Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Obama signs Act that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens.
What about the Bill of Rights? Since when does that mean anything in America? Certainly not since 9/11/01, that's for sure. Hell, I would say the same about the rule of law in general. The country where I grew up and the military in which I served didn't torture people. The bad guys did stuff like that, and we were better than them for not doing it. No longer. Anybody who thinks the Constitution means anything to those in power anymore is delusional.
I think maybe you're being just a little naive when you say, "The country where I grew up and the military in which I served didn't torture people". You have no idea what this country did covertly. And this idea that America is always or was always the "good guy"...well, that's just a fairy tale. At best there were times when we were the "not so bad guys".
And in terms of the Constitution not being supported. I don't agree with that either. Think about the conversations that take place on this forum about whether or not eating meat is or is not covered by Buddhist principles. Different people see the issue different ways. Same with the Constitution.
I think maybe you're being just a little naive when you say, "The country where I grew up and the military in which I served didn't torture people". You have no idea what this country did covertly.
Yes, yes, this was one of my earlier points, but Telly thinks I'm into conspiracy theories. I do think it's true, though, that waterboarding wasn't used before. I think tactics took a turn for the worse under GW Bush, and the war on terrorism served to justify anything and everything. "Regime change", on the other hand, is nothing new, the only difference is it was covert before.
Telly - your argument is so ridiculous as to be laughable. George Bush and Dick Cheney said the same thing about invading Iraq. They did it for "me". Really? I don't remember asking them to invade and occupy a country on my behalf - that posed no threat to me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
Please don't presume to act on my behalf and then act holier than thou about doing it. Especially when the actions are at best shady, and in reality, often illegal and unconstitutional. I don't need your help, thanks.
And if being skeptical and questioning things that are done allegedly on my behalf, regardless of how illegal or unconstitutional they are makes me "anti-American" (define please...), then consider me anti-American. As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this country was founded and prospered *because* people bucked the system and questioned 'why?'. I'm not a sheep. I don't believe everything that's forced down my throat like many people in this country. If I'm so far left I can't see the center that's because I've lived through a whole lot of things in this country that made me so. If it weren't for people who question the status quo, we'd be in a lot more of a mess than we're in - which is a truly frightening thought.
@seeker242 - I didn't vote for Bush and Cheney, and in fact, there is a very good argument that they were never legally elected in the first place. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate. We (the big "we") have a long track record of electing people whose views and policies are diametrically opposed to our best interests simply because we're gullible enough to be sucked in by jingoistic sound bites and unashamed pandering to our baser instincts of greed and fear, and more recently, so-called "religion".
I agree that the way in which Telly states his viewpoint is ridiculous. But elected officials can't do what just one person or group wants them to do. That's not the way representative democracy works. We elect them and then they have to make decisions based on what they think is best and right. Take a look at many of the most important issues and you'll the country widely split on what is best and right.
You do seem to be pretty far left, but that's okay. You balance out those who are pretty far right.
Didn't you talk about following the Constitution in an earlier post? Well, after the Bush/Cheney election issue came up, it went to the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of Bush/Cheney. That's the way the Constitution says things are supposed to work. It's time to get over the legally decided past. And by the way, I voted Democratic and I think Bush was the worst President in my lifetime.
And when you say, "We (the big "we") have a long track record of electing people whose views and policies are diametrically opposed to our best interests simply because we're gullible enough to be sucked in by jingoistic sound bites and unashamed pandering to our baser instincts of greed and fear, and more recently, so-called "religion"", to do otherwise is to not agree in the principle of democracy. We get the government we deserve because we elect them.
@Vinlyn You make a great point about people being to gullible and sucked in by sound bites. This is the reason Ron Paul won't get elected. He's too honest to sugar coat anything with what the public wants to hear. We'll sit around the coffee house and complain the government spends too much of our money. But when a political figure says he wants to cut this this and that to save money...Well, we don't actually WANT them to cut this that or the other thing! We complaing that the military is too big and we invest so much in unwanted wars...but as soon as someone says, "lets cut the military and end these wars" we're yelling WAIT! That's not what we wanted! People are such a contridiction.
