Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lOth]

I try to start OT threads as rarely as possible, especially if they're political, but this "Military Commissions Act" thing...

I'm a permanent resident of the United States, I'm not a citizen but my wife and son are, and I see what's happening here as an outsider but 'from the inside.' I simply cannot believe the step this administration has just taken here: this goes well beyond some of the most outrageous move we've seen in recent years. The de facto cancellation of the habeas corpus (it is not simply suspended) in a country which at other times and in other circumstances held so dear and so high the values of liberty and democracy, is already an event of considerable proportion. But what amazes me most, and this is why I'm posting here, is the weakness, not to say the absence, of a reaction on the part of the American people.

I need you, American people, to tell me what's going on here These are genuine, non-rhetorical, not ironic (this is not a funny topic) questions: why are you not protesting this more vigorously? do you just consider this new law will have little to no effect on law-abiding citizens? do you think a change of political majority in the mid-term elections will be enough to stop what's happening here? if you're as concerned as I am, do you plan on doing anything about it?

It is actually this last question that helped me better realize the seriousness of what's just happened here: wouldn't you think twice before protesting a law that has just come into effect and basically allows the authorities to arrest and detain you for as long as they want, without any need to formally charge you with anything else than being an "unlawful enemy combattant," whether you're an american citizen or not. Think it's crazy and wouldn't apply to anyone else than the random guys picked on the battlefield in Afghanistan? Try to remember when Bush said that those who had leaked information about the wiretapping program "were helping the terrorists"? What is now preventing him from saying that they provided moral if not material support to terrorists, how would that be any different from simply labeling them "unlawful enemy combattant" themselves? What would prevent the authorities from arresting and jailing them indefinitely? Legally, nothing.

I tend to think that Keith Olbermann sometimes exaggerates and distorts quite a bit, and sometimes borders on doing some fear-mongering of his own, but I have to say that I'm with him on this one and have to agree with everything in his last comment on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs

To balance the view of the professional, trained media person who makes a living out of being a media person, here's a different perspective: please check the opinion of "Reluctant Redneck" on all this. Actually, it's not balancing, it's reinforcing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qIiz_Q5Qc

I'm not too sure that I agree with him that this process can now be reversed that easily, simply by putting democrats back in charge and drafting new laws. This is a pretty serious dent in the cornerstone of the political system...

Also, I'm generally very sceptical of fallacious historical comparisons and unsubstantiated labeling, but I believe there's a case to make here that this time, this could well be the beginning of a fascist state. I never thought I'd use that word to describe a current political regime, especially in this country. How sad...
I'm looking forward to your comments here, because the feeling that this will pass quietly as if nothing had happened is really bothering and worrying me.

[hit_ny]

Prolly cos it does not apply to them directly.

Get your citzenship. If you originally come from a country that allows dual-citizenship, then you are not giving up anything.

Now... are you in the clear ?

[4BYE]

We're crazy about the USA, people are generally nice and the country is great. That's why I made this site: www.states.nl (it's not up-to-date anymore, I know)

However I feel in the last years things are changing. It looks like the goverment/Bush is controlling the world. I can understand that after 9/11 things changed because it was the first time people of the USA were attacked on their own ground and are afraid in their own country. On the other hand seeing what happens/happened in the rest of the world... (Tsunami/Rwanda/former yugoslavia/hunger/middle east/IRA)
I think that more people are turning against the USA because they feel the USA is dictating the world. Here in the Netherlands was a big discussion about the fact the USA goverment lied/did not tell when asked about the secret CIA flights. Personally I think the USA should do everything to avoid terrorism, but they have to respect human rights. Especially for a country like the USA that  "holds so dear and so high the values of liberty and democracy" like you write so right! I also think Bush has done more damage then good to attack Iraq. Since there were no weapons of mass destruction it looks like we're fooled by the USA and GB. Ofcourse it's easier to say this when looking back, but I think either their intelligence sucks or we're really fooled. Seeing the things going on in North Korea don't make my happy either. Before we know it, it could be WWIII. If I were Bush ( ) I would try to do a lot of good in the world with helping people, defeat hunger etc. In my opinion this would give the USA so much more goodwill.

My conclussion is that democracy should do it's work with the next ellection!!

I'll still come over to visit the USA and enjoy it's beautiful scenery and friendly people.


Theo

[JimH]

In the U.S., people don't usually give the detail of politics much thought.  That's how we got the government we now have. 

I believe we are paying very close attention now, and it will be evident in a few weeks.

The Military act is a complete embarassment but it was the best compromise that could be reached by the minority Democrats and the few moderate Repbulicans (McCain and friends).

This government does not represent the country; it represents a segment of the country. 

[danrien]

from the wikipedia:

Applicability to U.S. Citizens

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9]

[JimH]

... the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention.

How thoughtful.

