The Constitution in Wartime 256
Findlaw has an excellent essay discussing the history of law in wartime. The author makes the point very elegantly that inter arma silent leges (usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent"). Richard Stallman has an essay on a similar theme, not quite as good, but still worth reading.
Well.. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. President has a variety of emergency powers, but none of them can in any way affect the rules set out in the Constitution. Congress, through the years, has expanded presidential power; these powers came with strings attached. In emergency, some of these strings come off, but the basic constitutional protections remain.
This is not to say that Presidents have not violated the Constitution. Lincoln suspended the right of filing writs of habeas corpus (as did Davis). The loyalty oaths and attendant disqualifications from office may have constituted ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, but the Fourteenth Amendment, in making such disqualifications part of the Constutition, resolved that issue. And let's not forget about internment camps during World War II.
Presidents may act unconstitutionally, but unlike Great Britain, unconstitutional acts, if they go unpunished, do not set a precedent for their constitutionality.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Supreme Court Chief Justice William A. Rehnquist has a book, All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime [amazon.com] that is about these issues. Here is a quote from a speach he gave at The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars [si.edu] in 1999:
So, we can expect to lose 'rights', and we can expect to gain some of them back when the 'war' is over. The problem being, our current war has no defined ending, and it has already been explained to the American citizens that this will be a long drawn out war full of secracy. The longer a war goes on, the more rights that are taken in the name of that war. It is esp. damning that dissonates is being actively suppressed, with the Bush clan warning our media to 'act responsibly' and advising against such things as playing BinLaden's videos. At the end of wartime, we never regain back all that we have lost.
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
So, we can expect to lose 'rights', and we can expect to gain some of them back when the 'war' is over. The problem being, our current war has no defined ending...
Sundown provisions would appear to be the solution to the problem. The House version of the current anti-terrorism law has such a provision, the Senate version does not. The House version of the law would expire in 5 years.
At the end of wartime, we never regain back all that we have lost.
The history of civil liberties since World War II has been one of expansion. Americans enjoy more freedoms today than at any previous period in their history.
What is lost in wartime and never regained is the lives and health of citizens and soldiers who are casualties in the war.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Can I have some examples of increased civil liberties?
Lost Rights [amazon.com], a book by James Bovard [self-gov.org], is long, thorough, dry, and depressing collection of the MANY losses and attacks on civil liberties.
I could go on, but the point I want to make is this: from what I can tell, we have been experiencing a net decrease in rights... If you could point to me to info that shows otherwise, I would happily read that, too.
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Can I have some examples of increased civil liberties?
I don't know the details of all the laws etc, but don't forget that at the turn of the century women were not even allowed to vote in the USA. In the 1920's alcohol had been banned, but was later unbanned. There was institutionalized racism/segregation up until (I believe) +/- the 1940s (?), and in the previous century, outright slavery. Also, although being homosexual is still technically illegal in many states, this seems to be becoming legal in more and more places (along with a general culture of tolerance). Civil liberties that were curtailed during the McCarthy era also seem to have mostly found their way back (although its left its mark in the form of a distinctly knee-jerk anti-commy culture amongst the populace).
The USA has an uglier human rights history than most Americans care to remember it as being, but in general over the last two centuries, civil liberties have been on the up and up. There does appear to be a current slight down-swing (over the last five to ten years) (it would seem initially due to corporate lobbying, e.g. DMCA, but now due to Sep 11), but on the whole I think things are a lot better now in the US than they were 50, 100 and 150 years ago.
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
at the turn of the century
Hehe .. what I meant was, the previous century that turned, not the most recent one, of course :)
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Supreme Court, of late years, has faithfully supported the extra-Constitutional police powers needed to continue this "war." These powers are of necessity extra-Constitutional, because these laws attempt to suppress consenual acts-- in other words, convictions can only be obtained by such Constitutionally suspect methods as anonymous informers, wiretaps, anti-privacy banking regulations, and other restrictions on personal liberty that would have been regarded with horror by most Americans 50 years ago.
It's even more difficult to make the argument you appear to be making-- that Americans are more free than ever before, when you realize that a larger percentage of Americans are in prison than ever before. In fact, we are now the world's foremost jailers, keeping a larger percentage of our population in jail than any other country in the world (with the possible exception of Russia-- opinions and estimates vary.) Your assertion that the vast number of citizens in prison is due to higher crime rates is difficult to defend logically, because incarceration rates have vastly outgained crime rates.
The American justice system is seriously compromised, with almost all power now residing in the hands of prosecutors. The proliferation of laws has made it impossible for the average citizen in trouble with the law to defend himself in the way he might have in the past. Prosecutors decide what charges are brought, and should the citizen be so uppity as to dispute the charges and demand his day in court, he can be sure that every possible charge will be prosecuted against him. Mandatory minimums, which remove sentencing power from judges, intensify this prosecutorial power. If an accused citizen persists in spite of this (very few do) he will find that prosecutors will be able to use the testimony of criminals against him, and these criminals will be rewarded for their testimony by large reductions in their prison sentences.
One of the most insidious attacks on liberty and the rule of law are the RICO statutes, which treat those with only peripheral (or even innocent!) involvement in criminal enterprises as co-conspirators, liable to the same penalties as conspiracy kingpins. For example, two brothers in Georgia are now serving 10 year sentences in a marijuana conspiracy case, because they sold growlights from their garden shop to persons later caught growing marijuana. No evidence was ever introduced to show that they participated in any illegal activities, and no drugs were found in their possession. There are many other horror stories, for anyone who is interested.
Even those who have no sympathy for drug offenders might wish to consider that bad law proliferates and spreads beyond the confines of its original purpose. A man who lives in my area, and his son, went to prison for almost two years because he filled a mudhole in his back yard without seeking the proper regulatory permits.
