energy production. $50B in miscellaneous other possibly energy related spending.

I think countries like China and Germany are spending multiples of this - and in cash.

4) We must fix a broken health care system to do what's right for America and renew our economy -- individuals and businesses can no longer afford the crippling cost of health coverage, and millions of Americans have no coverage at all.

Ok, sounds nice. Where's the beef?

5) Yes We Can

Guantanamo/Gitmo - continue to operate but under a new legal framework. Uh, so what Bush was doing is OK, just didn't have sufficient lawyer-ese?

FISA - If what Bush was pushing was so bad, why did Obama ratify it?

-----------------------------------------------------

All of above quotes direct from Obama's web site.

[Rajiv]

That is exactly the point. You will not be able to hold up to torture!

1. You spoke the truth the first time
2. torture continues -- will you now continue to hold to that truth no matter how long the torture continues -- when the interrogator wants you to say something else? -- or will you cave in to the torture and say what the interrogator wants to hear?

The point is that the interrogator never knows what is true and what isn't -- which is why information obtained under harsh interrogation is always untrustworthy. That is why experienced interrogators consider torture to be useless and counterproductive in getting at the truth! However it is a great way to get confessions that the interrogator wants.

[Chris Coles]

That is exactly the point. You will not be able to hold up to torture!

1. You spoke the truth the first time
2. torture continues -- will you now continue to hold to that truth no matter how long the torture continues -- when the interrogator wants you to say something else? -- or will you cave in to the torture and say what the interrogator wants to hear?

The point is that the interrogator never knows what is true and what isn't -- which is why information obtained under harsh interrogation is always untrustworthy. That is why experienced interrogators consider torture to be useless and counterproductive in getting at the truth! However it is a great way to get confessions that the interrogator wants.

Rajiv, you have brought us right to the nub of the matter without realising it. Torture is not about getting at information; it is all about the screwed up minds of the perpetrators. Torture is all about the needs of the torturers. The reality is, some people get a very BIG buzz from causing other people harm. Torture is all about satisfying that inner need to harm others. It is sick in the extreme and that is why I find it so unacceptable.

[Chris Coles]

Chris,

Your points are well taken by me. Those who will not be ruled by Law will then be ruled by lawless Men.

Raz,

what is so important here is that if government is the font of all law; then government has an absolute duty to at all times remain inside of the rule of the law..... or it is itself.... lawless. And therefore, a lawless government has no standing whatsoever. PERIOD.

[Judas]

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

The kind which is self evident, and explained by numerous posters on this thread, the news piece which started this thread, etc.

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

What I "believe"? If I have to come up with a plan right now I guess:

The suspected terrorists which aren't just people who were sold for profit by enemies or downright mistakes (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/03/20/MNFH16JM02.DTL) should be sorted into two groups- those who can be tried (their cases haven't been horribly screwed up by assinine policies already) and those who we know or suspect are terrorists.

The first group should be tried. The second group should be fingerprinted, surrepticiously scanned for facial recognition software, DNA sampled, etc. (everything we can do with our technology, hell, maybe even tracking chipped) and then released. Then we should use some of our trillions of dollars/spy networks/satellites/drones/informants/etc. to keep an eye on them. If they cause no trouble and go back to their lives fine, but if they hook up with terrorist networks we have well-documented, known quantities to deal with that may give us more leads than we could get by keeping them in boxes for regular doses of waterboarding or "stress positioning".

[Master Shake]

Dealing with an armed combatant in the middle of a conflict is completely dissimilar to dealing with an unarmed prisoner in custody on land in American control. This is well-settled U.S. and international law.

If you are interested in more than chest-pounding and would like to develop an informed opinion of whether these enemy combatants are actually entitled to legal protections, I suggest you read and consider:

(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1)Ex parte Quirin (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0001_ZS.html), 1942.
The Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt was acting under the authority of formal congressional Articles of War (as required by the constitution). We have no such articles for the "war" on terror. Note also that these non-citizen, unlawful combatants, who had come onto U.S. soil, without uniform, were entitled to trial by military tribunal and were represented by counsel. They were not held indefinitely without review.

I don't think any of the detainees at Gitmo were captured on US soil; therefore Quirin shouldn't be relevant.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html), 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. citizen captured in Yemen, detained at Gitmo and deemed an "illegal enemy combatant" was entitled to habeas corpus. The important thing to consider is that this ruling applies specifically to a U.S. citizen; how far does the Court imply this ruling goes to non-U.S. citizens? It is also interesting that Justice Scalia's opinion contains the most striking rebuke of Bush's claims of executive authority. Also note that O'Connor's opinion states that U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike have the right to habeas corpus under the Geneva conventions.

As you note, Hamdi was a US citizen. O'Connor was wrong.