[KingSparta]

fact the USA government lied/did not tell when asked about the secret CIA flights.

this is nothing new, they have been doing this for years (before we were born)

And since it was Secret CIA flights, they could not be Secret if they told anyone. People should assume all countries spy on each other. Just as we (all governments) have done for years even past the cold war.

Personally I think the USA should do everything to avoid terrorism, but they have to respect human rights.

I am unclear of what rights Or laws have been violated?

Since there were no weapons of mass destruction it looks like we're fooled by the USA and GB.

For your info Over 500 Chemical rounds have been found in Iraq. I am not sure why It surprises people saddam lied about there chemical weapons. The only problem with all of the chemical rounds was they were not new ones. They were built prior to the Golf war.

some of these rounds are the same ones we left at the ammo depot when we pulled back from the depot in 1991.

Seeing the things going on in North Korea don't make my happy either.

I spent 2 years guarding the DMZ, the north Koreans like to play a bunch of punk games on the DMZ (sometimes daily). Most of these things you will never hear about in the news. I am not saying they could not attack South Korea But if you knew what actually goes on North Of The Imjin River At Taesong-dong, Guard Post Collier, Guard Post Oullette, Camp Bonifas and Kichong-dong.

Noth Korea And South Korea Both Play The Games. My Guards Are Taller Than Your Gaurds. My Flag Is Bigger Than Your Flag. My Flag Is Taller Than Your Flag.

Both Of Them Black Market Across The Border With All Activities Viewed By Night Vision Cameras On The DMZ Viewable At Camp Bonifas "Mocka TOC" (A Underground Security Bunker).

North Korea Likes It When People Jump When They Do Things. This Is Why Both Democrats When they Are In Control And Republicans When They Are In Control Play These Activities Down.

Remember The Song "Games People Play", In This Case It Is Called Politicking.

[JimH]

... They were built prior to the Golf war. ...

It's about time we went to war over something meaningful.

[glynor]

I don't want to turn into a towering fire of libertarian rage, but... We Are Not What You Think.  We Are Not The Land Of The Free.

We are the Land of the Cheap Plastic Crap from Wallmart Reflecting the Blue-Light of the TV In Our Eyes.

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this...

I hope your SUV floats.

[JimH]

We are the Land of the Cheap Plastic Crap from Wallmart Reflecting the Blue-Light of the TV In Our Eyes.

glynor, glynor, glynor....

We're a lot of things at once, not all of them good -- or bad.

For some Americans, freedom is very real and important.  For others, freedom is "You can be anything you want as long as it isn't too different from us."

[lOth]

thanks for your answers.

About this:

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9]

Please note that we're in the realm of interpretation here. And that's a very hazy realm, especially when you consider the record of the current administration. It's a matter of who's in charge of applying this law, and who's in charge now has made an habit of delving into very flexible interpretations of national and international law. Remember how wiretapping was not illegal and not unconstitutional? How interrogations of detainees were legal? Why then this new law was so necessary? And now, who can assure you that it won't be interpreted in turn in a very loose way. This is a very slippery slope here because the habeas corpus should arguably be considered a basic human right, not a citizenship-based right: when you've set on that path of considering that it doesn't apply to the vast majority of human beings anymore, you're just one step away from considering that, under particular circumstances (who will define them?), it doesn't apply either to your own citizens. Questioning the relevance of such a foundational right is a door open to questioning them all.

Prolly cos it does not apply to them directly.

I agree that it seems like it doesn't apply to U.S. citizen directly, but the very idea that it could apply even indirectly is a very disquieting one.

I am unclear of what rights Or laws have been violated?

Again, this is all a matter of interpretation. If you consider that what happened in Abu Ghraib (and I'm not even considering the secret interrogations in secret prisons since they are secret) is not an "outrage upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment," then yes, no right or law has been violated. As Bush said himself, he's not too sure what "human dignity" means. I wish he had clearer ideas about the question (because of what I said above about how who's in charge matters). I think that there were some suggestions that wiretapping without a warrant was kind of illegal too, but hey, the NSA probably only wiretapped non-U.S. citizens.

Over 500 Chemical rounds have been found in Iraq

Good. Now let's find this uranium from Nigeria.

North Korea Likes It When People Jump When They Do Things. This Is Why Both Democrats When they Are In Control And Republicans When They Are In Control Play These Activities Down.

I think you're basically right about this. The problem is that the things that they do, has now reached a wholly different level. It needs to be dealt with differently. You definitely could be at war with them because it looks like they're not playing with just 500 chemical rounds. I mean, the logic holds only if the war in Iraq was about WMDs.

This government does not represent the country; it represents a segment of the country.

I completely agree, and I think it's necessary to repeat this over and over to make sure foreigners know about this. I just wish that the bigger segment of the country, the dissenting segment, was a little more visible and vocal when something like this happen.

Again, thanks for your answers, this is useful to me.

