Constitutional protections? BWAHAHAHAHA!

[ArmedBear]

If this is the best argument conservatives can come up with to defend Bush & Co., the movement is dead from the neck up.

Perhaps you should just READ what I wrote. I MEANT what I wrote, and nothing more. It was no defense of anyone!

You're right; that would be a poor defense if WERE a defense.

I talk with my neighbors, I see the stickers on their cars and the posters at the local organic food coop, where we shop sometimes. I live in a neighborhood full of "progressives". I am a Libertarian, changing to a libertarian, probably. I have a pretty good idea of who supports what and whom, around here (which is what I wrote -- around here).

The problem is that, in November, we will have no VIABLE alternatives. Hell, I voted Libertarian against Feinstein last time. THAT was a waste.

Anyone who thinks a Libertarian candidate has a snowflake's chance in hell, at least in the states that produce the Feinsteins, Boxers, Clintons, Kerrys, and Kennedys of the world are nuts.

My point was that we're now stuck with a Hobson's choice of candidates.

Vote for an authoritarian leftist Democrat to "punish" a moderately unprincipled but not actively evil Republican for not opposing Bush strongly enough? That's not even as palatable as the "lesser of two evils", now, is it?

Voting Libertarian or some other 3rd party just makes both R & D candidates laugh. And not voting at all just hands the election to activist extremists, whose candidates then claim to have a "mandate from the people" to implement their proposals.

 

[coltrane679]

LB--

The reason it is particualry dangerous is that we are in an endless conflict. There will ALWAYS be terrorism, and emerging technologies will increasingly provide them with greater destructive leverage (and 9-11, as spectacular as it was, was a pretty damn good example of very primative leverage--turning box cutters into huge flying bombs).

Under such circumstances I cannot see how the proverbial "slippery slope" CAN'T lead to a police state, should we begin that path. Every atrocity will require more power to the state, to "protect us".

As some once said, if you want to avoid the ends, avoid the beginnings.

 

[longeyes]

Let's just say that 99.9% of the people around here who rail against Bush and Republicans are the strongest supporters of our Senators Feinstein and Boxer, as well as the likes of Kerry and the Clintons.

Hardly. Maybe it's just that we believe that when you fear contracting ebola you don't inject yourself with smallpox as the antidote?

Speaking for myself, I see free men caught in a wedge between radical barbarians abroad and corporate collectivists at home. Bush and his team have hijacked "liberty" every bit as much as radical Islamists have hijacked "Islam." Resisting tyranny here doesn't mean ignoring the threat of it elsewhere.

 

[tellner]

Boy, I might argue that the Alien and Sedition Acts were close. But back then technology wouldn't allow the evil-doers the sort of universal surveillance and destructive capacity that we have today.

It's not just liberals who are scared. As I mentioned earlier, when Bob Barr and Phyllis Schlafly work for the ACLU because they feel our rights are in danger you know that something has gone seriously pear-shaped. John Dean, Paul O'Neill and Kevin Phillips are not what you'd call left of center. They have all written books decrying our descent into despotism and Taliban-style religious extremism and the death of the Goldwater Conservative who revered human dignity, liberty and the rule of Law.

 

[longeyes]

I talk with my neighbors, I see the stickers on their cars and the posters at the local organic food coop, where we shop sometimes. I live in a neighborhood full of "progressives". I am a Libertarian, changing to a libertarian, probably. I have a pretty good idea of who supports what and whom, around here (which is what I wrote -- around here).

I'm in L.A., in much the same boat you are. You're right: there are no "good" choices. My view is that the current state of complacency and denial will be shattered by harsh political realities. Our job is get clarity and stay strong in anticipation of a more open-minded, if tumultuous, political climate.

 

[ArmedBear]

Under such circumstances I cannot see how the proverbial "slippery slope" CAN'T lead to a police state, should we begin that path. Every atrocity will require more power to the state, to "protect us".