Rasul v. Bush (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZS.html), 2004.
A short and sweet opinion in which the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have the jurisdiction to determine the legality of holding prisoners indefinately in Guantanimo Bay.

A horrible decision and yet another example of an imperial judiciary legislating from the bench. Scalia's dissent nails it.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html), 2006.
The U.S. government claims that, by congressional act, no detainee in Gitmo is entitled to habeas corpus review of their detention. The Supreme Court patently disagrees, reaffirms the precedent of ex parte Quirin and strengthens it by ruling that a detainee held in Guantanimo has a right to review of the legality of their detention and to trial (albeit by military commission). The Court further held that this trial must conform with the laws of war, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. This is a very interesting case in that there are at least six opinions as to what is required for Gitmo detainees in various concurrences and dissents. [/quote]

Another bad decision. Again, Scalia's dissent was the correct decision, imo.

[babbittd]

I find this telling and amusing:

39% Say U.S. Legal System Too Worried About Individual Rights Over National Security (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/39_say_u_s_legal_system_too_worried_about_individu al_rights_over_national_security)

Most Republicans (54%) say the legal system is too concerned about individual rights. So do a plurality of voters not affiliated with either major party (42%).

Democrats lean in the opposite direction. Thirty-four percent (34%) of those in the president’s party say the courts are too concerned about national security, 24% hold the opposite view, and 32% say the balance is about right.

And these party numbers have gone in opposite directions since 2006 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues/security_vs_liberty):

By a 46% to 21% margin, liberals say the courts are too concerned with national security. By a 42% to 13% margin, conservatives believe the courts are too concerned with individual liberties.

Principles my ass, politics at the grass roots level in the U.S. is about rooting for the winning team.

But, but, but, I thought conservatives were all about individual rights and limited government?

Not for a long time that hasn't been the case. Real conservatives are a tiny minority, especially since 9/11. Along the same lines, the tea parties, organized from the top down by the conservative version of MoveOn.org, had no chance of occurring while a Republican President was in office. There was no widespread support for such an event in the face of massive deficit spending first by the Republican president and his party between 2000 and 2006, because most so-called conservatives and members of the Republican party backed the policies that the excessive spending covered.

Similarly, we're not seeing MoveOn.org organize street protests against the Obama administration for expanding the war in Afghanistan.

[KGW]

I got news: if some entity had thrown me into detention because my neighbor had a grudge against me, and they released me years later, I would be hard-pressed to say "no hard feelings, mate!" So, on that basis, they should hold me indefinitely?

The logic is "tortuous," to say the least!:p

[Munger]

Another bad decision. Again, Scalia's dissent was the correct decision, imo.

That you disagree is not surprising. As you probably know, what you think doesn't matter; this is the law of the land and the current state of the constitution.

So you now know that your drivel about the detainees not having rights under U.S. and international law is completely incorrect. You should also be aware that if you disagree with this policy, you hold an unconstitutional opinion.

[Raz]

babbittd wrote:

"Principles my ass, politics at the grass roots level in the U.S. is about rooting for the winning team.

But, but, but, I thought conservatives were all about individual rights and limited government?

Not for a long time that hasn't been the case. Real conservatives are a tiny minority, especially since 9/11. "

I don't know where you fall along the political spectrum, but you sure have the Republicans figured out.

It has taken ten years of my ranting and the eight-year debacle of George W. Dumbass to open my wife's eyes.
She now says that even though the Democrats are running the brothel, their best girls are Republican.

The NeoCons have managed to ruin conservatism in the eyes of most Americans by presenting neoliberalism instead. I can have a heated discussion with a Classic Liberal about FACTS and policy knowing that we both care more about the next generation than we do about the next election. One sign of a Classic Liberal is that when I disagree with them they don't pull out the "racist" card.
Half of the Democrats of today fall into the category of the "Bed Wetting" Left - America is to blame for most of the world's problems, opposing "choice" is the same as hating women, opposing socialism is "racist", and other mendacious slurs.
With the exception of Reps. Paul and Kucinich, a few other Republicans and most of the "Blue Dog" Democrats, the rest of these rat-bastards are only concerned with being re-elected by appealing to the moron vote (of the Right or Left) - the country be damned.


Many people think Pat Buchanan is a racist because he doesn't believe U.S. foreign policy should be subservient to Israeli interests in the Middle East. And because he actually thought Jon Demanjuck shouldn't be lynched. Buchanan has said a few things that I disagree with, and quite a few more that make me uncomfortable. But he has had the NeoCons tagged for well over a decade, and correctly predicted that "W" would be a disaster for the Conservative Movement, the Republican Party, and more importantly, the United States.:(

[Raz]

That you disagree is not surprising. As you probably know, what you think doesn't matter; this is the law of the land and the current state of the constitution.