[glynor]

We're a lot of things at once, not all of them good -- or bad.

Absolutely.

Many of them are quite good.  The taste of the dream is quite sweet, but so often superficial.  That's why it's so sad!

We are, however, not what most Americans think we are.  We no longer stand for what we stand for (and, though terrible in my estimation, it is not all this administration's fault -- the problems started long, long ago).

That said.... I do have a lot of hope.

[slipknot]

If I were Bush ( ) I would try to do a lot of good in the world with helping people, defeat hunger etc.

The liberals never ask this question, but I do.

AT WHOSE EXPENSE?

What you suggest cost $$$, where will those $$$ come from?  The reality is that it will come from my taxes, confiscated from me at gunpoint by my govt.  I don't see that pointing a gun to my head is "helping people", it's not helping me.  Nor do I want my govt to have as it's main goal to redistribute income. 

Read the 1960 Democrat party platform, OMG, they espouse total socialism and its only gotten worse since then.  Read the white paper released by the pope in 1966.  He says we have an obligation to turn over the result of our production to the "needy", but we never get to ask any questions about their form of govt or work ethic.

Our country started out as the most free country in the world.  And over time, the statists and socialists have hacked away at our freedom.  And now the democrats openly talk about the 'common good' which impliles that their def of the 'common good' overrides my freedom and my right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.  No one has any right to the results of my production without my concent, but our govt takes it from my anyway, bu force.  (have no illusions, if I refuse to pay my taxes for the welfare state, the govt will show up at my front door with guns drawn).

The Republicans have sold out to the marxist theory too, but not as far as the Democrats.


If we or Bush or anyone wants to "help people" and "defeat hunger" it will not be done by giving away food or $$$, that is a never ending, ever growing "obligation".

If we promote freedom and free market govt's, then those countries will naturally create the economic environment where they will prosper.  Capitalism works.  Every prosperous country in the world has a fairly free society, and the poor needy countries have socialist welfare state govts.   See a connection?

[lOth]

Every prosperous country in the world has a fairly free society

China? Nice economic growth, quite a few people there, still not doing so good on freedom. And it looks like a few american companies don't have that much trouble to operate over there.

(have no illusions, if I refuse to pay my taxes for the welfare state, the govt will show up at my front door with guns drawn)

Yes. And they'll probably call you unamerican because of the opinions you just voiced, and then say that, therefore, you qualify more as an alien. Then they'll label you an "illegal enemy combattant" because of these dangerously subversive opinions of yours. Then they'll jail you and torture you. All that with your tax money. Crazy uh? I always knew Bush was one of these commies in disguise. Thanks for giving rational substance to what I've felt in my guts for a long time.

[glynor]

Money doesn't have owners.  Just spenders.

[slipknot]

China? Nice economic growth, quite a few people there, still not doing so good on freedom. And it looks like a few american companies don't have that much trouble to operate over there.

Are you suggesting that socialism is good?  China is prospering over what they had before, as they open up their goods and markets.  However their prosperty is good compared to their past, but it's pretty poor compared to the USA and the rest of the free world.

Yes. And they'll probably call you unamerican because of the opinions you just voiced, and then say that, therefore, you qualify more as an alien. Then they'll label you an "illegal enemy combattant" because of these dangerously subversive opinions of yours. Then they'll jail you and torture you. All that with your tax money. Crazy uh? I always knew Bush was one of these commies in disguise. Thanks for giving rational substance to what I've felt in my guts for a long time.

I must admit I have mixed feelings about our war on terror.  We must acknowledge that the world has changed after 9/11.  Our judicial system in the USA mostly works, and I sleep better at night knowing we have a fairly good court system.  And I want the rest of the world to have this too.  So how can we justify treating suspected terrorists with less rights and recourse that we guarantee ourselves?  It seems condictory.

But on the other hand, if we give them full rights, with full rights in an open court room where all evidence becomes public knowledge, we will severly compromise our intelligence gathering capability (which certainly needs lots of improvement).  The USA has a right to protect ourselves, and the terrorists have proven the need.

Time and history will tell if Bush is going too far or not.  Our form of govt has checks and balances built in to prevent any single person from acting too far alone.  Congress has the right to pass laws to aid or prevent Bush's programs.  They recently passed laws to allow different treatment of enemy combatants.  And we voted in Bush and Congress.

I think we owe Bush quite a bit of credit for waking up and taking the terrorism threat seriously after 9/11.  I am not blaming Clinton for his lack of action, the country would not have had the stomach for the war on terror before 9/11.

Does anyone really believe that what the terrorists did on 9/11 in the USA is all they wanted to do?  Logic says they wanted to commit more terrorist acts, yet none have happened on USA soil?  Luck?  Chance?  Or maybe some of the programs Bush has instituted?  Maybe?