And I know I will get flamed for this, but I feel water-boarding was a very compassionate thing to do. So you think causing discomfort to someone to gain information that saved numerous lives is bad? We are not talking about risk of life or even injuries to the terrorist, we are talking about creating an uncomfortable sensation... But you you rather sacrifice the lives so we are not labelled as bad torturous people? I guess I would rather wear that uncomfortable label than to be responsible for the loss of numerous lives... It's like which is worse, discomfort to one or death to many?
Yes, you will get flamed. Torture is like pornography. I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. And I'm sorry, but there is NO earthly way you can call torture (and waterboarding *is* torture) "compassionate". You've got a ***really*** screwed up definition of compassion if that's what you think qualifies. You amaze the crap out of me Telly. That kind of crap makes me ashamed to carry an American passport.
What really scares me about people is the fact that they can justify almost anything, including the use of torture, or 'enhanced interrogation techniques' as the Bush administration liked to call it, to extract information (e.g., see RELEASED: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos).
Many people say that enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding aren't torture. I think that when it comes to things like waterboarding, however, especially when used in combination with other harsh interrogation methods, it's easy to say that it's not torture when you're not the one undergoing such treatment, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go through anything like that myself. Nor would I want anyone else to.
I don't have any good arguments to support my opinion besides the fact that I find the intentional infliction of pain and mental anguish deplorable — especially when it's done in secret, without any kind of transparency or accountability whatsoever, and has the potential to cause irreversible damage — but I think that's enough.
I can't say for sure, but I'm reasonably certain that being captured, blindfolded, shipped off to a foreign country and then subjected to things like prolonged psychological abuse and waterboarding would mentally scar me for life. Granted, I'm not a hardened terrorist, I'm a rather 'soft' law-abiding citizen of the United States; but even so, I doubt those people will ever be the same after going through such an experience.
I've listened to both sides of the debate, and while I think that proponents of enhanced interrogation techniques make some good points, I simply can't justify treating another human being like that for any reason. For one thing, it's most likely against the law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code). And even if it isn't, I don't think it's acceptable, even if lives might theoretically be at stake, and I don't want my government engaging in such activity.
I know that our Founding Fathers weren't perfect, but one of the things I think people like Washington and Adams had right were their views on the treatment of prisoners, which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. details briefly in "America's anti-torture tradition," a 2005 op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times.
Regardless of the rationale or the particular circumstances involved, the fact that American soldiers and intelligence agents were (and possibly still are) torturing prisoners is one of the reasons I'm afraid of Americans. And the fact that we're not the only ones who do this is one of the reasons I'm afraid of the world.
(OK, that last bit was a little hyperbolic, but I just had to find a way to sneak the video for "I'm Afraid Of Americans" in there somewhere. )
"I agree that the way in which Telly states his viewpoint is ridiculous"
Thats OK, I expect that here... this is my first experience participating in a primarily left biased forum, with even a few far left extremists active. It's really a good experience for me though, as long as I keep a thick skin.
@Jason I like you're above post. It's filled with a lot of useful links and information. It made me think (and this is a bit off topic in a semi-related way-as is most of this thread at this point-lol) what are you're (and any one else, feel free to comment) thoughts on WikiLeaks?
You made some good points @jason and I can't argue with your logic... I always believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.... on one hand all humans should be treated with respect, because they are humans, but on the other hand you have to hold people responsible for their actions, especially if they are involved in the brutal slaying of others. And by holding them responsible, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of the death penalty, but I'm also not in favor of rewarding the brutal behavior or allowing killings to continue when there are actions that can be conducted to stop it.
It's a tough dilemma for me... I cringe at the idea of causing suffering to someone, but I also cringe of the idea of letting people die because I'm afraid to cringe. So either way, it's a lose-lose situation for me... but my point, and I understand sounds rediculous to many here, is that if you don't make a choice to weigh consequences, then you have made the choice to do nothing. Its the easier choice to make since the suffering is not directly on your hands, but you have still made a choice, whether you like it or not, that has consequences.
I personally accept the responsibility of my non-action... I wish I could turn this off though and convince myself that I'm not part of an equation that results in deaths... perhaps it's something I need to work on, to make myself more numb to all this killing.
Anybody who thinks the Constitution means anything to those in power anymore is delusional.
*ahem* Please. :hrm:
Hey, where's SwingIsYellow, and all his squawking about civil rights? Let's sic him on Congress! Hey, Swing, "you're either for civil rights or you aren't", right? Where are those feisty characters when you need them?
