I am voting for Obama

[old school]

fistful,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060927-floor_statement_7/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html


The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

The real fairy tale is that governments are so honest that you can trust them to only imprison bad people, and that they'll only use the unlimited power to imprison responsibly.

I also don't believe in instutionalized savagery, and torture is savagery.  It's a death penalty offense for a reason.  McCain and Obama have both come out against torture though, but I'm sure if McCain is changing his opinion on that yet.

Excellent Posts. However that last line about Mc Cain changing his mind about torture "yet" is highly unlikely. Even as pliable as McCain has become, I cannot imagine anyone who has gone through what he went through ever endorsing torture.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you think shooting student over looked mccain being tortured? in real life too not on the net

[Nitrogen]

Old school:

He endorsed torture.  At least, this is how people spin the fact tht he does:
McCain voted "NO" on a bill to have the CIA abide by teh army field manual specifications for interrogations.

Mccain said, "When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques, Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Problem is, the courts and the Bush Administration are constantly flipflopping on wether forms of interrogation, i.e. waterboarding meet this standard or break it.  (Never mind that we prosecuted the Japanese for it.)

This election can be summed up thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd

        Let's get out and vote!
        Let's make our voices heard.
        We've been given the right to choose,
        between a *expletive deleted*che and a turd.
        Its democracy in action!
        Put your freedom to the test.
        A big fat turd or a stupid *expletive deleted*che,
        which do you like best?

[longeyes]

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet.  It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us.  The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already.  This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

[De Selby]

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet.  It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us.  The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already.  This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law.  So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

[De Selby]

Problem is, the courts and the Bush Administration are constantly flipflopping on wether forms of interrogation, i.e. waterboarding meet this standard or break it.  (Never mind that we prosecuted the Japanese for it.)

They don't flip flop on it-they know it breaks the law, they only change the sham legal doctrines they use to try and excuse the flagrant violation of the law.

Everybody knows that it is torture.  There is no room for reasonable disagreement on that subject.  The only realistic debate is whether or not fig leaf legal justifications should be enough to allow the practice, and sadly some people think that's okay because of the nature of the torture victims' (alleged-no trials for these people yet) crimes.

[longeyes]

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law.  So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

Punition can only exist when a breach occurs within a society that embraces a pact of mutual respect.  It is a violation of a compact.  We have no compact with enemy aliens out to destroy us.  This is not about rehabilitation, re-education, or punishment.  This is about eliminating a mortal threat.  Draw your own conclusions.

[De Selby]

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law.  So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

Punition can only exist when a breach occurs within a society that embraces a pact of mutual respect.  It is a violation of a compact.  We have no compact with enemy aliens out to destroy us.  This is not about rehabilitation, re-education, or punishment.  This is about eliminating a mortal threat.  Draw your own conclusions.

The problem is that you're inventing a new law-certainly that view is not American law, and never has been.  Maybe you believe in some worldwide "law of natural order" or something like the globalists you despise, but certainly this view has absolutely nothing to do with what the law requires here, in America.  There is also no American rule of "mortal threats" that excuses Americans from American law-you have to obey the law, even in self defense.  That's always been the case, and you would have a very different America if that were not so.

The Government cannot criminally punish people who have violated no law.  That's pretty clear-even in the constitution, via the ban on ex post facto laws. 

There is no American law of "no compact equals no law" or whatever it is you were theorizing.  Maybe in some globalist paradise where the presumed "law of natural order applicable to all!" applies this could be the case, but I'm talking about a sovereign America, where the government enforces American laws.

[roo_ster]

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet.  It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us.  The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already.  This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law.  So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

SS, you are making what I like to call "The Pinhead Lawyer" mistake.

Pinhead Lawyers(1) seem to think that every aspect of human existence is and ought to be governed by intricate layers of law(2).  No room for unwritten law, no room for social convention, no room for activities that are not legal or illegal, but a-legal.

War is a part of human interaction where law takes a back seat to reality and purpose. 