I am not a Bush fan (anymore).  The Iraq war is not going well.  But he does have some accomplishments.  When the economy is bad Bush is blamed.  How come he gets NO CREDIT for the booming economy we are enjoying today?  However that said, I wish the govt would get out of the marketplace, get out of regulating the money supply and get out of regulating my life and redistributing my income (nothing in the Constiution about that now is there...)

What is our Bill of Rights for?  It was specifically written by our founders to specifically limit the power of govt over our lives.  It was written to protect us from our govt.  All prior govts in the world were socialist or dictactorships.  The only proper purpose of govt is to protect my rights, both individual and property.

BTW:  read Ayn Rand.




http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=148

[slipknot]

Money doesn't have owners.  Just spenders.

Money is a storage device.  Without money, you and I must trade a goat for a bushel of potatoes at the time of the business deal.  With money, I can sell my goat for $$$ today and use the $$$ to get the potatoes when they are harvested, days or months later.

Money only has value if the users believe it has value.  When money was first issued by the US govt it was backed by gold.  No longer.  And the Fed now artifically controls the mony supply, circumventing the free market place rules of supply and demand.  And what do we get for this control?  We got the stock market crash of 1929 and the following depression and all recessions since.  But does anyone learn?  Nope, they will never admit their meddling in the marketplace is the cause of the problem, they just keeping adding on more and more controls.

I was taught in school that the depression was caused by the failures of capitalism.  In reality it was caused by govt controls (the Fed).  The Fed allowed the money supply to grow at high rates, interest rates were kept artfically low and the people borrowed and speculated with the cheap money until there was too much capacity without the demand to support it and we crashed.  In a free market, as money is borrowed the supply of money to lend shrinks, and interest rates rise which naturally puts the brakes on unneeded growth, everything falls nicely in balance.

[lOth]

Are you suggesting that socialism is good?

I'm suggesting that idea that spreading capitalism necessarily entails spreading individual freedom and rights is questionable to say the least.

[AoXoMoXoA]

We are, however, not what most Americans think we are.

be afraid, be very afraid 

[KingSparta]

I Like Cheap Plastic Crap

[KingSparta]

It's about time we went to war over something meaningful.

Actually I Think It Was More Like

Bush 2:  "I'll Get Him For You Dad"

Bush 1: "Your A Good Son"

[KingSparta]

What you suggest cost $$$, where will those $$$ come from?  The reality is that it will come from my taxes, confiscated from me at gunpoint by my govt.

Next Time, I Hope They take a cut out of the Powerball lottery to fund all our future wars.

[glynor]

It's about time we went to war over something meaningful.

I think he was more referring to...

built prior to the Golf war.

Golf vs. Gulf.

 

[KingSparta]

If you consider that what happened in Abu Ghraib

That is another story, but sometimes you need to take different measures to accomplish a goal or task. When you have bullets flying in your direction you can't think about all courses of action. your more thinking about saving your life and the life's of your "Battle Buddy".

This type of war is confusing for many people and how to conduct it. The military has a group that helps write after action reviews they are called "Lessons Learned". There will be many volumes added after we pull out of Iraq where we are not fighting a conventional army\task force, and some of the rules we think about in a "Normal" war does not apply.

[KingSparta]

Golf vs. Gulf.

I know I am bad, spank me

[danrien]

hahaha personally, i think i would enjoy a golf war.  actually make the game exciting for once!

[kamiller42]

How thoughtful.

Yea, that Wikipedia sentence was missing a few adjectives like "enemy" and "combatant." This Act does not apply to every alien.

[lOth]

That is another story, but sometimes you need to take different measures to accomplish a goal or task.

I don't want to start this whole debate again, but are you suggesting that given the circumstances, or the task, or goal, the Geneva conventions did not apply to detainees in Abu Ghraib?

This type of war is confusing for many people and how to conduct it.

It is very confusing to me. I still don't understand how you can wage a war on a concept (terror) and expect to win it with bombs and torture.

The military has a group that helps write after action reviews they are called "Lessons Learned". There will be many volumes added after we pull out of Iraq where we are not fighting a conventional army\task force, and some of the rules we think about in a "Normal" war does not apply.

Actually, there isn't much new about this type of conflict. Some of these volumes have already been written by others some time ago. Killing civilians, torturing insurgents, pillaging the natural resources of a country you occupy: this is in fact a very normal war. On the particular question of detaining and interrogating insurgents, the people in charge at the Pentagon have known that for a long time:

http://www.rialtopictures.com/eyes_xtras/battle_times.html

I think the French's friendly advice in early 2003 was to some extent derived from first-hand experience of the kind of mess they knew the U.S. was getting in. No need to tell me that their advice was also, on another level, disingenuous and self-interested (reconstruction contract and money), I already agree with that.

hahaha personally, i think i would enjoy a golf war.  actually make the game exciting for once!

war with clubs? Now, that would nicely match the threat to bomb countries "back to the stone age":

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2369505,00.html

Yea, that Wikipedia sentence was missing a few adjectives like "enemy" and "combatant." This Act does not apply to every alien.