But we're not sure it does authorize detention of American citizens without trial. My reading of it said it didn't. Is there a lawyer in the house?
Hey Dakini I am right here. I did post earlier where I stated:
"So Obama codified what was started under Bush! Way to go What should I call these two groups now Dempublicans or Repubocrats? Change my a%$" I support ALL the ammendments in the Bill of Rights not just some. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are document that limits the power of the federal government. This is why hthey were created. The Bill of Right specifically outlined key principle of freedom so that there was no question under any circumstances that these right could be infringed upon. So take the Second amendment as example; this is an amendment many have sought to undermine. Is it then okay to undermine the first amendment, right to free speech and the press, or what about the fourth; illegal search and seizure or the sixth a speedy trial by a jury of your peers? It's not that the second amendment is anymore import than the others but it is just as important as the others. Why? Because ALL of these rights limit the power of the government. I am for ALL your rights: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they say. When you start watering it down it becomes meaningless. It has become meaningless. We have a police force than is in a constant state of warfare, with our own citizens, due to our war on drugs. We have the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the world. The blacks and hispanics in inner cities bear the brunt of much of this. We have a president who can assasinate people with drones (as they have) who can and do involve us in unending conflicts without declarations of war. You can be arrested, no trial no jury nothing. Dangerous and very disheartening. Here are some articles: simply.http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html More articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
"In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Well I guess that makes ok if you signed the bill with a frowny face emoticon at the end.
"In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Well I guess that makes ok if you signed the bill with a frowny face emoticon at the end.
Once again, the crafty manipulative speach. Say what everyone wants to hear but do the complete opposite. With a smile!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Here's a good article from Salon detailing the controversies in the bill.
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@Telly03 Another one of the problems associated with water-boarding or other methods of torture is that the information received may not be reliable. I figure that if someone was doing that to me, I very well might just say anything to make it stop. ESPECIALLY if I found myself in a foreign country, unaware of the rights and laws, and expected them to kill me.
I do understand both sides though, but like Jason, if I look deep into myself... I just cannot justify it. I cannot get to that place where I feel okay with that happening... and I really don't want to. When I talk to people on the far right about topics like this or the war, etc., I think the one thing we can agree on is that we're all frustrated. The right thinks the left is idealistic, the left thinks the right is cold-hearted. But every now and then someone truly great comes along and shows us that there is a way around the violence (Buddha, MLK, Gandhi). But, I do think that there needs to be a middle ground as well. According to Robert Thurman, the reason that Tibet was so easily conquered by China is because they became so aligned with Buddhist principles that they had no army whatsoever. For our own protection, we do need balance.
I oppose the war not because of whatever liberal reasoning you typically hear, I oppose the war because I've seen documentaries on PTSD and I just cannot fathom putting other human beings in those sorts of environments except under extreme necessity. Hitler comes to mind. This is the same reason I oppose torture or the death penalty, no human being should have to make that their job and be forced to do that to others. It is not something I would want or could do myself, and I cannot force it upon others in good conscience.
Here's a good article from Salon detailing the controversies in the bill.
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
Thanks Person. I was so sure I had heard that the part that Included American Citizens was omitted, but then so much other stuff out there said it wasn't. I'm glad you found this. Very helpful.
Vinlyn said: "....principle of democracy. We get the government we deserve because we elect them. " (--- Not personally directed at you, Vinlyn, I'm just picking up what you posted...)
Democracy .... what is the percentage of voters in the US compared to other 1st world countries? Why is it so low? Non-identification with the US and/or its political structure that is based on money? Fair information vs mid-numbing infotainment and day-long barrage of stupid TV shows? A propaganda trick used by the Nazis.
Low level of education compared to other 1st world countries... Knowledge is Power -- where does that leave most of the US population?
War fare that is sold to us as important defense --- based on lies. Is that democratic?
"We get the government we deserve because we elect them." Who is we? I am beginning to feel like a pawn in a system that has evolved into an uncontrollable, unethical steam roller.
Watch that video, if you believe we live in a 'democracy'.
@zombiegirl The information we received was very helpful, and there are ways to confirm if they are being honest, because in most cases we already have half the story, we just need to fill in gaps.
