>> ^theali:

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.
Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.



So one reason we have a necessary need to forego the right to a fair trial is because the courts would've lingered on and "opened a can of worms"? I guess the suspension of Habeas Corpus in GITMO is also a necessary tool to "defit" Al Qaeda?

And there wasn't a kill order put out on Hitler, as far as I know. And he was recent history's most reviled mass murderer. The point is and always has been that due process is important even for the most hated, because the second we allow the government to side-step a very important human right for popular opinion, we've welcomed that selective tyranny onto any one of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

Your analogy isn't valid, but even if it was it doesn't really answer what I am saying. It's fine if you think people are morally obligated to feed the hungry, or you want the government tax dollars to be spent on such things, but why is there the need to call it a human right? It's misleading and intellectually dishonest.

If I have the right to be fed, then you have the obligation to feed me. If you really believe that why won't you buy me dinner?


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I can't provide habeas corpus or freedom of religion for the whole world either. It doesn't change my view on whether I think every human being is entitled to it.

For that matter I tend to think people have a "right to life", but nobody can abolish death, or even just murder. I think we can do a lot for starvation and sickness, and probably a lot more about murder as well, but none of these things come free.

So I ask people to willingly agree to legal arrangements that establish these things as legal rights to services, and legal obligations to taxes, at least within the region known as "the United States".

Then they call this a violation of their rights, because, you know, taxes are evil or something. At a minimum, they come up with some arbitrary meta-definition of rights that they insist should supersede my own conception of rights.

And to be frustrating, I don't have rigid rules surrounding the limits of what people's rights should be. I tend to think of it in terms of what kind of injustice it would be to deny it to someone. Denying me a Ferrari doesn't seem so unjust. Denying someone the ability to see a doctor when they're ill, even if they're a convicted murderer, doesn't seem right.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

I can't provide habeas corpus or freedom of religion for the whole world either. It doesn't change my view on whether I think every human being is entitled to it.

For that matter I tend to think people have a "right to life", but nobody can abolish death, or even just murder. I think we can do a lot for starvation and sickness, and probably a lot more about murder as well, but none of these things come free.

So I ask people to willingly agree to legal arrangements that establish these things as legal rights to services, and legal obligations to taxes, at least within the region known as "the United States".

Then they call this a violation of their rights, because, you know, taxes are evil or something. At a minimum, they come up with some arbitrary meta-definition of rights that they insist should supersede my own conception of rights.

And to be frustrating, I don't have rigid rules surrounding the limits of what people's rights should be. I tend to think of it in terms of what kind of injustice it would be to deny it to someone. Denying me a Ferrari doesn't seem so unjust. Denying someone the ability to see a doctor when they're ill, even if they're a convicted murderer, doesn't seem right.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

>> ^Crosswords:

Is that Lincoln on one side of the room and Regan on the other? One man the current republican party shares almost nothing with except for being in the same party and the other a man they remember as much greater than he actually was. Oh wait I see, its an analogy between Ron Paul and Herman Cain.


Actually, I'd argue that Lincoln is a great representational embodiment of the Republican Party. In fact, Dubya Bush and Lincoln shared a lot of the same traits. For one, they both suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln also imprisoned thousands of citizens without due process, and Bush imprisoned detainees in Gitmo in the same way.

In that way, Lincoln and Bush and Obama are all cut from the same cloth.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.


Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^kceaton1:
Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…
He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"
That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.


This could very well be true. I just want to hear i from his mouth. The fact that it's been an issue for months with nothing said or done is the ridiculous part. No stance can change that part.

Yes, the activists do not follow the logic well. I'll agree with that. But, I also don't like my government hiding as much information as it does. I understand militarily it may be needed, but almost everywhere else it's fear of repercussions in politics and people trying to manipulate others.

>> ^kceaton1:

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.


Well, look at the transcript again. For one, we don't know what the question was, but we know the full answer was:

No, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source. That’s not how…the world works. If you’re in the military, and…I have to abide by certain classified information. If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law…We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate…

He broke the law.

Does that sound like he's responding to a question about Manning's case, or something along the lines of "You don't think the American people deserve the right to know what its government is doing?"