(1) Not all lawyers are pinheads.  See Andrew McCarthy's Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad for a cogent, non-pinheaded lawyer who understands that a law-enforcement approach to war is a recipe for disaster. "While our enemies were waging a war, we were prosecuting them as mere criminals." "The legal system circa 1993 was woefully unprepared for radical Islam."

(2) Thus requiring a legion of lawyers to do just about anything.

[Perd Hapley]

The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

That is a lie.  I have never clamored for the abolition of habeas corpus.  But since the constitution allows for the SUSPENSION of habeas corpus under certain circumstances, I will too.  For now. 

[De Selby]

The majority's ruling in the Boumediene might make sense in a world in which American law governed the planet.  It doesn't, and the Left doesn't want it to.

Alien combatants have not broken U.S. criminal law; they are at war with us.  The Unholy Five on the Court are acting AS IF we live in a one-world socialist state already.  This is more trick by the Left to prepare the masses for the Grand Plan.

Okay, if they have broken no criminal law, then what grounds does the U.S. have for punishing them?

It's against U.S. law to punish people, no matter from what country, who have broken no criminal law.  So what would you have us do with them? Set them all free, or set them up in the relatively posh POW camps that we had for people like the Nazis in previous wars?

SS, you are making what I like to call "The Pinhead Lawyer" mistake.

Pinhead Lawyers(1) seem to think that every aspect of human existence is and ought to be governed by intricate layers of law(2).  No room for unwritten law, no room for social convention, no room for activities that are not legal or illegal, but a-legal.

War is a part of human interaction where law takes a back seat to reality and purpose. 





(1) Not all lawyers are pinheads.  See Andrew McCarthy's Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad for a cogent, non-pinheaded lawyer who understands that a law-enforcement approach to war is a recipe for disaster. "While our enemies were waging a war, we were prosecuting them as mere criminals." "The legal system circa 1993 was woefully unprepared for radical Islam."

(2) Thus requiring a legion of lawyers to do just about anything.

Actually, I don't think every area should be governed by intricate laws-my standard here is pretty basic: Government should have to prove the guilt of an individual before punishing the individual.

That is basic to civil society, not "far reaching pinhead lawyerism."  All of this business about how the "law can't handle terrorists" is complete bunk-we have handled many an enemy who was waging war against the U.S.  It's very simple: If you are committing crimes, you get tried and punished.  If you are not committing crimes, you don't-and that principle has worked even in wars against the likes of the Nazis and Japanese fascists.

Andrew McCarthy is not only a partisan player on the issue, he's a bigtime supporter of using torture.  Considering that he thinks savagery such as torture is legitimate, I'm not surprised that he doesn't believe the law applies to crimes.

Making war take the front seat for everything is what the Nazis and Fascist Japanese did-that's why they got tried as war criminals, and it's what should happen to anyone else who is willing to violate all the basic principles of civilized behavior in warfare. 

[De Selby]

The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

That is a lie.  I have never clamored for the abolition of habeas corpus.  But since the constitution allows for the SUSPENSION of habeas corpus under certain circumstances, I will too.  For now. 

"Suspended until the war on terror is over" is an abolition; there is no definite end point to the "war", and of course, you can rely on governments to use that to their advantage..."Hey folks, we're still working on security-no need for habeas to interfere with that!"

[Nick1911]

Actually, I don't think every area should be governed by intricate laws-my standard here is pretty basic: Government should have to prove the guilt of an individual before punishing the individual.

I agree, for citizens governed under that counties criminal laws.

I see a difference in international law.  For instance, I am not a Russian citizen, and as such I have no social contract with Russia.  Therefore, if Russia decides that I am a threat, and it is worth pissing off the US government, the Russians can abduct me and hold me indefinitely, torture me, and kill me.  As an enemy of the state, I do not have the protections that Russian citizens do under their constitution.

Is this not the case?  Constitutional protections only apply to citizens of that said nation, no?