I do understand your stance that you couldn't support the thought of water-boarding for any reason, and I respect it... I don't think your wrong.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@zombiegirl The information we received was very helpful, and there are ways to confirm if they are being honest, because in most cases we already have half the story, we just need to fill in gaps.
I do understand your stance that you couldn't support the thought of water-boarding for any reason, and I respect it... I don't think your wrong.
How do you know this?
And I respect your stance as well, but I hope that you don't try to numb yourself like you said in one of your posts. I don't think that this is the answer. Numbing is only a coping mechanism and you would be naive to assume that the real issues do not remain buried somewhere deep down. I don't know what you do, Telly, but I hope you take care of yourself mentally and physically, whatever it is.
I don't know what you do, Telly, but I hope you take care of yourself mentally and physically, whatever it is.
@zombiegirl Thank you for the concern... I am retired Air Force, but I still work in the Intel business, so I guess that would make sense why I take some comments personally. I also completed a tour in Iraq, but that was after I retired from the AF.
Not all of my comments though are from personal direct experience, much of it is absorbed from the circles I'm in, so I don't mean to come off as an expert on all things Intel related... I guess my biases are obvious though. I have arguable opinions as everyone else, but I think the obvious difference between my opinions vs many others here comes down to the level of trust I/we have in such government organizations, as well as Congress.
Naw , really ? Looking at the situation, from what I see or hear on TV, it looks like USA is falling apart, or tries to prolong the life of a dying system. Dunno, I don't live there.
Naw , really ? Looking at the situation, from what I see or hear on TV, it looks like USA is falling apart, or tries to prolong the life of a dying system. Dunno, I don't live there.
Strange indeed! We are not "falling apart" at all. I find it strange that you would take that from your TV station. Where do you watch? BTW, I trust Obama as a person, to do not the most popular thing, but the right thing. But it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on what he's doing!
Well, I watch it in Romania. But, I also go to abovetopsecret, so I just hear/read those things. All Romanian televisions don't really talk about this matter, but, in some instances they present the situation on an international perspective , like France, USA, and Italy , and other EU countries having a really tough time. Also, they tend to give 'hints' about things going on, like Iran and USA doing some nasty 'military drills' in the Gulf area...so...dunno. Those things, like Obama signing those kind of acts or doing something stupid don't really reach our ( Romanian) ears.
What's going on, NomaD, is that the Republicans are trying to trash the country by keeping taxes for the rich low, by propping up greedy bankers who twist the system to make a lot of money then walk away from the disasters they create, by doing away with Social Security, etc. etc. etc.
Back to topic: waterboarding is bad because the international community decided it was bad. I wonder if the French have ever used it in their interrogations of terrorists. I bet not, but we don't know, it's a good question. Waterboarding is also bad because it doesn't always work, you don't get quality info that way, and because it can backfire on you by causing more terrorism when everyone learns what you're doing to people. The Nigerian "underwear bomber", I just heard on the radio today, said he wanted to avenge the horrible treatment of Muslims by the US.
"Far left"? Who said that? You people have never seen "far left extremists". Russia, China and Cuba have. Oh, and don't let me forget Romania That is "far left". Mountains is a teddy bear compared to that.
Going by the title of this thread, what the hell is going on in USA ?
Great question. It reminds me a lot of a Lewis Caroll story to be honest. Black is white, and up is down. Torture is compassionate, and trashing the Constitution is "for my own good".
Far left extremists ? What are those ? If I'm not wrong, the leftists are the liberals, right ?
Probably anyone who isn't conservative, I imagine. Heh, I'm pretty sure I qualify as one simply for the fact that I consider myself a socialist and discuss things like capitalism and imperialism critically. For what it's worth, though, I don't hate people simply for being pro-capitalist, nor do I hate America even though I'm critical of things like current US foreign policy or nationalism in general.
Far left extremists ? What are those ? If I'm not wrong, the leftists are the liberals, right ?
Heh, I'm pretty sure I qualify as one of these 'far left extremists' simply for the fact that I consider myself a socialist and discuss things like capitalism and imperialism critically.
Right, that's it.