The war against terrorism is similar to the war against drugs in that it is an open-ended conflict which can easily be defined as never-ending. In fact, it is very dangerous to define the government's anti-terrorist activities as a "war." It should be regarded as simply a criminal matter, for many good reasons unrelated to the opportunistic attacks now being mounted against our remaining civil liberties. But I'm not optimistic that common sense will prevail. The trend in America is toward the limitation of freedoms. The events of 9/11 will only accelerate that trend.
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Please obtain a dictionary at your earliest convenience and note both the non-existance as a real word of "dissonates" and the definition of "redundant".
Thank you.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
Milligan was arrested in 1864 under Congress' 1863 authorization of the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, not under the President's earlier declaration. As such, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 [findlaw.com], deals with the Congressional Act, not with the Presidential declaration.
Congress authorized the President to detain citizens and suspend writs of habeas corpus, but specified that his name be delivered to the court and that, if the grand jury adjourned without indicting him, he should be released. If his name was not furnished to the court within twenty days, he likewise should be released.
Milligan, however, was tried and sentenced to death by a military court. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this military court had jurisdiction to try Milligan (Milligan was a resident of Michigan, which was not in rebellion). Not only had Congress not given the military court such jurisdiction, but the Constitution forbade it.
The Court did not, however, rule that the Act of 1863 suspending the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, nor the President's use of it. Nor did it rule on the President's earlier suspension of the writ by executive order.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
For example, it was used during WWII to send all those Japanese Americans to camps out in the midwest.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
Incorrect. The Elastic Clause (also known as the "neccessary and proper" clause) only allows Congress (NOT the President; that's the executive, not legislative branch) to enact laws that help it execute its other powers defined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8).
Here's the actual Elastic Clause (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18):
This power is pretty broad; Congress used it to establish (at the urging of the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) a national bank. Although it was violently opposed by Jefferson and the Republicans as unconstitutional, its legality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1819 in the case McCulloch v. Maryland under this Elastic Clause.
IANAL, but I am anal about the Constitution. ;)
Martial Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Morning, it's 1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
Read the original article here [loka.org]
Date: September 27, 2001
Published on Saturday, September 22, 2001 Bush's Orwellian Address Happy New Year: It's 1984 by Jacob Levich
Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Busheffectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya. No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred.
The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient.
And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.
He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better.
By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared. Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:
WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.
The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist.
It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.
Jacob Levich (jlevich@earthlink.net) is an writer, editor, and activist living in Queens, New York.
Re:Well..FEMA (Score:2)
Um, I know the CIA is not chartered to operate within US territory, but I've never heard the armed forces are under the same ban. Sort of makes all those bases and airfields silly, doesn't it?
Presidential Authority in wartime (Score:2, Flamebait)
This nation (The U.S.) has been gearing up for internal problems for many years.
Hundreds of Presidential Executive Orders have been issued to allow emergency powers under any type of crisis - perceived or real. A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry, bypassing Congress completely. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the simple stroke of a presidential pen:
PEO10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
PEO10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
PEO10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
PEO10998 allows the government to take control of all food sources and farms.
PEO11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
PEO11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
PEO11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
PEO11003 allows the government to seize control of all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
PEO11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
PEO11005 allows the government to take control of railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
PEO11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
PEO11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to enforce a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Bill of Rights in any real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from any wartime need, but from *any* crisis-- domestic or foreign, hostile or economic.
Scary, huh?
Also see the War Powers Act. (Score:2)
Also see The War Powers Act of 1973 [indiana.edu].
I think that most of the corruption comes from agencies of the U.S. government that are allowed to break the law, secretly. This article is about that: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Invalid form key: RY1U5tMMTq !
Inaccurate at best. Please research first. (Score:5, Informative)
10990 -> 11612 -> 11807 -> REVOKED BY 12196
10995 -> REVOKED BY 11556
10997 -> REVOKED BY 11490
10998 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11000 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11001 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11002 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11003 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11004 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11005 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11310 -> REVOKED BY 11490
The interesting bit is that 11490 was itself revoked by 12656. PEO 12656, "Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities" [nara.gov], is still on the books.
Of particular note is Sec. 102, which states in part:
As well it should... it's not within the Executive's powers to make law, only to regulate how its agencies carry out the execution of law defined by the Legislature.
Somebody explain something to me (Score:5, Interesting)
IAAA (I am an American), but I don't understand why we are at war--especially with Afghanistan. We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility. It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes. Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks. He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence. The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times; meanwhile, Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer). Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening? Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest. We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...), while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--as an air base for our troop transports, just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam (search on google.com for Bo Gritz if this doesn't ring a bell).
Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority. This wasn't in the EULA. I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
The USA government has declared "war" on all terrorists and anybody that provides safe havens for terrorists.
There is no publically available and conclusive evidence that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for Sept 11. This doesn't matter. He has claimed to be responsible for other terrorist attacks. For example, the attack on the USS Cole with 19 dead and many more injured. The USA government knows that the Taliban are providing a safe haven for him and the USA have now said "hand him over he is wanted for past crimes and for questioning on a new one". The Taliban have refused to hand him over. The USA has responded with force.
Now you might question the right of the USA to make these sorts of demands. I'm not an expert on international law, but Australia had some well publicised trouble trying to extradite a criminal named "Christopher Skase". Basically Australia had no rights in the matter and the foreign govt had every right to reject Australia's demands.
You might also question the hypocrisy of the USA government. They actively sponsored terrorism against the Soviets by training Osama Bin Laden and providing him with weapons. Is the USA govt any better than the Taliban?