[De Selby]

I see a difference in international law.  For instance, I am not a Russian citizen, and as such I have no social contract with Russia.  Therefore, if Russia decides that I am a threat, and it is worth pissing off the US government, the Russians can abduct me and hold me indefinitely, torture me, and kill me.  As an enemy of the state, I do not have the protections that Russian citizens do under their constitution.

Is this not the case?  Constitutional protections only apply to citizens of that said nation, no?

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it.  That's clear from your example.  If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan.  Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

Whether the constitutional protections of a nation apply to people who aren't citizens depends on the nation, of course: in America, they clearly do, because constitutional protections are restraints on what the Federal Government may do, not affirmative grants. 

The issue here isn't whether we should give something to non-citizens; it's whether the Federal government should be required to follow its own laws and the laws of the Constitution.

There are also international law considerations (like your example raises), but you don't have to consider those to settle this question. The U.S. constitution and laws settle it easily.

[Green Lantern]

I never got past the "anti-corruption" bit in the before I burst out laughing.

Seriously, he is a machine pol from Chicago. 

Ditto here...

[MicroBalrog]

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

Look. The purpose of political change is to move towards an objective. In the case of conservatism, it is to move towards less and less government. Even if you disagree with me on the distance we must travel, this is the case.

The Truman Doctrine applies here - "If we merely attempt to remain where we are, we will be driven back."

The problem with McCain is that he abandons any sort of desire of moving towards less government and more individual liberty. The only difference between McCain and Obama is the speed at which he wants to take you all towards less freedom.

Remember Reagan? "There is on left or right, there is only up or down..."

If McCain wins, you will be resigned to a European-like political reality where all you have is Statist A and Statist B.

And if you think that the Democrats will oppose McCain's expansions of the State, I have a bridge to sell you.

LEt me restate this:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as a vehicle of conservative reform.

No reform means the party is meaningless.

A party that rendered itself meaningless deserves to lose the election.

[Manedwolf]

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

Look. The purpose of political change is to move towards an objective. In the case of conservatism, it is to move towards less and less government. Even if you disagree with me on the distance we must travel, this is the case.

The Truman Doctrine applies here - "If we merely attempt to remain where we are, we will be driven back."

The problem with McCain is that he abandons any sort of desire of moving towards less government and more individual liberty. The only difference between McCain and Obama is the speed at which he wants to take you all towards less freedom.

Remember Reagan? "There is on left or right, there is only up or down..."

If McCain wins, you will be resigned to a European-like political reality where all you have is Statist A and Statist B.

And if you think that the Democrats will oppose McCain's expansions of the State, I have a bridge to sell you.

LEt me restate this:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as a vehicle of conservative reform.

No reform means the party is meaningless.

A party that rendered itself meaningless deserves to lose the election.

Once again, I'm just glad you can't vote here. Because you're not living in the reality, and you don't get it.

It's like talking to a wall.

[MicroBalrog]

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

Look. The purpose of political change is to move towards an objective. In the case of conservatism, it is to move towards less and less government. Even if you disagree with me on the distance we must travel, this is the case.

The Truman Doctrine applies here - "If we merely attempt to remain where we are, we will be driven back."

The problem with McCain is that he abandons any sort of desire of moving towards less government and more individual liberty. The only difference between McCain and Obama is the speed at which he wants to take you all towards less freedom.

Remember Reagan? "There is on left or right, there is only up or down..."

If McCain wins, you will be resigned to a European-like political reality where all you have is Statist A and Statist B.

And if you think that the Democrats will oppose McCain's expansions of the State, I have a bridge to sell you.

LEt me restate this:

The purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as a vehicle of conservative reform.

No reform means the party is meaningless.

A party that rendered itself meaningless deserves to lose the election.

Once again, I'm just glad you can't vote here. Because you're not living in the reality, and you don't get it.

It's like talking to a wall.

You have not answered my previous questions about the nature of your political goals and beliefs.
You have not even attempted to disprove my statements - neither now, nor previously.
You have at least twice deliberately misrepresented my position (here, and in the threads on Israel where you claimed I want Israel to 'lay down its arms').
All you've done is try to intimidate me.