So you now know that your drivel about the detainees not having rights under U.S. and international law is completely incorrect. You should also be aware that if you disagree with this policy, you hold an unconstitutional opinion.

It would be far more accurate to say that Master Shake holds an illegal position.

Stephen Breyer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution of the United States.

[babbittd]

The NeoCons have managed to ruin conservatism in the eyes of most Americans by presenting neoliberalism instead. I can have a heated discussion with a Classic Liberal about FACTS and policy knowing that we both care more about the next generation than we do about the next election. One sign of a Classic Liberal is that when I disagree with them they don't pull out the "racist" card.
Half of the Democrats of today fall into the category of the "Bed Wetting" Left - America is to blame for most of the world's problems, opposing "choice" is the same as hating women, opposing socialism is "racist", and other mendacious slurs.
With the exception of Reps. Paul and Kucinich, a few other Republicans and most of the "Blue Dog" Democrats, the rest of these rat-bastards are only concerned with being re-elected by appealing to the moron vote (of the Right or Left) - the country be damned.


Many people think Pat Buchanan is a racist because he doesn't believe U.S. foreign policy should be subservient to Israeli interests in the Middle East. And because he actually thought Jon Demanjuck shouldn't be lynched. Buchanan has said a few things that I disagree with, and quite a few more that make me uncomfortable. But he has had the NeoCons tagged for well over a decade, and correctly predicted that "W" would be a disaster for the Conservative Movement, the Republican Party, and more importantly, the United States.:(

Agreed.

Raz, have you ever heard of the hugely popular message board, freerepublic.com? It is somewhat infamous....

I was an active member during Clinton's second term. It was a gathering place online for paleoconservatives, libertarians and other limited government Republicans. With the election of W. Bush, things suddenly changed. Long time posters deemed to critical of W. were purged from the ranks, to be replaced only by party loyalists and neocons. But it was much worse immediately after 9/11. I used freerepublic.com as the launching point for a (obviously failed) public awareness campaign about the national id legislation coming down the pike and was purged from the membership as a result.

[Munger]

It would be far more accurate to say that Master Shake holds an illegal position.

Stephen Breyer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution of the United States.






The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. If you think the constitution says something and the Supreme Court disagrees, you are wrong by definition.

[Raz]

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. If you think the constitution says something and the Supreme Court disagrees, you are wrong by definition.

You must be a lawyer. Truth is whatever the "Supreme Court" says it is.

By your definition Roger Tanney was right and Fredrick Douglas was wrong.

[Master Shake]

It would be far more accurate to say that Master Shake holds an illegal position.

Stephen Breyer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution of the United States.






It would be precisely accurate to say that I disagree with the SCOTUS rulings the Mungster fan cited, and some of them don't apply to situation at hand.

Breyer doesn't give a damn and the departed O'Connor (Sandy, baby!) believed at the end of her term that international law should be taken into account when deciding Constitutional issues.

[Master Shake]

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. If you think the constitution says something and the Supreme Court disagrees, you are wrong by definition.

Actually, the people are the ultimate arbiter since, if they disagree with SCOTUS, they, either directly via Convention or via their elected representative, can amend the Constitution.

Your position seems to be "the Supremes said it, I agree with it, and that settles it."

[Munger]

You must be a lawyer. Truth is whatever the "Supreme Court" says it is.

By your definition Roger Tanney was right and Fredrick Douglas was wrong.

I made no mention of truth. Like I said, the Supreme Court ultimately determines what the constitution means. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137).

[Munger]

Actually, the people are the ultimate arbiter since, if they disagree with SCOTUS, they, either directly via Convention or via their elected representative, can amend the Constitution.


Incorrect, again. Under certain circumstances the constitution can be changed. The Supreme Court gets to interpret those changes.


Your position seems to be "the Supremes said it, I agree with it, and that settles it."

Incorrect. My position is just as I said: the Supreme Court has the power of ultimate interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to disagree with the logic, outcome, etc, of course. But since they have the power to determine what the constitution means and you don't, you are wrong by definition.

[Master Shake]

Incorrect, again. Under certain circumstances the constitution can be changed. The Supreme Court gets to interpret those changes.



Incorrect. My position is just as I said: the Supreme Court has the power of ultimate interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to disagree with the logic, outcome, etc, of course. But since they have the power to determine what the constitution means and you don't, you are wrong by definition.

So, the justices who dissent, since very few cases are decided 9-0, are "wrong" by defintion?

[Munger]

So, the justices who dissent, since very few cases are decided 9-0, are "wrong" by defintion?

Yes, and they would be the first to tell you that their dissents mean nothing as far as the state of constitutional interpretation following the decision.

[Master Shake]

Yes, and they would be the first to tell you that their dissents mean nothing as far as the state of constitutional interpretation following the decision.

Except that stare decisis doesn't always hold, and later justices may find the dissenters were in fact "right."