You might also question whether we've been fed the entire truth. The popular media says that Osama is responsibile for the USS Cole bombings by providing funding to the suicide bombers. Is this true? I don't know.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
Clearly, you haven't been reading the papers: Tony Blair recently released some pretty damning evidence [state.gov], evidence that was strong enough to convince Pakistan's ruler that binLaden was guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." (In fact, after being brifed on this info by Sec'y Powell, he said that it should be made public. Blair released it the next day.
Bin Laden is guilty as hell, and there is NO doubt of that. Regardless, the US is under NO obligation whatsoever to subject clear any efforts to bring bin Laden to justice with the Taliban. We can and should go after him directly. WIth international cooperation, if possible, without it , if not. It's time for terrorism to go the way of piracy on the high seas, and there's no other way to do that than to destroy the terrorists continually over a period of decades, until they die out. Unfortunately, the innate violence and hatred of the Islamic faith may make this a long and difficult battle. (Don't be deceived by the current reporting: we have 1400 years of history to prove that Islam is anything but "a religion of peace".)
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
A history that began when another "religion of peace" said 'Hey, let's slaughter these godless bastards'.
Hardly a way to find out their true way of life, is it?
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
Still, it is absolutly true that either Christianity can be true, or Islam can be true, but not both. Of the two, only Christianity provides demonstrable truth and is logically and internally consistent. (Those that deny the Truth of Christianity are rejecting the most well-documented and attested events in all of ancient history.) Islam falls under its own weight, as it is terribly self-contradictory in numerous important ways.
We should not slaughter the Muslims, but we should convert them. Anything less will not solve the fundamental problem, as Islam is inherently incompatible with free civilization. Remember that only the Christian world has produced free, safe, and civilized societies...
Its a form of jiu jitsu . . . (Score:2)
Neither thesis is true. At the end of the day, a terrorist must be somewhere, and that somewhere is going to be subject to some national jurisdiction. The jiu jitsu is what our president did -- we are at war with the terrorists AND THOSE NATIONS THAT HARBOR OR FEED THEM. We then war, traditionally, with nations or authorities that harbor terrorism, and thereby deprive the terrorists of places from which to launch their evils.
We aren't at war with Afghanistan, by the way, but with the occupying authority -- the Taliban -- which is recognized by almost no nation on earth.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
With the exception of two tin-pot dictatorships, and the foreign power that created them to keep Afghanistan off their back (namely Pakistan) - nobody recognizes the Taliban.
True, the Taliban are probably extending Nanawatai to OBL (Nanawatai is the sacred Pashtun tradition that binds the Taliban to shelter and protect OBL - it has nothing at all to do with Sharia, Islamic Law - it's a tradition unique to the Pashtun). We're in a bind as far as evidence goes - we have shown evidence to most other nations of the world - who have agreed that bin Laden is guilty.
If we show evidence to the Taliban, it could compromise our information gathering methods, because they could shut them down. It doesn't take a genius to understand that we could have under cover agents' lives at stake. I'm sure that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would love to know the source of any information leaks.
So if these facts aren't good enough for the Taliban, then they're just going to have to eat bombs for breakfast - because Justice is coming whether they like it or not. It's too bad that the poor Afghan citizens are going to get caught in the middle, but hasn't that been the way of things for much of human history? They say that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is finding a benevolent dictator.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
Claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks is SO 80's. Like back when terrorist groups worked for a single state intelligence arms and had specific political goals. The idea here wasn't to use fear to modify political policy, the idea was to kill a bunch of Americans and make the survivors fearful of God's wrath in general.
"It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes."
I believe it was our Attourney General who pointed out that terrorists don't function in a vacuum. They needed money to function in the US (pay the rent, utilities, bills), to buy the plane tickets, to pay for the flight lessons, to get into the country to begin with. Somebody needed to supply the money, and somebody else needed to launder it. If ALL of those people were on those planes, there'd need to be a lot more than four planes.
"Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks."
He does? Find me a source that has him quoted as taking responsibility for the USS Cole, the East Africa embassy bombings, or any of the other terrorist attacks (successful or failed) that have his name all over it through the shear coordination of the attacks. I'll bet you can't, because he doesn't care whether we know it or not.
" He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence."
1.) "Conclusive" is such a broad term. What is conclusive for us (and just about any rational person) may still be considered "inconclusive" to them. They can hire themselves Johnny Cocharin.
2.) They did NOT say they would turn him over to us. The furthest they've gone is saying they'd turn him over to a "third party." To me that sounds like Iraq.
3.) We've had all sorts of evidence in his previous attacks (Cole, Africa), but in both of those cases they saw fit to continue providing him shelter. It would appear that the ONLY reason they've said as much as they've said now is because we're actively dropping bombs on their heads. Even this time around they started with "We won't do anything," moved on to "We'll try him in one of our courts," and only now arrived at "We'll send him to a third party."
And finally, note that the people saying this are the same people who have been saying for years that they have taken away his ability to perform any terrorist attacks. That's what they said before the East Africa bombings, that's what they said before the Cole bombing, and that's what they've been saying before, during, and after September 11. With a line like that, why should be believe anything they say?
"The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times;"
Find me the earliest time they offered to negotiate, and I will find you a threat (or actual application) of force coming from the United States that predates it.
... and "negotiation" is infinitely more than they offered for Osama's previous attacks and our wishy-washy responses.
"Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer)."
What, did you misinterpret his "We will not discuss or negotiate" statement? (Which is quite similar to what the the Taliban has said about bin Laden in the years prior to September 11...)
"Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening?"
No, it means that making the evidence public knowledge at this time would compromise the sources of that information. Which is worse, having folks like you run around with conspiracy theories, or having informants slowly disemboweled over the course of several days? It's nice to know that you put your own peace-of-mind over the well-being of people risking their lives to provide information.