How am I to be persuaded? All you've shown me is all stick (and the existence of your stick is debatable) and no carrot. If McCain were to be supportive of even slight systemic change, I'd be all for him.

It's not that I'm one of those OMG RON PAUL OR BUST people whom you profess to hate so much.

[roo_ster]

"Making the perfect the enemy of the good," seems to sum up the attitude of some.

Maybe terms like "damage control" and "risk mitigation" will help some folks understand.

[MicroBalrog]

No, it has nothing to do with that. Had Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, or Thompson been nominated, we'd not be having this argument, or if we would be, I'd be siding with you.

[old school]

Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

This is the the key thinking that is missing from the rabid dog mentality. "Biggest fist rules" is a great slogan when you have the upper hand. However, when the same bully that you were cheering for turns on you, suddenly it is not such a great philosophy.

It is just like the guy who drinks and drives because he thinks he is in control. When it all goes wrong and he is sitting in the drunk tank charged with manslaughter, suddenly everything is clearer. Just 12 hours ago the same individual was certain he was in complete control. How could he be so stupid? Simple, he was drunk. Being drunk with power is the same thing.

Americans have the convenience of being drunk with power. Because of our dominance, most of us have had this comfort for our entire lives. So, it is no surprise the we could display a lack of humility and a lack of compassion for people who are powerless. We just don't think the shoe could ever be on the other foot. When the day comes when the bully turns on you, you will be wondering how you could be so stupid too.

[Manedwolf]

Americans have the convenience of being drunk with power. Because of our dominance, most of us have had this comfort for our entire lives. So, it is no surprise the we could display a lack of humility and a lack of compassion for people who are powerless. We just don't think the shoe could ever be on the other foot. When the day comes when the bully turns on you, you will be wondering how you could be so stupid too.

Holy sh__ that sounds exactly like an Obama fluff speech. Just listen to you!

Yeah, you're just one more Obamaton, I think. You're following your messiah as a True Believer. Whatever...

I suggest you proselytize somewhere else, if that's the case. Because you won't find many converts here. The people here like to think, to question, and to doubt, and that's incompatible with any feelgood platitudes Obama has babbled, ever.

[Balog]

I think this is appropriate.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12089.msg217041#msg217041

/snip
As far as I can tell it's been quite some time since you've answered a question that has been directly posed to you.
/snip
And then you have the audacity to piss and moan because no one will answer your questions, yet when they do you immediately scuttle to the left and cry "well no one answered the question I was REALLY asking..."

That's pathological passive-agressive hypocrisy, it's a hallmark of many trolls, and it's put you on very short legs here, child.

If you want to have a discussion, answering pertinent questions might be a good place to start.

[longeyes]

If Americans were "drunk with power," this planet would have a very different look to it.  Maybe the other nations of the world would be paying us tribute or, less dramatically, America would be paid back for the military umbrella we have long provided the free world, at our expense, or we would be compensated for the illegal dumping that has raped our domestic industries and the intellectual property theft that cripples us.

Backing Reason with force is not drunken, it is honorable.

My view of what the Unholy Five on SCOTUS did can be described this way: it's like telling the gangbangers who tearing up your neighborhood to go to their rooms.  It is a deluded combination of generosity-cum-arrogance.  The terrorists have to be laughing their butts off at our misguided "idealism."

[K Frame]

Agreed.

If we were truly drunk with power, we've have long ago thrown off any lingering pretext of caring what the rest of the world thought and would act unilaterally on every issue such that it benefitted the US and ONLY the US.

Don't like it?

Mind if we test fire a nuke on your capital city?

You do mind?

Tough crap, we're the United States and we're drunk with power...


Actually, I would MUCH prefer a United States like that.

I get really sick of hearing people on Monday screaming "The United States is being a bully and overstepping its boundaries" and on Tuesday, after a typhoon, earthquake, etc., strips that nation bare, the same people are screaming "The United States isn't helping me!"