[Raz]

I made no mention of truth. Like I said, the Supreme Court ultimately determines what the constitution means. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137).

So you didn't. My apology for missrepresenting your position.

I could have ignored your statements and called you a Communist, but I didn't.
I admitted my error - and it didn't even hurt.

You should try it sometime.
It works wonders for your erudition and perspicacity.

[Diarmuid]

Removed post

[Diarmuid]

It would be precisely accurate to say that I disagree with the SCOTUS rulings the Mungster fan cited, and some of them don't apply to situation at hand.

Breyer doesn't give a damn and the departed O'Connor (Sandy, baby!) believed at the end of her term that international law should be taken into account when deciding Constitutional issues.

Are you working for Goebbels in the US department of state propoganda? :)

[Munger]

So you didn't. My apology for missrepresenting your position.

I could have ignored your statements and called you a Communist, but I didn't.
I admitted my error - and it didn't even hurt.

You should try it sometime.
It works wonders for your erudition and perspicacity.



Appreciated. I apologize for calling you racist; I do not (and did not) think you are. I will note that I did not introduce that word into our other discussion until you had brought it up a few times. It seemed a straw man, and I threw it out blatantly to egg you on.

Regardless, I apologize.

[Master Shake]

Are you working for Goebbels in the US department of state propoganda? :)

No, why, are you?

[Diarmuid]

No, why, are you?

Yes! I know Heir Goebbels well; he had told me there was another mole blogging in itulip but refused to divulge his / her identity - thought it might be you - sorry for the case of mistaken identity.

[*T*]

I never said that. I said elsewhere only in worst case. Meaning dire emergency. I'm totally against what has been going on at Gitmo. Everything isn't all black and white. To rule torture out completely is foolish as you don't know what circumstance MAY occur in the future.

What about having principles?

[*T*]

What kind of doubletalk and abuse?

Do you believe that the terrorists being held at Gitmo should be given court appointed lawyers and be tried in a US criminal court?

Yes. If they are proven guilty, then they be punished. If not, not.

[Raz]

Appreciated. I apologize for calling you racist; I do not (and did not) think you are. I will note that I did not introduce that word into our other discussion until you had brought it up a few times. It seemed a straw man, and I threw it out blatantly to egg you on.

Regardless, I apologize.

Your apology includes a defense of the indefensable. It also includes an inaccurate recollection of events.

Go to this PostStop and read the twenty posts, beginning with your response to hayekvindicated. http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=98895#poststop

It was you who played the race card, two days before my response.
You first threw the R-Bomb at hayekvindicated - and he's not white! That's why I cautioned you about playing that garbage with me.
I know more about racism than most people ever will. And there are few things in this world that will make me rip your head off quicker than playing that card.

Have you read Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" ? An excellent movie was made from that book with Gregory Peck as the hero, Atticus Finch, the lawyer in 1930s Alabama who defended a black man falsley accused of rape.
The chief villain was a man named Bob Ewell. Take away the whiskey and the grinding poverty and that character would resemble my father. (May God grant him repose.)
I grew up with racism all around me, within my own family. Heard it every day. I've seen not only what it did to the targets of the racists, but I've seen the destruction it causes within the spirit of the racist himself. When I went away to college I was so glad to be removed from that climate, and it was then I began to see that what embarrassed me about my family was not just shameful, but evil.

Then in the mid 1980s I watched the Democratic Party change into the New Left where anything goes. All that counts is winning, and Clinton was the zenith of that game. When liars like Charley Rangell couldn't best their opponents argument they simply used the Alinsky demagogery and called those who disagreed with them "racist". This was the cheap shot of all cheap shots to me.
They used it to shut down debate when they couldn't win using facts and reason. The NeoCons also used it when they questioned the patriotism of anyone who didn't support "W"'s stupid war. It's also demagogery.

You enraged me, Munger. I'm sorry for calling you a joke. You're not a joke. You're an intelligent man who is wrong about certain things and right about some others. But when you throw the R-Bomb you become far more that misguided or wrong: you become a participant in demagogery, a vile accusation that leads to violent response. Using it on hayekvindicated made you appear to be a joke.

If we can't recover honest, civil debate within the political realm we will likely end up with another civil war. And what we are facing economically could be the catalyst.

And yes, I will accept your apology - if it truly is one.

[metalman]

man, the anger and hurt that's right under the surface... now that will give a man pause. hope you guys work it out. even so, what are the chances for the rest of us.

reading this on itulip... i'll have nightmares tonight.

this is the top 1% of the top 1% who think.

consider (http://www.thechinaexpat.com/racism-in-china/)

the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm)

rest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwpO-nnFY9g).