So far, everybody that Bush has seen fit to divulge information to has reiterated that the evidence is conclusive and more than enough to indict on. And if the French are able and willing to go that far to say that, it must be good.
"Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest."
No, their leaders are acting bound by their own interpretation of holy law to protect someone they probably shouldn't have accepted as a guest to begin with. And the fact that he's so welcomed as a guest casts doubt on the "innocence" of the Taliban.
"We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...),"
Poppies are rugged (how do you think they were able to grow in Afghanistan to begin with?), and can grow quite well when most of what is left of the still-airable land is devoted to them (which it is).
"while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--"
So, who's number one? Did you just shoot down your own statement? And you don't mention whether the Uzbek government is actively trying to stop that production. Just because Colombia is a big producer of cocaine, for instance, doesn't mean Bogota is all that happy about it. The Taliban, on the other hand...
"as an air base for our troop transports,"
Things like this happen when you need to attack a land-locked country and the only weapon systems we can deploy without using anybody else's airspace are nukes. Besides, the Uzbeks have only agreed to host humanitarian and rescue missions on their soil.
"just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam"
No, we're using Uzbek air bases, we're not bombing them for giving aid and shelter to the Taliban. And there isn't any Pol Pot equivalent in Uzbekistan (thank God).
"Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority."
Deciding to blame either the politicians or their constituants is a chicken-and-egg problem. The way you so easily choose to blame one over the other disturbs me.
"I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany."
I wouldn't say Germany has better civil liberties. Wrong as it may be, Americans at least have the legal right to make derrogitory statements about Muslims and Arabs.
Anyway, why are you "asking" for an explaination when you seem to have your mind made up already?
Two nitpicks... (Score:2)
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
Three words for you: Claus von Stauffenberg
Anybody who claims ethics are black-and-white is either foolish or has something to hide.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
So typical--you can't dispute the facts, so you suggest I "stick your head back in the sand ... leave the rest of us alone". I believe that your head has been in the sand or the equivalent (TV). It's amazing that nearly every war hawk resorts to ad hominem attacks these days.
I'm not trolling, I just want my god-damn free country back.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
To speak of me, I have served 4 years in the german army (ground troops), left as a second lieutenant from an engineering/pioneering bataillon and was assigned to the communication platoon there. Been on two international "peace-keeping missions". And I am just two inches away from being redrafted (suppose that is not the correct term, but what the heck) because of the middle eastern conflicts.
...and to relate to the quoted part - toppling a government (as in "keeping this one free") is usually a result of opposing the current legislators instead of marching along in the military.
I currently think, that the world would be better off if all military and diplomatic actions were primarily done by the NATO with the US in the back of the truck, instead of the other way around. Maybe the military allies (which currently consist of the US and UK troops and international promises) will force "peace" upon the area - but they will leave enough hate back there for another 100 years of war and bloodshed (and, of course, terror).
Leaving all the decisions to the NATO would probably slow down the attacks, but might result in wiser decisions. Picture this, people, this is the rare case in which a hurt person (the USA) have the possibility of direct revenge and punishment against those they consider responsible.
Imagine someone walks up to and smacks your face. Will there be ever any law or court that will allow to retaliate directly be punching back? No? Then why not? Maybe the hurt person might overreact, therefore creating more pain instead of getting his "just retaliation". There always has to be a mediating party in the middle taking the heat out of the two agressors.
Well, my english sucks, and it's getting late over here. I hope you have understood what I'm trying to get around.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2)
The relevance to a discussion about the USA being...?
Oh, wait, I forgot: This is a war of good against evil. bin Laden is clearly evil, but if you think that immediately qualifies the USA as the good guys, then you've been watching too many 1930's cowboy flicks. This is evil against evil.
Incidentally, the Welsh National Party (Welsh pride, not anti-Welsh hatred) Plaid Cymru has unequivocably denounced the UK participation in military action in Afghanistan. Don't judge all of Europe based on Mr Tony Blair's sycophantic fawning and posturing.
learn a bit more about the world (Score:2)
Germany today has a constitution, legal system, and political system that was carefully crafted to protect the human rights and freedoms of the individual and to protect the people from government tyranny. This is thanks in part to the US. Unfortunately, domestically, the US system of government falls far short of that. That's perhaps not surprising, given that the US Constitution was crafted hundreds of years ago, without benefit of knowledge of 20th century technology and totalitarianism. And failure of the US system of government to protect individual rights and free speech isn't theoretical, the US system has had spectacular failures in McCarthyism, slavery, racism, antisemitism, and dealings with American Indians, to name just a few.
You're not going to find many places in Europe that are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden either.
Advising restraint, asking for publication of envidence, and exploring negotiation is not the same as sympathy for terrorism. Europeans strongly condemn the attacks on the WTC, but that doesn't mean that they generally believe the current course of action by the US is right or effective.
In fact, it is the US again that is today making deals with terrorists and repressive regimes (Pakistan, China, etc.) in order to satisfy domestic political pressures--to give the masses the revenge they are asking for. As long as US foreign policy consists of one opportunistic deal with terrorists and dictators after another, often motivated by simple economic interests, the US will continue to face huge foreign policy problems. If the US actually started promoting self-determination and democracy across the world, the problem of terrorism would disappear by itself.
In different words, the one who's sticking his head in the sand is you. Get your head out of the sand, open your eyes, go travel around the world, and learn about its people and their problems, as well as both the good and the bad aspects of American life.
Re:not a war (Score:2)
Do we really need a declaration of war from the congress to make it a war? We are bombing, we have landed troups, we are fighting on the ground? How is this not a war other than the perfunctory "declaration."