We're already on that slope. Hell, even the WOT is just a pebble in the vast rockpile of "threats" that "require" jackboot law enforcement. Drugs are used as an excuse more often than "Terror".

Conservatives give FAR too much support to this. So do Liberals. Just say the word "children", "hate" or "racist" and they'll support any sort of repression. Either way, we're screwed, liberty-wise.

To change this, we need a different paradigm, one that truly values individual freedom.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

ArmedBear has a point about all of our options in November being pretty far from good. I think the average person is not as engaged in what is happening as are people who take the time to follow threads like this on "Legal and Political" Internet forums. If they get fed up with one thing, they'll likely vote for the other thing that is placed in front of them. Hence we'll go from a corrupt Republican-controlled congress that has rubber stamped all of this administration's tyrannical power grabs (and that includes Democratic members of that congress) to a corrupt Democratic-controlled congress that will attempt similar tyrannical power grabs from a left-wing perspective. Unfortunately third parties aren't likely to get enough power to make a difference in the near future (though I do think they may nab a stray seat or two in the House).

So what do we do? Vote for the left-wing tyrants, the right-wing tyrants, or the marginalized outsiders who can't possibly gain control of congress?

Maybe we need to take a longer look at the situation. Maybe we need to work on transforming marginalized third parties into genuine contenders. For example, instead of wasting its resources running the Smoking Lady against a pretty good Republican governor in Minnesota, the Libertarian party could offer the strongest senatorial candidate possible against the moonbat Kloubachar or the Bush-toadie Kennedy. If the candidate was strong enough he or she could even win a state-wide election. Jesse Ventura proved this is possible in Minnesota.

 

[ArmedBear]

Boy, I might argue that the Alien and Sedition Acts were close. But back then technology wouldn't allow the evil-doers the sort of universal surveillance and destructive capacity that we have today.

I'd add to that. Modern technology allows even seemingly innocuous laws like traffic regulations to be used as a tool to undermine basic freedoms.

It's not just liberals who are scared.

I think that a lot of "liberal" reaction is simply political, and has little to do with anything that's actually happening, and everything to do with partisan hot air. There was no such outcry against Clinton and Reno, among liberals.

Taliban-style religious extremism

The favorite red herring of the Left and some spaced out libertarians. Right now, the ideas that maybe vouchers could go to parochial schools, or that "Under God" might stay in the Pledge just aren't the big threat facing our liberty. Sorry.

The real threats come from universal surveillance, the gutting of property rights, the acceptance of "thought crimes" with prison terms, the deliberate obfuscation by scholars writing about the Bill of Rights, etc., not some religious people. It is imaginable that religious extremism COULD become such a threat, and it certainly has before, but it's not exactly the enemy at the gates right now.

the death of the Goldwater Conservative who revered human dignity

Dead? Not hardly. See my previous post about candidates, though.

 

[Selfdfenz]

A draft Bush administration plan

Looking forward to meeting you guys and gals when we all get together in the Gulag.

Thank Heaven we elected the lesser of two evils....



S-

 

[tellner]

ArmedBear, I don't want to make this an exhaustive catalog of things I don't like about the Religious Right, but here are a few examples of religious extremism having a real effect on our lives:

1) Tens of thousands of deaths from cervical cancer. Most cervical cancer can be prevented with the HPV vaccine. Under the political appointee currently in charge of the FDA it has been delayed against the howls of the scientists. Why? Because National Right to Life, the AFA, and a number of others say that preventing HPV will encourage sexual immorality. I've seen women die of cervical cancer. It is one of the most horrible, degrading agonizing ways of making the Big Jump that exists. I am not normally a violent man, but I would gladly kill the people who smugly lobby for these women to die in unspeakable pain.

2) Science. Creationism, even under its new label "Intelligent Design" has been foisted onto science classes. When religion is allowed to dictate what is considered science (not even Iran or Saudi Arabia teach creationism by the bye) truth has been gutshot.