It depends on how far left you go on the spectrum, NomaD. If you move far enough to the left, you run into Lenin & co. I don't think these terms should be tossed around so casually, for example, accusing a member here of being a "far left extremist" just because he thinks the gov't shouldn't torture people and shouldn't subvert foreign governments or carry out assassinations, or spy on its own citizenry, and that it should observe the Constitution. There's a level of absurdity there, if you keep in mind regimes like Mao's China as defining "far left extremism".
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
... he thinks the gov't shouldn't torture people and shouldn't subvert foreign governments or carry out assassinations, or spy on its own citizenry, and that it should observe the Constitution.
Funny, it kind of sounds like a description of Ron Paul. The extremes of the two parties have a lot in common, they just have different solutions.
Your taking my comments out of context in a mocking manner Dakini
I'm taking them out of context? I didn't mean to. I was discussing this term, "far left extremists" and the context in which it came up. And I posted about what far left really was back when you made your post. Here, just explaining for NomaD. Not even mocking, discussing. I take accusations of "far left" etc. seriously. People fling these terms around without thinking what they really mean.
Your explanation of what I meant about someone being "so far left" I can't recall if I used the term "extremist" , but by your account of what I meant puts me in the far left as well... Im pro constitution, against assasination, spying on citizens and torture (with the exception that we don't need to rehash) We were talking about Obama and US politics, so that was the measurement rule I was using. I'll admit that my political studies probably does not match yours, I'll share my narrow view, but please don't laugh.... "Far Left" are those organizing stuff like OWS, and you would never catch one trying to work things out with anyone from the "Right" . "Left" are those that vote primarily Democratic, agree with OWS like concepts, but may be spotted compromising ideas for the sake of moving the country forward.... Now for the "Right" and "Far Right", just plug them into the same equation as the left and plug in Tea Party where OWS was, switch Republican/Democrat
I didn't realize that you took "far left" labels so serious or negative... Note taken, I'll be more careful
It's not just you, Telly. "Left" is one thing (although that one bugs me too--I always thought of myself as a humanitarian, which I don't see as being either left or right), but "far left" (you did say "extremist") just gets into flinging verbiage, you know? Because if people really thought about what they were saying, they'd realize that "far left" etc. in a global context, anyway, means a lot more than they think. Words should be used mindfully. And that goes for a certain bear calling people "delusional", too. (I can be an equal opportunity wrist-slapper, when necessary.)
Well, after the Bush/Cheney election issue came up, it went to the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of Bush/Cheney. That's the way the Constitution says things are supposed to work.
I forgot to comment on this. Better late than never.
Does anyone remember what a controversy this was at the time? The way it was handled? It was regarded by many to be a sham. I'm fuzzy on the details at this point, can someone remind us of how it went down? I think it had something to do with the fact that the Supremes decided for Bush/Cheney on the basis of the Florida vote, which everyone knew was bogus, being in a state run by the candidate's brother. The court should have scrutinized voting procedures there before making a decision. Kind of a no-brainer.
Well, after the Bush/Cheney election issue came up, it went to the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of Bush/Cheney. That's the way the Constitution says things are supposed to work.
I forgot to comment on this. Better late than never.
Does anyone remember what a controversy this was at the time? The way it was handled? It was regarded by many to be a sham. I'm fuzzy on the details at this point, can someone remind us of how it went down? I think it had something to do with the fact that the Supremes decided for Bush/Cheney on the basis of the Florida vote, which everyone knew was bogus, being in a state run by the candidate's brother. The court should have scrutinized voting procedures there before making a decision. Kind of a no-brainer.
That's not my point. The governmental process worked in a legal manner, whether or not we liked the outcome (and, as a Democrat, I did not like the outcome). It's over. Years have gone by. Bush in no longer President. There's nothing to be done about it.
Welcome back, Vinlyn! What's this about conspiracy theories? The history of the Bush-Gore legal cases is that Bush filed with the federal Supreme Court in order to stop the required recount of votes in FL, that was mandated by FL election law due to the close race. After beginning the recount, Bush's margin of votes, initially a bit over 1000, shrank to around 275, with some counties yet to conduct the required machine recount. The fact that some counties had not complied with the recount requirement was strange. Then when Gore exercised his right to request a manual recount, that's when Bush stepped in to stop the recount, and the Supreme Court agreed with him. This is why it was so controversial at the time. How short is the public's memory! And how interesting that the Supreme Court decided in favor of an incumbent President who was at risk of losing the election, rather than simply allowing the democratic process to complete its course.