Re:not a war (Score:2)
Yes, we do need a declaration of war from Congress to make it a war. All sorts of really great stuff kicks in if you're actually at war, including treaties and other international law, an expectation by the people of sunset clauses on emergency laws, and so forth.
I agree with your sentiments respecting Vietnam... it should have been called the war that it was. But it's a lot easier to get people to support an "intervention" in defense of a democracy beset by Commie usurpers than it is to get them to support an all-out war against a nationalist movement that was attempting to supplant (through political means) an unpopular puppet government established by France and the United States.
This time around, it's different... we're waging war without declaring war not so that we can claim a moral high ground, but in order to avoid some of the consequences of waging war. Hell, we're even calling it 'war' when we speak about it. Just not in the legal sense, y'understand.
Re:not a war (Score:2)
Which is why there hasn't been a declaration of war in 50 years.
Re:Somebody explain something to me (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not so sure if people would change their views. It may be true that bin Laden's actions are actually contrary to the teachings of the Koran, but it's also true that most religions as practiced do not strictly follow their own holy books. (Or, linking back to the main topic, the U.S. Government is not always in strict adherence to the Constitution.) It seems pretty clear that many Moslems- including many of their religious teachers, particularly the ones in Afgahnistan- believe that the attacks are in perfect accord with Islam. As long as those people have learned their Islam that way, they probably won't change their views about the justice of the attacks.
So we get where we're going, just a bit faster. (Score:2)
Go figure.
protecting the constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, now is when it's most important to have groups like the ACLU. Like most liberal groups, they're being attacked as unpatriotic, but considering we have cases like Korematsu on the books and not overturned, having groups that will watch out for violations of our rights and raise public awareness is important.
And it's not like it's only leftist groups fighting for these thigns, either. The article in the post didn't mention things like the Alien or Sedition Acts, but some of the languge in the bill Ashcroft is trying to ram through congress. There was a coalition of groups from the ACLU and gay rights organizatons to the NRA and anti-aborition activists all united in opposition, saying that we can find ways to protect the security of citizens *without* depriving them of rights.
Re:protecting the constitution (Score:2)
Hayeck & the Libertarians (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a very sensible view, IMO, but the compensation part is tricky. Especially because once peace is restored, tempers & public sentiment are still running hot and the public (read: voters and hence representatives) may not be in a compassionate mood.
-spRed
Re:Hayeck & the Libertarians (Score:4, Interesting)
Ayn Rand (an Objectivist, rather than a libertartian, but often the source of many individual's interest in libertarian philosophy) also wrote on this subject. The idea is that principles do not apply in emergency situations, because the situation can't be forseen (If it could, it would not be an emergency).
The classic example is standing on the shore and seeing someone in the middle of a lake fall out of a boat and start to drown. You want to help them (even though you have no obligation to do so), but have no boat. There is a boat tied up to the dock, but it isn't yours. Do you take it without permission for the time it takes to save the poor victim?
Rand wrote that doing so was permissible and not a violation of Objectivist principles for several reasons. Under the circumstances, any rational person would want to be saved, even at great cost to themselves (i.e. a rescue bill). So the person drowning is unlikely to protest. This probably goes for the owner of the boat as well, though with a much weaker argument: he might argue that he should not be inconvenienced because of someone else's misfortune and wouldn't change his mind if he were drowning, because he avoids such risks.
So we have a situation where someone is harmed (loses use of his boat for a while, perhaps JUST when he needs it the most), and someome can be reasonably expected to be willing to pay for their rescue. Also, the would-be rescuer would likely be willing to compensate for the use of the boat (and risk not getting reimbursed by the victim) -- this is but one of the risks he takes on.
The only problem here is the lack of a contract with the owner of the boat!
In tort situations (harms caused outside of a contract, for example, a child breaking a neighbor's window with a ball), the guiding principle has been restitution. Here, an emergency results in the willful (as opposed to negligent) commitment of a tort. But clearly the motive is not malice (i.e. the rescuer does not WANT to deprive the boat owner of use of his boat).
So, the rational solution is to let the would-be rescuer chose between letting the victim drown, or compensate the boat owner for the tort he is about to commit on his property. Presumably the cost of this restitution can be estimated -- surely the boat owner can't argue a great opportunity loss if the boat is not kept secure: anyone could easily steal it and thus the owner couldn't argue for the value of it's constant availability. If the recuer takes the boat, and can't agree with the boat owner as to what reasonable compensation should be, the matter is settled by the courts.
The important ideas here are (a) the freedom (but NOT obligation) to chose to commit an otherwise tort in a time of crisis, (b) restitution after the fact. A more subtle idea is that opportunity costs can't be effectively compensated due to torts commited in emergencies.
Of course, IAAL (I Am A Libertarian), but IANAL (I am not a lawyer). NO PART OF THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
Re:Hayeck & the Libertarians (Score:2)
It could be said the cost of paying the boat owner for his loss would be of a lower risk than not attempting a rescue of the person.
Re:Hayeck & the Libertarians (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the post-war solution (Score:2)
Instead of openly allowing anyone to run, the Democrats and Republicans in many states have made it near impossible to get on a ballot if you're an independent. The Libertarians have been fighting this in each and every state, slowly winning the right to be called what they are on the ballot.
Secondly, the idiots in Congress has fooled almost every United Stater in believing that the problem with elections is that campaign donations are skewing the results. This is the farthest from the truth. I say let big business give as much as they want, hell, let the enemy countries give as much as they want. The problem is that we allow our Congress powers beyond what is allotted in the Constitution, and THAT is why people give them so much money.
