Demiurge said:I'm sorry if I don't understand the panic and outrage.
. . . and it'll all be with the legal patent of a secret court
really wish the CIA and FBI could talk about all of the foiled plots. It would be better than the alternative, which is another 9/11 style attack or worse. Unfortunately, I feel it will take that or more for this country to wake up. Even conservatives are getting soft. It's a sad commentary on the state of this country, but we have apparently not been hit hard enough
Yes, in fact, I believe the common names for this arrangement are "Kangaroo Court" and "Star Chamber."IMHO: freedom is not secured by a secret court, made up of secretly appointed "judges", acting secretly, with very little oversight.
Did I say that? I have no problem with the government being scrutinized. All I asked for were examples, and so far we had one guy that was wrongly accused, and consequently acquitted and paid handsomely for his troubles. 1 guy out of a population of nearly 301 million?
I'm sorry if I don't understand the panic and outrage.
I'm sorry I don't remember his name, but how about the American Muslim-convert attorney in Washington state (or was it Oregon) who was tossed in the clink for several months because the authorities insisted that his fingerprints were on a piece of luggage implicated in the Spanish rail bombing. The problem being that the Spanish authorities told our FBI that it wasn't his fingerprint, and our FBI went ahead and locked him up anyway ... and proceeded to deny him all sorts of fundamental, Constitutional rights "because he's a terrorist."Demiurge said:Show me the common citizen who was arrested and dragged through the mud against their Constitutional rights, and I'll agree with you. Who can they prop up, Jose Padilla? C'mon...
So, foob, you would insist on a standard of perfection (no false positives, whatsoever) in our counter-terrorism operations?
IMHO: freedom is not secured by a secret court, made up of secretly appointed "judges", acting secretly, with very little oversight.
Yes, in fact, I believe the common names for this arrangement are "Kangaroo Court" and "Star Chamber."
The BoR is a listing of citizens' rights and govt's limitations. It does not state that the standard to be met is one of perfection, as strict adherence to the BoR by gov't would still lead to false positives.Derby FALs said:I would. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.jfruser said:So, foob, you would insist on a standard of perfection (no false positives, whatsoever) in our counter-terrorism operations?
This will sound sexist, and I suppose it is, but it is true: It is in a woman's nature to put safety before anything else, including liberty. That's not to say that all woman will do this, but most will. I think it is wrapped up in the maternal instinct. This is one big reason why extending the voting franchise to propertyless women pretty much doomed our nation to socialism and police statism.
This fact is not inconsistent with my position. Bush is at the power end, not the voting end, of my theory. Naturally, once a voting block exists which is predisposed to favor security to liberty, there will emerge hoards of politicians eager to appeal to this predisposition for personal gain.Keep in mind it was Dubya and his friends who passed some of the most statist policies in the nation's history.
Well, since the Founders were antidemocratic too, I guess that puts me in good company, vile or not, and no, I don't propose the impossible. I said we are doomed by what has already happened. I did not propose any solutions. There likely aren't any. Once the voting franchise has escaped the exclusive possession of propertied males, all is pretty much lost for any republic. Now we get to be the observers and recorders of the inevitable decline and destruction of our society.Do you feel, then, that women should be disenfranchised? Are you remotely aware of what a vile, anti-democratic position that is?
There likely aren't any. Once the voting franchise has escaped the exclusive possession of propertied males, all is pretty much lost for any republic.
Unless I'm mistaken, in the days of the Founders, there were Negro males who were themselves property owners, and could thus vote.Propertied white males. Skin color was another deciding factor, remember?
I rue the actions taken by Union forces which lead up to, and made possible, the ratification of the 13th Amendment. All of these considered as one phenomenon essentially reversed the principles on which this nation was founded, setting us on a path to universal slavery. Is universal slavery any better than race slavery? I don't know. I will have to think about that.Do you rue the day the 13th Amendment was ratified?
I view women as females of the species man. Since all members, male and female, of that species are human, females also are human. As for their being incapable of responsibly participating, I've already stated that many are. I merely point out the reality, as I see it, that when they do participate in large numbers, their influence leads inevitably, in my view, to socialism and police statism. I've already explained why I hold that opinion.I don't know if you've ever railed against "Islamofascism," but if you view women as subhumans who are incapable of responsibly participating in government, you're not far from the worldview of Osama Bin Laden.
I'm so sick of hearing how we need to wait for terrorism to happen before we're allowed to do anything about it because people feel more comfortable with the red tape. The Bush Administration isn't doing anything any other administration couldn't do.
I really wish the CIA and FBI could talk about all of the foiled plots.