That kind of question presumes that Manning did what he's accused of, and makes the case that the law Manning broke shouldn't be there...to which Obama says "we can have a philosophical difference...but he broke the law." That's why my initial comment was "bad on the activists for making this about the moral value of what Manning did, and not about Manning's right to a trial". That's an argument to take to the public in defense of Wikileaks, not an argument to take to Obama out of concern for Bradley Manning's treatment.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see everyone so concerned about habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence and all that, but I think people are misrepresenting what Obama actually meant here. I can live with the professional spin doctors willfully misreading the context to draw attention to their various rags, but I expect people here to be a touch more grounded.

Habeas Corpus is the thing bothering me a lot. The fact that Obama almost flippantly discarded the issue angers me. As it means that: one, he doesn't care for habeas corpus when it comes to those that he believes committed crimes, and two, he wants him to rot for what he did, or lastly, he doesn't know enough about the issue to make a smart comment/decision.

>> ^gwiz665:

This has something to do with Habeas Corpus, not freedom of speech. Attacking wikileaks has something to do with freedom of speech. >> ^Matthu:
>> ^blankfist:
Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?

this is the strawest man ever lol.
all this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.



I was specifically speaking about the Espionage Act. And according to the wiki page, even the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't a violation of one's right to free speech, which is hard for me to reconcile in a supposed free society. Either you have free speech or you don't. The first amendment of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"

What part about "Congress shall make no law" does Congress not understand? On its face, the Espionage Act should be unconstitutional.

This has something to do with Habeas Corpus, not freedom of speech. Attacking wikileaks has something to do with freedom of speech. >> ^Matthu:

>> ^blankfist:
Remember when we used to hold freedom of speech as the greatest virtue of a free society?

this is the strawest man ever lol.
all this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

>> ^spaceisbig:

I don't really want to get into this discussion but it bothers me when people bring up the party of historical figures. In the time of Andrew Jackson I do believe the Whig party was actually still around. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but his ideology reads as a Democrat's would nowadays. Also, many people consider the time period of Civil Rights in the U.S. a time when the political ideology of the two parties actually swapped.


Too late! You're in the discussion now, pal! No backing out! (<-- winkey smiley face means I kid)

I agree that a lot of what defined Lincoln is what also currently defines a modern Democratic politician. But mostly in terms of a large, centralized federal government versus a union of states with their own individual and self-defined rights. He did, however, suspend habeas corpus and locked up US citizens without trial for sedition. Mainly people in the free press he deemed 'Confederate Sympathizers'.

Glen Greenwald on Rendition (which often results in torture). The president should not have the power to unilaterally render anyone foreign or domestic to another country for any reason.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets

It is not the presidents place to strike down Habeas Corpus or reinstate it is left up to the SCOTUS to interpret whether the writ can be removed or not. How that relates to the consensus of the people I still don't understand.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene

Whether or not the Executive Branch actually abides by the writs of the constitution is another thing entirely. The branches can do whatever they wish until another branch or the people file complaint against them and the checks and balances actually take place.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram

The above links and points are merely my interpretation of things evident during Obama's presidency they are wholly my opinion and therefore could be wrong. He inherited power and did not return it which is typical of any one holding the POTUS, and appears to be using that power (see any number of Greenwald's articles on Obama and Civil Liberties).

Everyone, all US citizens need to stop believing shit and actually use some critical thought. Belief without thorough review of evidence is faith, and faith is much more fallible than evidentiary claims. Even if those evidentiary claims are interpreted wrongly, which mine might be.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring Habeas Corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sounds like you still believe we live in a democracy. Obama went into office with the intention of ending torture, restoring habeas corpus, ending the patriot act, ending the war in Iraq and creating public health care system. He was not allowed to achieve any of these things in earnest. If Ron Paul were to be miraculously elected in 2012, he would encounter all the same roadblocks to the parts of his agenda that do not fall in line with corporatism.

I agree that RP would hit resistance left, right and center to damn near everything he stands for.

I disagree that he would be giving speeches 2 months into his administration endorsing habeas corpus free, prolonged, preventative detention.

Hate RP's positions all you want, at least he sticks to them.