The same thing is happening in the Department of the Interior, especially in the National Park Service.

3) Pandering to nutjobs like Hagee who want greater war in the Middle East specifically so that Jesus will arrive at the last minute and end the world.

4) The Office of Faith Based Initiatives is funnelling billions directly into churches and church political organizations and allowing them to use the money for campaigning for the people who handed them the cash. That is corruption of a more-than-worrisome sort.

5) The disgusting state of affairs that has been allowed to fester at the Air Force Academy.

6) Two current members of the Supreme Court who have said on the record that their religious beliefs trump the Law when they make legal decisions. Not surprisingly, they haven't found a power grab or reduction of civil rights that they don't like.

That's just half a dozen out many. You get the idea.

 

[tellner]

I think it's time to trot out one of the classics. With thanks to the late lamented Phil Ochs:

Knock on the Door
By Phil Ochs

In many a time, in many a land,
With many a gun in many a hand,
They came by the night, they came by the day,
Came with their guns to take us away

With a knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more.

Back in the days of the Roman Empire,
They died by the cross and they died by the fire.
In the stone coliseum, the crowd gave a roar,
And it all began with that knock on the door

Just a knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more.

The years have all passed, we've reached modern times,
The Nazis have come with their Nazi war crimes.
Yes the power was there, the power was found,
Six million people have heard that same sound

That old knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more.

Now there's many new words and many new names,
The banners have changed but the knock is the same.
On the Soviet shores with right on their side,
I wonder who knows how many have died

With their knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more.

Look over the oceans, look over the lands,
Look over the leaders with the blood on their hands.
And open your eyes and see what they do,
When they knock over their friend they're knocking for you

With their knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
With their knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more.

 

[Mannlicher]

I am for it.

What I would really like to see though, is for us to just go ahead and flatten Tehran and Damascus. Then we would not need to try these butt heads.

 

[roo_ster]

Consolidated Response

Jfruser, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say? Are you saying that because some of us put up a fight when GWB tried to grab some dictatorial powers we are somehow responsible for his trying to grab even greater dictatorial powers? Because we wouldn't accept some

tyranny we now have to accept even more tyranny?

Does anyone still doubt that the goal of the Bush administration is to assume dictatorial powers? Can anyone in his or her right mind defend this tyrannical legislation?

Let me elucidate.

GWB is in the current mainstream of political thought & practice: a place where the New Deal and expansive fed.gov power is accepted as the norm. It is a place where there is some quibbling about the edges, but the two parties and a majority of the citizenry like the fact that fed.gov is a Leviathon. Folks like myself are outlyers in that I prefer a fed.gov limited to the text of the COTUS.

Exercising the power of the executive to wage war* (against militant Islam) and abiding by accords and conventions regarding the conduct of war (detaining, questioning, and --if it is our pleasure to-- executing unlawful enemy combatants) is not "trying to grab some dictatorial powers."

Some folks need to lay off the hyperbole bong and breathe some oxygen. Maybe in some sort of "Evil Spock" alternate universe, the above is a grab at dictatorial power, but in this one it is "conducting military operations in accord with US law and treaties we are party to."

The specific case that the legislation mentioned in the first post is trying to address, is the power of our government to dispose of illegal enemy combatants we capture in the field by means of some sort of military tribunal. This legislation has come about because of Hamdan, the SCOTUS case that said, unconstitutionally (IMO), the executive could not try captured illegal enemy combatants by means of military tribunal. To do so, it called on language contained in a treaty no US president signed and that no US Congress passed. It also deliberately construed language in a treaty we did sign (see bottom for link) to mean the opposite of what it says (kind of reminding me of Raiche, where something that was not commerce and did not cross state lines was deemed "interstate commerce," and thus liable to Congress' IC clause powers).