Campaign finance reform has screwed the third party because most of the money a third party uses to promote itself comes from relatively few large donators rather than many small donators.
But how many of you think campaign finance reform will work to curb donations? It won't, because all campaign finance laws have loopholes that allow the incumbents or the two parties to raise money from PACs and big business in other ways.
THe only way to make voting work, and to reduce corruption and bribery, is to reduce the power of Congress to the itty-bitty strength allotted in the Constitution.
MBR
Re:the post-war solution (Score:2)
I don't think I'm at all unreasonable in thinking that you Libertarian guys would like to get in there, abandon anything resembling campaign finance reform- and try and get MORE power, not less, because you have things you want to accomplish. Unfortunately, I don't think you are at all likely to get in there and reduce your own power.
Law is Force (Score:4, Insightful)
Lincoln's justification of his abrogation of rights during the civil war is just another manifestation of the tired ends-justify-the-means-argument. Unfortunately, not everyone would agree with his ends, and certainly not many would agree with the means. In breaking law to save the union, he ultimately set precedent to fundamentally change that which he sought to save.
Law, even in its happy-faced, kinder, gentler democratically accountable form, is force. If it were unnecessary to compel one to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way, there would be no need for law. Similarly, if it were unnecessary to compel Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia or Vietnam or Germany, or any of the countries against which we have waged war to act a certain way, there would be no need for war.
The use of force on the domestic public in the form of law during wartime is ultimately no different than the use of force during peacetime. It is simply stripped of all its warm, fuzzy clothing that make it palatable come election time. Try it for yourself. Go up to the treasury and ask for your share of the War on Drugs budget back and see what happends.
>End Anarchist Rant
Re:Law is Force (Score:2)
If the ends can never justify the means, what can?
Re:Law is Force (Score:2, Insightful)
If killing Bush would make our society freer, would I be justified in killing bush? The "means" like any other action must be weighed as ethical choices, being good or bad objectively and independently. Or rather, if there were larger circumstances to mitigate the "wrongness" of an action, say a soldier killing an enemy during wartime, you must begin first that the action is evil, then use the larger factors (there's a war going on) to justify the action. The burden of proof is on proving it is right, not the other way around.
But what about before... (Score:4, Insightful)
"If our liberties are to be protected, it is up to us to protect them."
But what happens when the media is a toy that does not discuss these issues and that is the people's only source for information? Many of my friends have no idea about what is going on with DMCA and the major news organizations refuse to give any coverage from the people's POV. It will be a grim future where we have an uninformed populace who does not even know which issues to oppose.
"Every man is a God in disguise; a divinity playing the fool."
-R.W. Emerson
Why Liberty Suffers in a Time of War (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, at that time, almost everyone was shell shocked, and it was not on the radar yet
In this situation, war has not been formally declared. Usually, in a war, such laws are "for the duration". Since we are not "formally" at war, there is no such limitation.
Freedoms lost may likely be a permanent loss, unless people strive to make sure otherwise.
What about *after* the war? (Score:4, Insightful)
T: After this conflict, will we see that Bin Laden speech in full? Will we hear about all the other things that are being kept (rightly) silent now? Or will they be stamped "Top Secret - 25 years", and only released when many of us are collecting our pensions and don't give a damn?
We just have to make sure that the current conflict just keeps on with its original aims - combat terrorists, terrorism and supporters of terrorism, and doesn't morph early next year into a different beast (cheaper oil would be nice, wouldn't it?). There needs to be public accountability for the actions of the military within all conflicts, to ensure that they operate within the bounds of their mission, and that they should not become a pawn in some political game.
Which I don't think will happen this time, but though like pointing out.
CmdrTaco explain this one: Invalid form key: On9kApk2Hq ! and Invalid form key: GSQ8puWVyf !
Hattig :)
-- The price of Linux is support: Book Prices to Kill [everythinglinux.com.au]...
Principles are More Important than Law! (Score:2, Interesting)
Generally, we've found that following the procedures outlined in the Constitution is the most effective way to do this. However, our history shows that sometimes, disobeying the law is the right way. The case for the government itself doing this can be found in the words of several presidents, Lincoln and FDR being the most prominent examples. The case for individuals is effectively laid out by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," and in the works of Martin Luther King Jr.
Re:Principles are More Important than Law! (Score:2)
I thought the same about Lincoln and FDR during my many years in brainwashing at the hands of public education.
Numerous books out there show that the problems that Lincoln and FDR tried to fix were directly caused by government intervention and mistakes 10-20 years beforehand.
Even worse, what we thought the wars they fought were about was actually untrue. They just used those reasons to get the public to rally behind them.
The damage those two traitors of the Constitution created back then has manifested itself in an aweful place to live in today.
Re:Principles are More Important than Law! (Score:2)
Assuming, from text, you meant "awful" (as in horrible) and not "aweful" (as in full of awe and wonder), I still find it sort of ironic of calling Lincoln a traitor to the Constitution when, in fact, he nigh-singlehandedly created the philosophical backdrop against which most of these debates take place.
I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Civil liberties and war time. (Score:3, Informative)
The Bill of Rights [thirdworldtraveler.com]. The Bill of Rights and how they are being routinely ignored by the government.
Free Speech: Second thoughts on the First Amendment [thirdworldtraveler.com]. Another very interesting read.
I have been lucky enough in the past few weeks to attend a couple of Howard Zinn's talks in Boston.
Miguel.
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
Funny how the author of the ThirdWorldTravler article "the Bill of Rights" has the opinion that "they are only Amendments." And seems to also think that people have a right, an entitlement, to the product of other people's labor. Freedom is Slavery! Slavery is Freedom!
Whatever.
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
I don't necessarily agree with him on everything, but it is interesting reading.