[Chris Coles]

man, the anger and hurt that's right under the surface... now that will give a man pause. hope you guys work it out. even so, what are the chances for the rest of us.

reading this on itulip... i'll have nightmares tonight.

this is the top 1% of the top 1% who think.

consider (http://www.thechinaexpat.com/racism-in-china/)

the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4671687.stm)

rest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwpO-nnFY9g).

One of the underlying problems is that this sort of thing must have roots as far back in time as the full evolutionary period for the human race. Is perhaps why we split into different basic colours of skin, red, yellow, white and black. Your reference to the problems in China, for example, is very illuminating and previously unknown to me. Overcoming an innate prejudice that harks back perhaps millions of years is an ongoing challenge and we must all thank anyone who, by bringing it to our attention, reminds us all that we have to work hard at being civilised and cannot take anything for granted.

[ThePythonicCow]

One of the underlying problems is that this sort of thing must have roots as far back in time ...Yeah - that river runs deep.

[Master Shake]

Yes! I know Heir Goebbels well; he had told me there was another mole blogging in itulip but refused to divulge his / her identity - thought it might be you - sorry for the case of mistaken identity.

Well, since Herr Goebbels and his posse were socialists, I would focus on those whose posts betray a socialistic mindset. Happy hunting.

[Diarmuid]

Well, since Herr Goebbels and his posse were socialists, I would focus on those whose posts betray a socialistic mindset. Happy hunting.

Well if you are refering to my posts potraying a socialist mindset, you could not be wider from the mark as to my political beliefs, I consider myself a conservative rule of law, consent, limited government, lawful or constitutional money etc., as for post potraying a particular mindset you might do well to take your own advice and do a search for ones potraying a fascist mindset.

[tombat1913]

Rajiv, you have brought us right to the nub of the matter without realising it. Torture is not about getting at information; it is all about the screwed up minds of the perpetrators. Torture is all about the needs of the torturers. The reality is, some people get a very BIG buzz from causing other people harm. Torture is all about satisfying that inner need to harm others. It is sick in the extreme and that is why I find it so unacceptable.

And to expand on the nub, it has been found that most of the interrogation was directed at finding a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If you've gone to war under false pretenses it would be prudent to create pretenses, and what better proof than admittance from an insurgent, or any dark skinned Muslim really.

And to you Mr. "it depends on the circumstances", how far (http://boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh-children-raped.html) will you take it?

[Munger]

Your apology includes a defense of the indefensable. It also includes an inaccurate recollection of events.

Go to this PostStop and read the twenty posts, beginning with your response to hayekvindicated. http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=98895#poststop

It was you who played the race card, two days before my response.
You first threw the R-Bomb at hayekvindicated - and he's not white! That's why I cautioned you about playing that garbage with me.
I know more about racism than most people ever will. And there are few things in this world that will make me rip your head off quicker than playing that card.

Have you read Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" ? An excellent movie was made from that book with Gregory Peck as the hero, Atticus Finch, the lawyer in 1930s Alabama who defended a black man falsley accused of rape.
The chief villain was a man named Bob Ewell. Take away the whiskey and the grinding poverty and that character would resemble my father. (May God grant him repose.)
I grew up with racism all around me, within my own family. Heard it every day. I've seen not only what it did to the targets of the racists, but I've seen the destruction it causes within the spirit of the racist himself. When I went away to college I was so glad to be removed from that climate, and it was then I began to see that what embarrassed me about my family was not just shameful, but evil.

Then in the mid 1980s I watched the Democratic Party change into the New Left where anything goes. All that counts is winning, and Clinton was the zenith of that game. When liars like Charley Rangell couldn't best their opponents argument they simply used the Alinsky demagogery and called those who disagreed with them "racist". This was the cheap shot of all cheap shots to me.
They used it to shut down debate when they couldn't win using facts and reason. The NeoCons also used it when they questioned the patriotism of anyone who didn't support "W"'s stupid war. It's also demagogery.

You enraged me, Munger. I'm sorry for calling you a joke. You're not a joke. You're an intelligent man who is wrong about certain things and right about some others. But when you throw the R-Bomb you become far more that misguided or wrong: you become a participant in demagogery, a vile accusation that leads to violent response. Using it on hayekvindicated made you appear to be a joke.

If we can't recover honest, civil debate within the political realm we will likely end up with another civil war. And what we are facing economically could be the catalyst.

And yes, I will accept your apology - if it truly is one.



This is obviously a sensitive topic for you and again, I apologize.

But, I will again point out that in the thread you refer to I immediately apologized and clarified - before you ever posted on that thread - stating that I did not mean to assert that Hayek was racist, and that what I meant was that it is too easy to blame our problems on "brown people" when the problem is much deeper.

The rest of our argument was me asserting that there is no requirement for an immigrant to "assimilate" to be accepted into this country as a citizen. And I stand by that. And I do not care if immigrants live within their communities and share a common cultural background that I do not share. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - and actually, I quite enjoy carousing through china town or the hispanic boulevard to check out the sights and sounds. I still think your "Balkan enclave" comment comes across as offensive. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it just came across wrong.