There were some folks in Congress (Specter & Graham, among them) who have wanted to codify the practice of military tribunals for unlawful combatants into law. Hamdan brought a whole bunch (likely a large majority) into their camp. Now, all that is left is to hammer out the details. GWB & Co.'s opening bid is MUCH broader & deeper than what they had planned or practiced under the aegis of executive war-making powers. It is very likely that when the law is signed, executive power will have increased much more than if the administration had been able to try the unlawful combatants as they saw fit under executive authority.

That does not make me happy, at all. I live in the real world where terrorists & unlawful combatants need to be dealt with. Giving them the benefit of full-up trial by jury & such enjoyed by your average federal law-breaker is asinine. GWB tried to deal with them in a sane, humane manner that gave them more rights than they have coming under treaties pertaining to the conduct of war. This wasn't good enough for the whiners.

My preferred solution to the problem of illegal enemy combatants is the application of FMJ therapy at a time & place convenient to our men in uniform. GWB's solution of military tribunals is decidedly second best, IMO. Law passed by Congress is the worst possible outcome, but it is what we have left to us after Hamdan.

Well, the end result will be greater authority invested in the executive than before this whole mess started. Letting illegal combatants free is an affront to justice & reason and an invitation to kill more of us & our allies. I am quite conflicted on whether to support the legislation or not. What a mess.

And we can thank the whiners and hyperbole-huffers for the final outcome.

* Power granted by COTUS & legislation in support of such having been passed by both houses of Congress

What you fail to grasp is that nothing they propose is limited to "illegal combatants" on a "battlefield" in a "war"

Oh, I sure do grasp it. The military tribunals proposed under executive authority were for illegal combatants. The legislation is broader. That is why I am cranky: the military tribunals under executive authority were both legitimate and less intrusive than legislation that is being proposed.

This is the unintended consequence of the whiners.

But once you take prisoners, you have deal with them as such. When you remove them from the immediacy and urgencies of the battlefield, you just can't do whatever the hell you want with them..

Let us be clear: we are talking about illegal combatants not eligible for prisoner of war status. They are prisoners, yess, but not POW.

We can take them prisoner, interrogate them, or kill them as we please. The convention we signed on to deals with the treatment of legal combatants.

I am reminded of the photo of the Vietnamese officer who executed some Viet Cong. Folks look at that photo & say, "Oh, how horrible. What a bad guy that officer is." Well, the rest of the story is that the VC had just finished massacreing (sp?) some civilians and was stopped by the officer's unit. What the ARVN did was both legal (according to RSVN law and the various laws of war) and moral.

jfruser, just how evil do we have to become and how heavy our chains before you will feel safe?

Who is "we," mf?

To answer one rhetorical question with another, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"

...I would gladly kill the people who smugly lobby for these women to die in unspeakable pain.

How open-minded of you. I think you'd fit right in with those folks who talk about killing abortionists.

...for one, they didn't live up to even the standards established for military tribunals under the UCMJ.

I agree with you in that analysis. Thing is, we have no obligation by treaty or US law (until/unless the pending bill passes) to give illegal combatants due process under the UCMJ. The usual term was, if memory serves, "competent tribunal."

I am satisfied with a lesser standard for illegal combatants captured in the field. Call it "kangaroo court" if you will. I would call it "a review of pertinent documents by competent individuals," myself. Documented AARs & the like ought to be enough, in this case. The calling of witnesses by Joe Tango captured in the field after deliberately targetting civilians is pretty repugnant.

The witnesses may no longer be in the service. Are you okay with Joe Tango, caught setting up an IED at a bazaar full of hemophiliac children and tradesmen, subpeanaing (sp?) some former E-3 from family & job to fly down to Guantanimo to be cross-examined...years after he nabbed Joe Tango in the act?

It gets absurd quickly.

I also disagree with you about its likelihood for success.

I do not hold your opinion about the liklihood for its success. Pretty much every poll taken in the wake of some revelation of clandestine operation (squeaky-legal, borderline, or flagrantly over the edge) performed in the name of counterterroism has ended up with overwhelming majorities in favor of that operation.