I'd like to know what the legal definition of those two terms is. Since it's currently left to the appreciation of the president and the secretary of defense, I'd say every alien is potentially an enemy combatant.

[GHammer]

Personally, I do not think the US of today is the US of my childhood.
Some of my earliest memories are of selling "Forget-Me-Not"s for the DAV. My father was a disabled WWII vet. We flew the flag on all appropriate holidays.

I don't see much of that anymore on my visits home.

My father was a union organizer in the 30s.
Lots of people have lost their good jobs in the past 10 years or so. No more middle class factory work, but hey, WalMart and McDonalds are hiring. Gotta be competitive with China and India you know. Unless of course you are an executive or owner. Somehow, they don't have to 'compete' with the wages and living conditions of their foreign counterparts.
Union became a 'bad' word sometime in the 80s. Politicians gutted the laws that allowed organizing and courts pretty much killed strikes. Since union membership is very low, even if you do mount a picket line, people will cross it, replacements will go and work your job. So, you get WalMart wages, plant closings, hard times. People don't care much about others when they have to worry about themselves. Arresting terrorists? Too bad for them, I gotta get to the Burger Biggie for the night shift.

I was taught the reason the US was the enemy of the USSR was because they were against freedom. They stopped people and asked for their papers. They encouraged children to inform on their parents. They spied on people, took people away never to be heard from again. Most of their people had to work very hard just to get by while the 'leaders' had a cushy life. They controled what you read, what you heard, what you watched on TV.

The US today has 'DUI Roadblocks' where not only do they check the driver to see if they have been drinking, they also run the IDs of everyone in the vehicle through NCIC, check insurance, etc. Go to the airport? We all know the drill.

Have a kid in grade school? Heard of the D.A.R.E. program? One nice thing the friendly police officer encourages is to tell someone if Mommy or Daddy smoke funny cigarettes or have white powder around the house.

Recent events tell about watching people in the US, about being held with no way to even find out what you are held for.

Papers are held by fewer and fewer companies, the same for radio and TV. In case anyone gets too far out of line, the FCC is watching for 'unacceptable' content and will make it painfully expensive to the offender.

My father voted a 'straight' Democrat ticket. Expected my mother to do it too. She did, all our neighbors did. But, when Reagan was elected and he came to town, I took my parents to see his motorcade. To them, he was the president, no matter if you had voted for him, you respected him. Shoot, even Tip O'Neill would argue positions yet go have a drink at the White House and be friendly.

Between the Gingrich camp and Clinton camp that is a dead thing both for politicians and the public. It's all about personal attacks and very little on actual issues. Swift boats, Guard duty, who got what grades in college. Yeah, that's what is important.

Do I have an answer to it all? Sure. Go back to the 'smoke filled room' method of choosing candidates. It produced FDR, JFK, Nixon. The people who picked candidates lived in the neighborhoods, they had to see you every day. They knew what it took to be a politician, to make deals, to compromise now and then. The general public doesn't have a good track record since 'Popular vote' primaries came about.

Get educated, find out what is happening in your city, state, country, world. Do it on your own. I don't need a Randi Rhodes or Ann Coulter to tell me what to think.

[slipknot]

It is very confusing to me. I still don't understand how you can wage a war on a concept (terror) and expect to win it with bombs and torture.

Lets say you are in the military.  You are monitoring a terrorist hideout.  You overhear one of them give orders to detonate a nuclear bomb in NYC tomorrow "following preestablished delivery methods" over a cell phone.

We attack the hideout and capture the person who gave those orders.  We ask nicely, he will not divulge details of when and how the bomb will be delivered.  We plead, we beg, he will not tell us.

Would you hold him and set a public trial for him (somewhere other than NYC of course...) or would you break his legs, push wood slivers under his fingernails, etc to get the info to save the millions of people in NYC?

I know what I would do, and I would support our military from doing it too.

[JimH]

Lets say you are in the military.  You are monitoring a terrorist hideout.  You overhear one of them give orders to detonate a nuclear bomb in NYC tomorrow "following preestablished delivery methods" over a cell phone.

We attack the hideout and capture the person who gave those orders.  We ask nicely, he will not divulge details of when and how the bomb will be delivered.  We plead, we beg, he will not tell us.

.....

This is a convincing argument if the need to know is absolutely critical.  The problem, however, is that it is the "authorities" who decide what is "absolutely critical".  And the standard begins to drift, and pretty soon reporters who won't give up their sources are tortured by the government.

[glynor]

I was taught the reason the US was the enemy of the USSR was because they were against freedom. They stopped people and asked for their papers. They encouraged children to inform on their parents. They spied on people, took people away never to be heard from again. Most of their people had to work very hard just to get by while the 'leaders' had a cushy life. They controled what you read, what you heard, what you watched on TV.