Re:Civil liberties and war time. (Score:2)
Restrict federal government power to foreign defense, and you'll see far fewer violations of our civil liberties.
As Levinson's article points out, the greatest threat to civil liberties is during wartime.
During peacetime, the Supreme Court part of the government has been a stalwart defender of civil liberties and the Executive branch has played its role in implementing court decisions. State governments violate civil liberties far more often than the Federal government and the Supreme Court is the natural refuge of victims under the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Constitution provides judicial review as a perfectly good way to reduce government intervention without abolishing the other roles for government invisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Most government legislation exists to solve specific problems. Abolishing government isn't going to make those problems go away or any easier to solve.
Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:4, Troll)
In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY [deoxy.org] by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media, and many United Staters today fully support the actions we used against the "enemy." Saddam is not crazy, not stupid, and was probably not wrong in his reacquisition of Kuwait. He even asked us if he could do it, and we didn't say no.
In Afghanistan, oil interests of our President and his cronies are the only thing at stake. The proof against bin Laden is thin at best, and the translations of bin Laden's video that everyone thinks he is accepting blame are off at best. But the 500 years of oil (at current consumption rates) that UNOCAL [lewrockwell.com] and the elite's friends want access to is currently controlled by the Taliban. Again, ignored by the government controlled media.
Freedom of Speech is gone when it is regulated. With the FCC punishing anti-government sentiment from its beginning, its obvious there is no freedom of speech in the TV and radio media. Since the newspapers are now controlled by those same media mavens, they too should be ignored.
The Libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and free trade is more important than ever to focus on. Even lifetime Libertarians though are towing the government line and wanting revenge, even though the proof against Afghanistan and bin Laden is shamefully non-existant.
And the biggest kick is that we are not even at war. We can't be. If we are, it is illegal, as the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to declare it.
Want to stop terrorist militant attacks on our nation? Limit the powers of Congress as set forth in the Constitution. Create a new foreign policy of non-intervention by our government, remove all sanctions and embargos, tariffs and subsidies. Let good people trade with whoever they want, and stop subsidizing big business in every way.
I think many slashdotters would understand that 99% of the problems we complain about here is not Big Business' fault at all, but governments and the people's. We LET Congress give Big Business subsidies, so why are you complaining that M$ has a monopoly? If Congress couldn't subsidize, M$ wouldn't donate to their campaigns, and we wouldn't have such a monopoly-like fiasco. On the same hand, when we give Congress the power to subsidize business, we give the U.S. "interests" in other countries. This is the cause of almost all our problems, including terrorism!
Limit big government, and you will limit so many problems that we face in the world and locally each and every day. Give the government more power, and you only make it worse.
If you don't believe me, why not drop me an e-mail and lets debate it one on one. I, too, was a non-believer, until I spent just a few months researching the realities of "Big Government."
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL! This is a bunch of people who got together and wrote a report! While politically laudable that they exercise their rights to free speech, it is hardly a "verdict" in any but the most delusional sense.
I hereby call myself the International Brain Crimes Tribunal and find you GUILTY of being extremely gullible (or else of trying to purposely decieve people by presenting this collection of folks as a real court). Please son, step away from the Ayn Rand books, nice and slow.
The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media
LOL!!! What planet are you from, that none of your newspapers or TV shows said anything about oil interests? Geez, this has got to be the single worst-kept secret in the history of conspiracies! We might have gotten involved in Iraq because of oil? My god, where did you dig up this revolutionary idea!? Why has no one in the country heard mention of it before?!
This was clearly a suppressed notion until the forces of the International War Truth Tribunal met in Todd's basement the other week after band practice! Their verdict of "Let's order pizza" was heard loud and clear, my friend -- and it was delivered in 30 minute or less!
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
Gosh, i'd hate to consider the possibility that international politics is more complicated than a simple slogan!
The notion that we should defend a soveriegn nation, while ALSO protecting our economic interests sounds like twice the reason to go to war. There's nothing cynical or hypocritical about having more than one reason to get involved. We can't be everywhere, and stop every "bad" thing from happening, so we step in first wherever we can see our own interests at stake.
Does the fact of us having an economic and political interest in the outcome therefore preclude the possibility that defending Kuwait was a good thing to do? Are they mutually exclusive?
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
I didn't think it was a big secret that we were fighting for both. We were also fighting for stability in the region, defense of Saudi Arabia (because they are allies, as well as economically important), and defense of Israel. We had a lot of reasons that individually might not have been worth fighting for, but put together equalled a huge amount of political and economic reasons to get involved.
The UK got involved in WW1 in large part because they were worried about shipping and trade with the continent. Does that mean that they should have let the Germans take over France? I mean, honestly the UK didn't care much about the lives of the average Frenchman, but they were very worried about the notion of Germany taking over all the critical ports in Northern Europe. Does that make their involvement hypocritical because they said they were defending the French? Is it not possible for multiple motivations to coincide?
we should have been bombing the Iraqi columns as they rolled across the border that first day
With what? I mean this seriously, because you don't seem to know what it takes to fight a military invasion. We had very little military infrastructure in the middle east when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Kuwaiti army had more forces than the US did in the region, and they couldn't hold off Iraq -- and they were positioned in the right place to be defending!
Even if we had every fighter and bomber from two aircraft carriers attacking the Iraqi forces on the first day, it would not have been enough to stop several hundred tanks, artillery, personnel carriers, etc. And somebody has to attack the air defenses, as well, or we're going to get all of our planes shot down.
So somehow we'll have to make 60 planes drop a couple hundred missiles and bombs in the span of a few hours. Logistically, that just doesn't work out unless they fly at the speed of light and can be re-armed within seconds (and of course none are shot down). And nobody gets a chance to stop and look at a map to figure out what's going on, because by the time the satellite data is done being interpreted, the Iraqi army would already be done.