Both sides of the issue had their day in court...in this case the Supreme Court. Then the Court considered the presentations and made its decision. And, by the way, it was a Court that was reasonably balanced by most accounts.
People felt, and still feel, that the Court was biased in favor of the President. The court halted the legally-required recount going on in FL. It wouldn't have been favoring either side if the court had simply allowed the recount to continue, allowing the electoral process to run its course. Halting the electoral process is highly irregular, and now it has become legal precedent. This is not a good precedent to have on the books for future elections. Also, it looks suspicious, because the more recounts that came in by precinct, the more Bush's margin shrank. Now we'll never know who won the election, who got the most votes.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
the Law cannot work, or favour an individual. the Law can only work with the tools at its disposal, for the good of society. If a precedent was set, it is because those adjudicating detected an anomaly in previously adhered-to law. This wasn't done to favour any one specific person. This was done because either previous legislation had not been thought out deeply enough, (example, The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, uk - undergoing changes as we speak) or because previous legislation had become outdated due to changes in process and social ethics and custom.
That's not the point. I'm responding to the point Dakini raised; she said that at the time, the whole imbroglio and the Supreme Court's decision were regarded to be a sham, and she asked if anyone could provide details. That's what I did, I provided details and explained why people thought it was a sham. I'm not out to prove anything, I'm providing information, and an explanation as to why there was public outcry about it. If you want to wrangle with someone about proof, you'll have to look elsewhere. It's not about "liking" the decision or not. There are legal concerns that the case raised.
But for the record, Federica has a naive view of the law. History shows that case law can swing wildly, depending on the prevailing view in society, or on who's on the bench. Why was there so much hullabaloo over Reagan's conservative appointees? Why does Congress get into a big partisan fight over Supreme Court appointees? Because everyone knows that justice and the law aren't truly impartial. We're taught in high school civics classes that everyone is equal before the law, justice is impartial, and jurors are chosen impartially. The reality is very different from that.
Comments
And in terms of the Constitution not being supported. I don't agree with that either. Think about the conversations that take place on this forum about whether or not eating meat is or is not covered by Buddhist principles. Different people see the issue different ways. Same with the Constitution.
You do seem to be pretty far left, but that's okay. You balance out those who are pretty far right.
Didn't you talk about following the Constitution in an earlier post? Well, after the Bush/Cheney election issue came up, it went to the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of Bush/Cheney. That's the way the Constitution says things are supposed to work. It's time to get over the legally decided past. And by the way, I voted Democratic and I think Bush was the worst President in my lifetime.
And when you say, "We (the big "we") have a long track record of electing people whose views and policies are diametrically opposed to our best interests simply because we're gullible enough to be sucked in by jingoistic sound bites and unashamed pandering to our baser instincts of greed and fear, and more recently, so-called "religion"", to do otherwise is to not agree in the principle of democracy. We get the government we deserve because we elect them.
People are such a contridiction.
Many people say that enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding aren't torture. I think that when it comes to things like waterboarding, however, especially when used in combination with other harsh interrogation methods, it's easy to say that it's not torture when you're not the one undergoing such treatment, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go through anything like that myself. Nor would I want anyone else to.
I don't have any good arguments to support my opinion besides the fact that I find the intentional infliction of pain and mental anguish deplorable — especially when it's done in secret, without any kind of transparency or accountability whatsoever, and has the potential to cause irreversible damage — but I think that's enough.
I can't say for sure, but I'm reasonably certain that being captured, blindfolded, shipped off to a foreign country and then subjected to things like prolonged psychological abuse and waterboarding would mentally scar me for life. Granted, I'm not a hardened terrorist, I'm a rather 'soft' law-abiding citizen of the United States; but even so, I doubt those people will ever be the same after going through such an experience.
I've listened to both sides of the debate, and while I think that proponents of enhanced interrogation techniques make some good points, I simply can't justify treating another human being like that for any reason. For one thing, it's most likely against the law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code). And even if it isn't, I don't think it's acceptable, even if lives might theoretically be at stake, and I don't want my government engaging in such activity.
I know that our Founding Fathers weren't perfect, but one of the things I think people like Washington and Adams had right were their views on the treatment of prisoners, which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. details briefly in "America's anti-torture tradition," a 2005 op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times.