The US today has 'DUI Roadblocks' where not only do they check the driver to see if they have been drinking, they also run the IDs of everyone in the vehicle through NCIC, check insurance, etc. Go to the airport? We all know the drill.

Have a kid in grade school? Heard of the D.A.R.E. program? One nice thing the friendly police officer encourages is to tell someone if Mommy or Daddy smoke funny cigarettes or have white powder around the house.

Recent events tell about watching people in the US, about being held with no way to even find out what you are held for.

Exactly!  You said it better than I ever could have.  We aren't who we think we are.  When the "old enemy" self-destructed we (our government) turned into the new tyrants.

Of course... I don't agree with the "smoke filled room" method you suggested either.  You think things were better back then?  No... The hypocrisies were just hidden then like they are now, and time has faded them from public memory.  Those who fail to learn their history are doomed to repeat it.

Maybe it's not the elections, but the "two party system" (where did that come from by the way -- its not in the Constitution, and in fact, early leaders of this country cautioned against political parties).  Maybe it's not democracy, but the way we've been practicing it.  Maybe it's the compromises carved out 250 years ago when democracy was revolutionary, not commonplace (like the Electoral College for example).

We need to undo the "rigging" of the system that has been implemented over the past 100 years by the two major political parties.  There are countries that practice democracy and don't quash dissent and devolve into nothing by "feel good voting" and personal attacks.  We just happen to not be one of them.

Get educated, find out what is happening in your city, state, country, world. Do it on your own. I don't need a Randi Rhodes or Ann Coulter to tell me what to think.

D*$!@m right!

[lOth]

Would you hold him and set a public trial for him (somewhere other than NYC of course...) or would you break his legs, push wood slivers under his fingernails, etc to get the info to save the millions of people in NYC?

Do you really think that torture works on people who are ready to blow themselves up? In fact, I study myself magistrates applying torture in early modern Europe and quite evidently, these guys did not believe that torture was an efficient way of obtaining information. You should trust their judgment, they were experts with "hands-on" experience. They ended up using torture very rarely and mostly as a form of pre-emptive punishment. Now, if you think that torture should be used as a form of revenge, fine, that's a different approach and we can discuss it.

In addition, let's say you torture and obtain the information you need. This doesn't address my point: you've thwarted one plot, you've not defeated "terror". Actually, you might have just contributed to making it bigger.

When the "old enemy" self-destructed

Are you suggesting it wasn't Reagan who won the cold war? 

[jgreen]

IMO, we Americans are every bit as ridiculous as the rest of the world sees us.  We divide our time between hugging each other, shooting each other, suing each other and risking our lives for each other.  We are far more likely than others to alternately burn our flag and lay down our lives for it.  It is our compulsion to throw away our hard-earned money on pet rocks and tract homes that makes our society the most prosperous and safest country in the world, even accounting for the fact that we're all shooting each other in the streets. 

The "segment of society" that JimH refers to is called a "majority".  Getting a majority to vote for you is the only requirement--you don't need to be born rich, well-connected, honest or smart.  You just have to convince voters.  Ours is the most open and clearly-defective system in the world. 

There is no lack of assembled experts the world over to tell us how to "correct" our broken old country.  But how many of them would turn down the opportunity of naturalized U.S citizenship?  The numbers speak for themselves.   

[slipknot]

My father was a union organizer in the 30s.
Lots of people have lost their good jobs in the past 10 years or so. No more middle class factory work, but hey, WalMart and McDonalds are hiring. Gotta be competitive with China and India you know. Unless of course you are an executive or owner.

The higher wages paid to union workers is obviously good for the union worker.  Those higher wages translate into higher prices for the consumers who buy the products.  So when China or India produces a similar (or sadly to say better) quality product for a lower price in the store, the consumers choose with their wallets.  And they are choosing the lower priced product.  The law of supply and demand works very well.

Somehow, they don't have to 'compete' with the wages and living conditions of their foreign counterparts.

Why should they have to compete with those lower wages.  The lower price I get raise MY STANDARD OF LIVING.

Union became a 'bad' word sometime in the 80s. Politicians gutted the laws that allowed organizing and courts pretty much killed strikes. Since union membership is very low, even if you do mount a picket line, people will cross it, replacements will go and work your job.

And I the consumer will get lower prices which will INCREASE MY STANDARD OF LIVING.

So, you get WalMart wages, plant closings, hard times. People don't care much about others when they have to worry about themselves. Arresting terrorists? Too bad for them, I gotta get to the Burger Biggie for the night shift.

Nobody has a god-given right to a job at a certain wage.  We offer our services to the market place and the market place bids for them.  The wage we earn is EXACTLY what the market place believes we are worth.  If we don't like the offered wage, we have the choice to take it or refuse it and move on to another line of work where we feel the compensation is more highly valued.