[tastymannatees]

Spooky - I can't wait to see what our government sponsored car looks like

http://z.hubpages.com/u/99721_f520.jpg

[Raz]

This is obviously a sensitive topic for you and again, I apologize.

Libel and slander are always sensitive topics to the recipient of them.

But, I will again point out that in the thread you refer to I immediately apologized and clarified - before you ever posted on that thread - stating that I did not mean to assert that Hayek was racist, and that what I meant was that it is too easy to blame our problems on "brown people" when the problem is much deeper.

And I will point out to you that initially I only warned you about playing the "racist" card with me. I won't play cards with a marked deck.
You read racism into hayekvindicated's argument about California's problems being magnified by illegal aliens without presenting facts that they do not. I have two relatives in California and several friends there as well. They ALL say that it costs their state an enormous amount of money. Common sense would seem to agree and there are studies to back that up. One can be found here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm


The rest of our argument was me asserting that there is no requirement for an immigrant to "assimilate" to be accepted into this country as a citizen. And I stand by that. And I do not care if immigrants live within their communities and share a common cultural background that I do not share. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - and actually, I quite enjoy carousing through china town or the hispanic boulevard to check out the sights and sounds. I still think your "Balkan enclave" comment comes across as offensive. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it just came across wrong.

Now here is where I overreacted based on what I thought you were saying. You are technically correct if you are referring to "freedom of association". And I should have spelled out my position with clarity, but my anger over your false accusations of racism where there is none along with your cavalier statement that illegal "immigration" can also be good for "filling jobs" was the firecracker that cut short my intention to elaborate. Here it is: I do not expect Mexican immigrants to become English, nor do I expect Asians to become English - or Scottish, Irish, German, Italian or any other such "Eurocentric" nonsense. But, I demand that they wait their turn in line, enter our nation legally, and become Americans. A guest-worker program would probably bring some order and sanity to the present anarchic situation, but I will only support that IF legal guest workers must go to the end of the line to await naturalization. Otherwise the ones who respect our laws and wait their turn are cheated and played for chumps.

The problem I have is the present invasion of illegal aliens. They are NOT welcome by me, and I don't give a rat's-rear-end what country they come from or the level of pigment they bring with them.

You are free to disagree with me; you are not free to libel or slander me.

We both are at fault if we cannot have an honest debate about the facts at hand. I might have even come across worse than you.

I accept your apology and offer mine to you for whatever I misrepresented and for losing my temper and civility.
And especially for calling you a joke.
You're wrong, but you're not a joke.:p

[charliebrown]

what about drugs?

I had a colonoscopy last year, where they give you versed? Even though you are awake you have no recollection. I found myself dressed and waiting for my wife to pick me up. Had no recolection of dressing myself after the procedure. Maybe If asked the question "where's the bomb" my answer might be fantasy and not the truth?? Don't know, would I lie? or be able to lie? Don't know. If one can glean the truth under those circumstances the drugged wouldn't even remember they were interogated.
I was advised before the procedure not to sign any contracts that day.
They did not explain why. Would I make a poor decision, would I just simply not remember agreeing to something?

[*T*]

Well, since Herr Goebbels and his posse were socialists, I would focus on those whose posts betray a socialistic mindset. Happy hunting.

*chokes on breakfast*

[*T*]

I do not expect Mexican immigrants to become English, nor do I expect Asians to become English - or Scottish, Irish, German, Italian or any other such "Eurocentric" nonsense. But, I demand that they wait their turn in line, enter our nation legally, and become Americans.

Please define "American" in this context.

60's Indian & West Indian immigrants to the UK were British - as citizens of the Empire - how would you apply your argument to that case?
(Please don't say it's irrelevant - it's relevant to me).

[WDCRob]

Well, since Herr Goebbels and his posse were socialists, I would focus on those whose posts betray a socialistic mindset. Happy hunting.

They were fascists. No trouble find at least one of those.

[flintlock]

What about having principles?

Yeah, my principle is that if some rat bastard is trying to kill my family, I have no problem torturing them to death. What's yours? Wear a nice suit at their funeral and swear you did all you could do?

[c1ue]

Metalman,

No secret that most people are racist - in the sense of fear and distrust of those of dissimilar appearance and/or background.

This applies to America as well as to other nations. Those who think otherwise just need to look at black/white residence patterns.

Sure, probably less than other nations, but then again there is no such thing as a 'real American'.

As for the Japanese - who DO have such a thing as a 'real Japanese' and who DO behave quite discriminatorily against the SanKokuJin (Korean, Philipino, Chinese minorities), I have a funny story:

Ironically while many of the above sankokujin may be 2nd or 3rd generation living in Japan and speak/act Japanese very fluently, the other foreigners - especially Caucasians - often feel they are more acclimated.