Regardless of the rationale or the particular circumstances involved, the fact that American soldiers and intelligence agents were (and possibly still are) torturing prisoners is one of the reasons I'm afraid of Americans. And the fact that we're not the only ones who do this is one of the reasons I'm afraid of the world.
(OK, that last bit was a little hyperbolic, but I just had to find a way to sneak the video for "I'm Afraid Of Americans" in there somewhere.
Thats OK, I expect that here... this is my first experience participating in a primarily left biased forum, with even a few far left extremists active. It's really a good experience for me though, as long as I keep a thick skin.
It's a tough dilemma for me... I cringe at the idea of causing suffering to someone, but I also cringe of the idea of letting people die because I'm afraid to cringe. So either way, it's a lose-lose situation for me... but my point, and I understand sounds rediculous to many here, is that if you don't make a choice to weigh consequences, then you have made the choice to do nothing. Its the easier choice to make since the suffering is not directly on your hands, but you have still made a choice, whether you like it or not, that has consequences.
I personally accept the responsibility of my non-action... I wish I could turn this off though and convince myself that I'm not part of an equation that results in deaths... perhaps it's something I need to work on, to make myself more numb to all this killing.
"So Obama codified what was started under Bush! Way to go What should I call these two groups now Dempublicans or Repubocrats? Change my a%$"
I support ALL the ammendments in the Bill of Rights not just some.
The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are document that limits the power of the federal government. This is why hthey were created. The Bill of Right specifically outlined key principle of freedom so that there was no question under any circumstances that these right could be infringed upon. So take the Second amendment as example; this is an amendment many have sought to undermine. Is it then okay to undermine the first amendment, right to free speech and the press, or what about the fourth; illegal search and seizure or the sixth a speedy trial by a jury of your peers? It's not that the second amendment is anymore import than the others but it is just as important as the others. Why? Because ALL of these rights limit the power of the government. I am for ALL your rights: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they say. When you start watering it down it becomes meaningless. It has become meaningless. We have a police force than is in a constant state of warfare, with our own citizens, due to our war on drugs. We have the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the world. The blacks and hispanics in inner cities bear the brunt of much of this. We have a president who can assasinate people with drones (as they have) who can and do involve us in unending conflicts without declarations of war. You can be arrested, no trial no jury nothing. Dangerous and very disheartening. Here are some articles: simply.http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
More articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
"In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Well I guess that makes ok if you signed the bill with a frowny face emoticon at the end.
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
I do understand both sides though, but like Jason, if I look deep into myself... I just cannot justify it. I cannot get to that place where I feel okay with that happening... and I really don't want to. When I talk to people on the far right about topics like this or the war, etc., I think the one thing we can agree on is that we're all frustrated. The right thinks the left is idealistic, the left thinks the right is cold-hearted. But every now and then someone truly great comes along and shows us that there is a way around the violence (Buddha, MLK, Gandhi). But, I do think that there needs to be a middle ground as well. According to Robert Thurman, the reason that Tibet was so easily conquered by China is because they became so aligned with Buddhist principles that they had no army whatsoever. For our own protection, we do need balance.
I oppose the war not because of whatever liberal reasoning you typically hear, I oppose the war because I've seen documentaries on PTSD and I just cannot fathom putting other human beings in those sorts of environments except under extreme necessity. Hitler comes to mind. This is the same reason I oppose torture or the death penalty, no human being should have to make that their job and be forced to do that to others. It is not something I would want or could do myself, and I cannot force it upon others in good conscience.
(--- Not personally directed at you, Vinlyn, I'm just picking up what you posted...)
Democracy? It has been hollowed out, check out the video featuring Chris Hedges that was posted in another thread. Very illuminating! Sadly.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/13657/obama-2012#Item_4
Democracy .... what is the percentage of voters in the US compared to other 1st world countries? Why is it so low?
Non-identification with the US and/or its political structure that is based on money?
Fair information vs mid-numbing infotainment and day-long barrage of stupid TV shows? A propaganda trick used by the Nazis.
Low level of education compared to other 1st world countries... Knowledge is Power -- where does that leave most of the US population?
War fare that is sold to us as important defense --- based on lies. Is that democratic?