Papers are held by fewer and fewer companies, the same for radio and TV. In case anyone gets too far out of line, the FCC is watching for 'unacceptable' content and will make it painfully expensive to the offender.

I wish the FCC would be disolved and tv/radio licences were sold to the highest bidder.

Do I have an answer to it all? Sure. Go back to the 'smoke filled room' method of choosing candidates. It produced FDR, JFK, Nixon. The people who picked candidates lived in the neighborhoods, they had to see you every day. They knew what it took to be a politician, to make deals, to compromise now and then. The general public doesn't have a good track record since 'Popular vote' primaries came about.

FDR and JFK and LBJ were in my opinion were some of the worst presidents ever.  FDR started us on the road to socialism with the "New Deal" and LBJ finished us off with his "Great Society".

Get educated, find out what is happening in your city, state, country, world. Do it on your own. I don't need a Randi Rhodes or Ann Coulter to tell me what to think.

No we don't need others to tell us what to think.  But that does not prevent us from reading and learning from others.

[JimH]

The "segment of society" that JimH refers to is called a "majority".  Getting a majority to vote for you is the only requirement

Our President was "elected" in a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court.

[slipknot]

Do you really think that torture works on people who are ready to blow themselves up? In fact, I study myself magistrates applying torture in early modern Europe and quite evidently, these guys did not believe that torture was an efficient way of obtaining information. You should trust their judgment, they were experts with "hands-on" experience. They ended up using torture very rarely and mostly as a form of pre-emptive punishment.

I personally don't know if torture works or not.  I do know that asking for info does not work in my senerio, time is of the essence and we must do what we can.  If other methods work better, then of course they should be used.  However, any consideration for the terrorist mental or physical health is not part of my decision process (in this senerio).  Our need to get the info NOW is my only consideration.

Now, if you think that torture should be used as a form of revenge, fine, that's a different approach and we can discuss it.

No, I don't believe in revenge.

[jgreen]

How in the world was he re-elected?

[glynor]

Lets say you are in the military.

You are monitoring a terrorist cell.  Luckily, this is easy because the government tapped into the Internet backbone and has direct feeds of every email and instant message sent in the country.  It's also really fortunate that the terrorists are too stupid to use freely available, high quality encryption technology that would make your monitoring useless.  Because the terrorists would never speak in the clear about their plans, but constantly use code, when you overhear one of them discussing an "action" in NYC, you know it is really giving orders to detonate a nuclear bomb.  That's what your superior says anyway, and everything's classified so you can't check up on it.  (Besides, ours is not to question why.)

We attack the hideout and capture the person who gave those orders.  We ask nicely, he will not divulge details of when and how the bomb will be delivered.  We plead, we beg, he will not tell us.  So, we put him on a series of planes and he ends up in Syria.  We won't torture him of course, but the Syrians are happy to torture him.  Everyone knows that torture is the best way to extract truthful information.  A person would never lie and tell their tormentors what they want to hear in order to stop the pain.

Now.... Say "the liberals" are in charge, and it's not the places I linked they're targeting.  Say it's Crazy Fundamentalists, or people against the government.

If there's no oversight or public scrutiny, there is no freedom.  Period.  Power corrupts and eventually "the other guy" will be in charge.  That's why we have checks and balances, but these laws eliminate those checks.  Only the executive is given purview.

[slipknot]

Our President was "elected" in a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court.

I suggest you study the actual reasoning used by the Supreme Court.  The issue at stake was whether the Floridy Supreme Court could throw out Florida law about election certifications and create their own law and deadlines.  Kathrine Harris was required BY LAW to certify the election using the reporting precincts 7 days after the election.

Dan Rather also reported on national tv that

a)  Al Gore won Florida
b)  the Florida polls were closed.

before the polls were actually closed in all of Florida.  So the western part of the state was basically told that there is no need to try and vote, the results are already decided AND the polls were closed.

And of course the western part of Florida is highly Republician.

[KingSparta]

I don't want to start this whole debate again, but are you suggesting that given the circumstances, or the task, or goal, the Geneva conventions did not apply to detainees in Abu Ghraib?

If i am not mistaken Iraq did not sign this agreement (I know the us did), But all rules are not absolute. Rules Can Be Changed Or Redefined.

Sometimes it does seem un-fare when the two parties do not play by the same rules as it is in this war. Like they can chop off a head and other body parts and the US can't use the same type of treatment for them.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. So you can not lump all of the human race into the Geneva conventions. Each prisoner needs to evaluated whether the Geneva conventions applies to them on a case by case bases. Article 3 Will Cover Some People Not Covered By Article 4.

I personally do not believe the detainees qualify, since they do not belong to a countries army or fighting force. They are basically terrorists without a home. We are not fighting Iraq We Are Fighting Terrorists and they deserve no respect.