Regular folks want the terrorists hunted down, period. The thought that Joe Tango might not qualify for due process under SCOTUS or UCMJ does not keep most regular folks awake at night.

Like I said, I am ambivalent. If a courts martial under the regs of the UCMJ is the default in case it doesn't pass, then I would rally for its failure. If the default is any access to Federal courts, I would urge passage.

Yes, the whiners do not get all the blame, but they sure do bear some responsibility. Enough such "civil rights victories" like Hamdan and its fallout & we'll have no worries about loss of civil rights. There will be nothing to worry about.

"One more such victory and I am lost"
----Pyrrhus

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

Oh, FWIW, Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

 

[ArmedBear]

#1 You're making a few leaps in that paragraph. People will complain about the FDA being too quick, or too slow, in approving treatments, as long as there's an FDA. Let the market work this out (something like UL, perhaps?). The problem is that there is a non-representative, unaccountable government agency that has absolute power over what you and I can put in OUR bodies. In this case, the RR is a problem, but not THE problem. There are many problems with vaccines, BTW, besides this one. Get rid of the FDA, and stop giving private groups like the AMA power over government. Let ME decide about vaccines, marijuana, and whatever, myself.

#2 ID is being tossed out by court after court. Besides, I went to a private school for a while, where they taught Creationism, not some watered-down ID, the real deal. I ended up getting a college degree in evolutionary bio. So the real impact was far less than people imagine, and I say that as someone with no doubts about evolution and the science surrounding it.

The NPS has a long and sordid history of misguided decisions with destructive results. I'm not, however, sure about what you're referring to at the moment.

#3 Silly. Not because Hagee isn't a whackjob, but because the facts of our involvement in the Middle East over the past century, and now, don't support the assertion that we are sending our military to hasten the Apocalypse. Theocracy Watch is pure demogoguery, BTW, fun to read maybe, but best tempered with other information.

#4 Agreed about corruption. However, this is par for the course and has little to do with the Religious Right, per se. Every single entity that gets its hands on tax money ends up using it to campaign for politicians who promise more, and often some pretty vile politicians at that. I see it all the time. (One day, I'll say where.)

#5 According to the lawsuit filed last month, the problem at the Air Force Academy has existed, at or near current levels, for a decade or more. Not everything that happens can be blamed on the Religous Right as a political entity; this certainly appears to be a cultural movement that wormed its way into the Air Force Academy, not something with origins in Washington. That doesn't make it okay; it just means that the Religious Right as a political entity didn't cause this. The people who brought this about came up from the grassroots, not down from the top, so apart from repressing religious movements, I don't see that politics offer a solution.

#6 Clearly, most SC justices follow their personal beliefs -- religious, anti-religious, or whatever -- before the words of the Constitution. I don't think you can blame Scalia's voting with, say, the Kelo majority, on Catholicism, any more than Ginsburg's vote on Judaism. As far as ruling on capital punishment for 17-year-olds who committed the worst sorts of murders, that certainly required a decision based on personal beliefs and convictions about what is "cruel and unusual." What option was there?

My point is not that the Religious Right doesn't exist; it's just that, except for avid readers of Theocracy Watch who like to get their blood pressure up, it's just not the enormous threat that it is said to be. At worst, it's doing some of the same things as the Academic Left, Organized Labor, Big Medicine, Big Business, Trial Lawyers, Environmentalists, Consumer Advocates, or whatever other boogeyman or hero you can dream up.

It's a Red Herring because it shifts one's focus from the real problems, and puts the blame on some entity that coincidentally is outside the coalition of groups that a political party is pandering to for votes.

The real danger, I think, with our 2-party system is that we, as humans, tend to try to justify our decisions by creating some perceived threat that is so great that we are better off with the jackass that WE voted for that that evil other guy. There is such thing as a rational "lesser evil" decision. It's just really hard, as humans, to keep it rational. Obviously, that cuts both ways, every time.