"We get the government we deserve because we elect them." Who is we? I am beginning to feel like a pawn in a system that has evolved into an uncontrollable, unethical steam roller.
Watch that video, if you believe we live in a 'democracy'.
I do understand your stance that you couldn't support the thought of water-boarding for any reason, and I respect it... I don't think your wrong.
And I respect your stance as well, but I hope that you don't try to numb yourself like you said in one of your posts. I don't think that this is the answer. Numbing is only a coping mechanism and you would be naive to assume that the real issues do not remain buried somewhere deep down. I don't know what you do, Telly, but I hope you take care of yourself mentally and physically, whatever it is.
Naw , really ? Looking at the situation, from what I see or hear on TV, it looks like USA is falling apart, or tries to prolong the life of a dying system. Dunno, I don't live there.
BTW, I trust Obama as a person, to do not the most popular thing, but the right thing. But it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on what he's doing!
:rolleyes:
Back to topic: waterboarding is bad because the international community decided it was bad. I wonder if the French have ever used it in their interrogations of terrorists. I bet not, but we don't know, it's a good question. Waterboarding is also bad because it doesn't always work, you don't get quality info that way, and because it can backfire on you by causing more terrorism when everyone learns what you're doing to people. The Nigerian "underwear bomber", I just heard on the radio today, said he wanted to avenge the horrible treatment of Muslims by the US.
"Far left"? Who said that? You people have never seen "far left extremists". Russia, China and Cuba have. Oh, and don't let me forget Romania
It depends on how far left you go on the spectrum, NomaD. If you move far enough to the left, you run into Lenin & co. I don't think these terms should be tossed around so casually, for example, accusing a member here of being a "far left extremist" just because he thinks the gov't shouldn't torture people and shouldn't subvert foreign governments or carry out assassinations, or spy on its own citizenry, and that it should observe the Constitution. There's a level of absurdity there, if you keep in mind regimes like Mao's China as defining "far left extremism".
Your explanation of what I meant about someone being "so far left" I can't recall if I used the term "extremist" , but by your account of what I meant puts me in the far left as well... Im pro constitution, against assasination, spying on citizens and torture (with the exception that we don't need to rehash) We were talking about Obama and US politics, so that was the measurement rule I was using. I'll admit that my political studies probably does not match yours, I'll share my narrow view, but please don't laugh.... "Far Left" are those organizing stuff like OWS, and you would never catch one trying to work things out with anyone from the "Right" . "Left" are those that vote primarily Democratic, agree with OWS like concepts, but may be spotted compromising ideas for the sake of moving the country forward.... Now for the "Right" and "Far Right", just plug them into the same equation as the left and plug in Tea Party where OWS was, switch Republican/Democrat
I didn't realize that you took "far left" labels so serious or negative... Note taken, I'll be more careful
Does anyone remember what a controversy this was at the time? The way it was handled? It was regarded by many to be a sham. I'm fuzzy on the details at this point, can someone remind us of how it went down? I think it had something to do with the fact that the Supremes decided for Bush/Cheney on the basis of the Florida vote, which everyone knew was bogus, being in a state run by the candidate's brother. The court should have scrutinized voting procedures there before making a decision. Kind of a no-brainer.
For the facts of the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v_Gore
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Both sides of the issue had their day in court...in this case the Supreme Court. Then the Court considered the presentations and made its decision. And, by the way, it was a Court that was reasonably balanced by most accounts.
And as a reminder...I'm, a Democrat.
And thanks for welcoming me back!
the Law can only work with the tools at its disposal, for the good of society.
If a precedent was set, it is because those adjudicating detected an anomaly in previously adhered-to law.
This wasn't done to favour any one specific person.
This was done because either previous legislation had not been thought out deeply enough, (example, The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, uk - undergoing changes as we speak) or because previous legislation had become outdated due to changes in process and social ethics and custom.
But for the record, Federica has a naive view of the law. History shows that case law can swing wildly, depending on the prevailing view in society, or on who's on the bench. Why was there so much hullabaloo over Reagan's conservative appointees? Why does Congress get into a big partisan fight over Supreme Court appointees? Because everyone knows that justice and the law aren't truly impartial. We're taught in high school civics classes that everyone is equal before the law, justice is impartial, and jurors are chosen impartially. The reality is very different from that.