[JimH]

How in the world was he re-elected?

I thought it was a patriotic reaction.  Bush got 62.0 million votes out of 122.3 votes cast.  Not exactly a mandate.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/popular_vote.html

[jgreen]

Majority, JimH, majority.  Go ahead and start your own country based on mandates, if you wish.  Or choose from a broad selection of current offerings. 

You know, in the past I've said that jriver's software apps are so good, I wish they would write an OS.  But really, they should write a constitution!  then we'd be getting somewhere!  Liberty and music for all! 

[glynor]

Liberty and music for all! 

And video and pictures.  Don't media type discriminate!   

[jgreen]

Sure, but under the jriver consitution "documents" would not be considered media.

[glynor]

Right.  That's why I didn't include them.

[glynor]

I thought it was a patriotic reaction.  Bush got 62.0 million votes out of 122.3 votes cast.  Not exactly a mandate.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/popular_vote.html

Diebold voting machines helped in Ohio a little too.   

[hit_ny]

If you consider that what happened in Abu Ghraib (and I'm not even considering the secret interrogations in secret prisons since they are secret) is not an "outrage upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment," then yes, no right or law has been violated. As Bush said himself, he's not too sure what "human dignity" means. I wish he had clearer ideas about the question (because of what I said above about how who's in charge matters).

I think every country democratic or not that has had to deal with terrorism or insurgents is guilty of this. I was reading an article by Eric Margolis some time back and he called it the inevitable brutalising that occurs after strike, counter-strike etc...ie conflict does strange things to otherwise civilised people.

Good. Now let's find this uranium from Nigeria.

That's Niger. Say that with a french accent as they once ruled over it, very helpful with keepiing them the only country in the world at nearly 80% nuclear energy powered.

We must acknowledge that the world has changed after 9/11.

I hear this so many times and even lived through it, but for some reason why is this just not another terrorist attack that has happened (arguably not with the same method & result) anywhere else ?

Saying it is a war on a concept is defnitely good for budgets for law enforcement, extra fodder for restrictive laws, just as the war on drugs was, which ultimately delivered mixed results.

Union became a 'bad' word sometime in the 80s. Politicians gutted the laws that allowed organizing and courts pretty much killed strikes. Since union membership is very low, even if you do mount a picket line, people will cross it, replacements will go and work your job.

Union is a very common word in NYC. Transport workers did strike earlier in the year.

When the "old enemy" self-destructed

Are you suggesting it wasn't Reagan who won the cold war? 

- the republicans think Reagan did it.
- the Vatican thinks the Pope did it.
- the mujahideen in Afganhistan think they defnitely did it.

self-destructed it did without any external help, collapsed under its own weight.

I wish the govt would get out of the marketplace, get out of regulating the money supply and get out of regulating my life and redistributing my income (nothing in the Constiution about that now is there...)

Then it becomes the ppl vs. the corporates.

Any guess who wins that one ?

..corps are certainly better funded and more organised.

..of, by and even more for the Corp... it will become.

North Korea Likes It When People Jump When They Do Things. This Is Why Both Democrats When they Are In Control And Republicans When They Are In Control Play These Activities Down.

Only reason N.Korea still exists when its biggest sponsor went bankrupt over a decade ago is that its the best & cheapest outcome for its neighbours...and they know this

Japan & China certainly don't want a united Korea, what happens to the supposed nukes after unification, do they just vanish ? are they miraculously given up ? China loses a good bargaining chip in this case and also has to deal with yet another nuclear neighbour.

They can't be successfully attacked regardless of what so called military experts think, Seoul will be gone and a humanitarian nightmare will present itself at the Chinese & Russian borders. All in a crucially important economic area of the world.

[InflatableMouse]

Very interesting thread. Good reading.

...We Are Fighting Terrorists and they deserve no respect.

Slightly OT but every human (terrorist or otherwise) deserves respect for the very simple fact that he/she is human. Respect does not mean "like" or "love" and nothing justifies their actions, they are wrong. No mistake on that.

Simply put I believe there is a basis of respect that cannot (or better should not) be disregarded. Treating humans like animals crosses that line. Too many times people allow their emotions get in the way of clear judgement (myself included) to bend straight whats crooked with self justified arguments. Its wrong. I'm sorry but that's the way I feel.

Even in war there are rules and if the enemy does not play by those rules it still does not justify doing the same thing. It only proves your no better and really doesn't make you win the war.

[lOth]

That's Niger. Say that with a french accent as they once ruled over it, very helpful with keepiing them the only country in the world at nearly 80% nuclear energy powered.

My bad. And thanks for reminding me of colonialism, invading, occupying and exploiting the natural resources of a foreign country. That way, it's now proven that both Niger and Nigeria do have a direct connection with Iraq (should I write Irak?).

In any case, shouldn't they be thankful and glad they don't depend too much on oil today?