But this is not true. These feelings arise due to 'gaijin privilege' - which extends mostly to the white foreigners. Why?

What is not well known about the Japanese language is that it is very contextually dependent. Certainly it is easy to learn basic communication: Japanese (nihongo) is phonetic and is grammatically simple, excluding the 2000 everyday/5000 total Chinese ideogram Kanji - but the social context is very difficult in contrast to detect/learn.

For example: most foreigners speak like Japanese women. To test this - next time you hear a foreigner speak Japanese, note whether his tone/pitch rises as compared to their English or other native speaking - especially if the foreign speaker is male. Japanese women pitch their speaking voices higher than 'normal', whereas Japanese men pitch their speaking voices lower.

Similarly the actual forms of words used are quite different as is the grammatic style. There are many ways of saying I in Japanese as well as a number of formal/informal versions; a gaijin privilege foreigner can get away with it whereas a sankokujin foreigner could not.

The reason foreigners almost all speak like women is because teaching Japanese to foreigners is an extremely low status occupation. 95% of all such teachers are women, and they speak naturally for them. And of course their students pick up their tones and style.

Of course 'gaijin privilege' means those lucky foreign types will never be openly mocked or derided for their speaking like women (or numerous other social faux pas) because while inwardly many of the Japanese are grinning, outwardly the behavior is punctiliously polite.

[Raz]

Please define "American" in this context.

60's Indian & West Indian immigrants to the UK were British - as citizens of the Empire - how would you apply your argument to that case?
(Please don't say it's irrelevant - it's relevant to me).

Why did you think I would call your question irrelevant?:confused:

"American" in this context means that your loyalty is first and foremost to the United States, its Constitution and the Republic.

It means that you place the sovereign interests of the United States first. Before Israel, before India, before Mexico, before Pakistan, before Ireland, before Italy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. While you don't leave your family or distinctive culture behind, it means that you do leave Mexico behind. You leave Ireland behind. You leave England behind. You leave Pakistan behind.
If you don't, then the oath you took as a Naturalized Citizen makes you a fraud. And that seems to be only a short step away from being a traitor.

I have a problem with Dual Nationals. I don't like it one bit.

[BadJuju]

I have a problem with Dual Nationals. I don't like it one bit.

As I see it, we are all humans and citizens of one planet. I abhor the notion of dividing people into races, classes, castes, or nationalities. It promotes all the worst aspects of humanity, and has only led to the most depraved and degenerate acts of mankind's history. I have never been one to identify with a specific culture, nation, ethnicity, or class. I view myself as human first and foremost. Everything else is trivial beyond that.

[Raz]

As I see it, we are all humans and citizens of one planet. I abhor the notion of dividing people into races, classes, castes, or nationalities. It promotes all the worst aspects of humanity, and has only led to the most depraved and degenerate acts of mankind's history. I have never been one to identify with a specific culture, nation, ethnicity, or class. I view myself as human first and foremost. Everything else is trivial beyond that.

Yes, and in times past, especially when I smoked "Wacky Tobbaccy", I thought of myself as simply an Earthling. I thought of some other Earthling whom I didn't even know, one who lived across the mystic sea, as deserving of the very same friendship and loyalty as my neighbor next door. I thought that in such a near catatonic state I must have reached altruistic perfection! I saw no need for military forces to protect the United States since all men were truly brothers. I thought that handing out flowers would change the hearts and minds of all earthly beings. Even the existence of governments seemed trivial and unnecessary.

Then I woke up and found myself back in the real world.


"When I was a child I thought like a child and I reasoned like a child;
but when I became a man I put away childish things."
St. Paul

[BadJuju]

Yes, and in times past, especially when I smoked "Wacky Tobbaccy", I thought of myself as simply an Earthling. I thought of some other Earthling whom I didn't even know, one who lived across the mystic sea, as deserving of the very same friendship and loyalty as my neighbor next door. I thought that in such a near catatonic state I must have reached altruistic perfection! I saw no need for military forces to protect the United States since all men were truly brothers. I thought that handing out flowers would change the hearts and minds of all earthly beings. Even the existence of governments seemed trivial and unnecessary.

Then I woke up and found myself back in the real world.


"When I was a child I thought like a child and I reasoned like a child;
but when I became a man I put away childish things."
St. Paul

I am a realist as well and know all too well that people are predisposed to thinking in terms of race, class, caste, or nationality. That, however, does not mean that I have to think of myself that way, and it does not mean that I am wrong for thinking it. Humans are humans first and foremost and should think of themselves as such; however, people are too petty to let themselves ever be more than the sum of man-made definitions. So I have loyalty to friends and family, but not to race, class, nationality, or caste.

Cannot say I like your condescending tone here, either, bub.

[Raz]

I am a realist as well and know all too well that people are predisposed to thinking in terms of race, class, caste, or nationality. That, however, does not mean that I have to think of myself that way, and it does not mean that I am wrong for thinking it. Humans are humans first and foremost and should think of themselves as such; however, people are too petty to let themselves ever be more than the sum of man-made definitions. So I have loyalty to friends and family, but not to race, class, nationality, or caste.

Cannot say I like your condescending tone here, either, bub.

Having just reread it I don't like it either.
I'm sorry, and I hope you will forgive me.:o

I have no loyalty to race, class or caste. None.
I do have loyalty to my family, friends and my country.

However, those loyalties are not absolute: I will not remain so loyal to a family member that I will help them cover up a murder.
Neither will I remain loyal to my country should her government become a monster like that of Nazi Germany.

I hope that in such a case I would have the courage of Dietrich Bonnhoeffer - while counting the cost - and accepting the consequences.

[BadJuju]

Having just reread it I don't like it either.
I'm sorry, and I hope you will forgive me.:o


It is okay, bud. :D

[Master Shake]

They were fascists. No trouble find at least one of those.

NAZI was a German acronym for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. I thought that was common knowledge.

[Diarmuid]

NAZI was a German acronym for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. I thought that was common knowledge.

All apples are fruit. not all fruit are apples and so it goes, All NAZIs are socialists but not all socialists are NAZIs, all NAZIs are fascists, not all fascists are NAZIs, as I am sure you are well aware.

[Munger]

This is obviously a sensitive topic for you and again, I apologize.

Libel and slander are always sensitive topics to the recipient of them.

But, I will again point out that in the thread you refer to I immediately apologized and clarified - before you ever posted on that thread - stating that I did not mean to assert that Hayek was racist, and that what I meant was that it is too easy to blame our problems on "brown people" when the problem is much deeper.

And I will point out to you that initially I only warned you about playing the "racist" card with me. I won't play cards with a marked deck.
You read racism into hayekvindicated's argument about California's problems being magnified by illegal aliens without presenting facts that they do not. I have two relatives in California and several friends there as well. They ALL say that it costs their state an enormous amount of money. Common sense would seem to agree and there are studies to back that up. One can be found here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm


The rest of our argument was me asserting that there is no requirement for an immigrant to "assimilate" to be accepted into this country as a citizen. And I stand by that. And I do not care if immigrants live within their communities and share a common cultural background that I do not share. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - and actually, I quite enjoy carousing through china town or the hispanic boulevard to check out the sights and sounds. I still think your "Balkan enclave" comment comes across as offensive. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it just came across wrong.

Now here is where I overreacted based on what I thought you were saying. You are technically correct if you are referring to "freedom of association". And I should have spelled out my position with clarity, but my anger over your false accusations of racism where there is none along with your cavalier statement that illegal "immigration" can also be good for "filling jobs" was the firecracker that cut short my intention to elaborate. Here it is: I do not expect Mexican immigrants to become English, nor do I expect Asians to become English - or Scottish, Irish, German, Italian or any other such "Eurocentric" nonsense. But, I demand that they wait their turn in line, enter our nation legally, and become Americans. A guest-worker program would probably bring some order and sanity to the present anarchic situation, but I will only support that IF legal guest workers must go to the end of the line to await naturalization. Otherwise the ones who respect our laws and wait their turn are cheated and played for chumps.

The problem I have is the present invasion of illegal aliens. They are NOT welcome by me, and I don't give a rat's-rear-end what country they come from or the level of pigment they bring with them.

You are free to disagree with me; you are not free to libel or slander me.

We both are at fault if we cannot have an honest debate about the facts at hand. I might have even come across worse than you.

I accept your apology and offer mine to you for whatever I misrepresented and for losing my temper and civility.
And especially for calling you a joke.
You're wrong, but you're not a joke.:p

I think we are more similar in our thinking than we realized. My apology is sincere. Let's put this behind us.

[Master Shake]

All apples are fruit. not all fruit are apples and so it goes, All NAZIs are socialists but not all socialists are NAZIs, all NAZIs are fascists, not all fascists are NAZIs, as I am sure you are well aware.

I never said otherwise, just that the Nazis were socialists.

[sandwind]

There are political commity that wants to stop Obama's nazi health plan .
www.larouchepac.com/health

[metalman]

There are political commity that wants to stop Obama's nazi health plan .
www.larouchepac.com/health (http://seoblackhat.com/2006/03/26/conspiracy-nuts//health)

larouche = whacko.

[sandwind]

I had to check "whacko" in vocabluary (as english is not my native language)

"A person who is regarded as eccentric or mad"

Got it metalman :)

but there are lots of such "whacko" persons comparing Obama to Adi...