It's no secret that it took a LOOOONG time to get permission to build up land forces, and even after that long buildup we had major logistical holes when the fighting started.
This isn't a video game or movie where where if you just click fast enough you can beat the other side. You need a certain amount of support, infrastructure, and equipment to mount an attack (or defense) on the third largest army in the world. It takes time to analyze intelligence, and place equipment where it needs to be.
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
Ten years ago Bush the elder waved the flag and talked about battling agression and defending the population of Kuwait. I just wish he'd skipped all that BS and said straight out that letting Saddam grab all the petroleum sources in that part of the world was unacceptably dangerous for the rest of the world in general and the U.S. in particular. It would have been true and more than sufficient reason for going to war in and of itself. We already knew about that supercannon he was trying to get Gerald Bull to build for him and that he wasn't someone we should allow to grab any more power or resources than he already had.
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
Yes, we were ready to defend against the Soviet Union -- from Western Europe. We had shitloads of equipment in Germany just waiting for russian tanks to show up in the distance. But driving a tank from germany to iraq would piss off a few countries in the middle.
Much of that german-based equipment DID wind up in saudi arabia, but it takes time to load up tanks, crew, equipment, supplies, etc. And of course we had to call up reserves to take their place in germany. We only have so many troop carriers, C130s and transport ships.
It could have happened faster if it was WW3 and 100% of our national energy was going into the effort, but it wasn't -- so we took our time and tried to do it right, rather than just quickly. Nothing we could have done would have had sizable ground forces there winthin the first few days after the attack. After a few weeks, we had enough that we felt confident we could defend. After a few months, we felt confident we could attack.
skipped all that BS and said straight out
Again, for the tenth time, just because it wasn't the EXCLUSIVE reason, doesn't make it BS. There were many reasons, and none of them were very secret. All of them were valid, all of them were discussed. trying to eg it as exclusively a fight for oil is as incorrect as pegging it as exclusively a fight for Kuwaiti independence.
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2, Insightful)
elite or élite (-lt, -lt) n. pl. elite or elites A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: "In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them" (Times Literary Supplement).
It seems to me that it's pretty clear that by definintion, the political elites are the ones who make command decisions in the economy and in politics. I can't imagine many other ways that it would work really. Even if we had a pure democracy where we voted on every issue, then we would all be elite by definition.
That's an interesting site, but after looking at it a few minutes it seemed to be pretty clear that this website is biased against the American government. A quick look at the judges who convicted George H.W. Bush and others seemed to convince me that it was hardly an impartial decision. International law is a tricky thing at best, and I doubt the credibility of a body of judges who are activists in the case they are considering.
I think you are saying that because the FCC regulates the media that the media is not free to publish what they want. In the article, the doctrine of no prior restraint clearly delineates where the Supreme Court stands on this issue. Media and newspapers can publish what they want, but they can also be held liable for what they publish.
While I don't disagree that there might be many people who have changed their views after the destruction in New York and in Washington, I take exception to your assertion about the lack of evidence against bin Laden. It is clear that the US government has such evidence. It is also clear it wants to keep it secret in order to protect the sources and methods of the intelligence community. President Bush, members of other NATO countries, and many others who have seen the evidence have said that it is convincing. The question of the release of such information is a difficult one, but I am sure that there are people inside the government to find good unclassified evidence to present to the American people.
I agree that non-intervention is a good policy in some instances, but I would also argue that engagement can lead to positive results as well. The thing is, people around the world like America. They want American companies in thier contries, and they like American dollars to flow into their pockets. Disengagement with the world would most likely breed alot more anger against America than it would solve.
On the issue of free trade, I think that we should raise our tariffs against those who are trying to beseige American industry. A good case in point is the steel industry in America. Foreign steel manufacturers are flooding the American market with cheap steel. Most of it is poorly made by underpaid workers in unsafe conditions. Right now the steel industry in America is in big trouble because it is not making a profit on making steel in America. At some point, we are going to have to make the choice between putting a higher tariff on foreign steel and protecting our industries or allowing our steel industries to go broke. One could make the argument that the lack of a native steel industry is a blow to national security. If our nation were to enter a prolonged conventional war or face some sort of massive diaster, it would be hard to come up with a large quantity of steel quickly. Remember, the Founding Fathers wanted the US Government to be funded purely through tariffs of foreign goods. I think a far greater threat to the average American is the income tax, which both invades privacy and takes grossly unproportional amounts of money from different social classes.
Another one of the sad realities of foriegn affairs is the fact that if we don't stick up for the interests of American business, then another country will step in and take the opportunity. Oil is an important part of our economy, and although this might distress some people, it isn't for our own benefit either. Europe needs oil far more badly than America does, because America has a fairly large supply of domestic production. One of the main reasons we fought Desert Storm was because our European allies need oil just as badly as we do. It's a sad fact that the people in the Middle East happen to sit on such a large natural resource, yet have little political will to exploit it for their own uses. They gladly watch as different Western countries court them with different offers to attain their oil. Yet they are unwilling to invest their vast oil fortunes in native industry that could compete with the West instead of simply supply it. This is an obvious route to development.
I agree that big government is a bad thing in many ways, but on the other had, the political reality is that everyone has a stake in what the government does. Over half of the Federal budget is entitlement programs such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Congress has determined that the Government is willing to pay the medical and personal expenses of retired Americans. Are there other avenues for this money that make more sense? Yes. Are old people going to vote for them? No. Fear mongering and scare tactics do more to influence too many voters decisions than a hard look at political reality.
The military is often lambasted for spending too much money, but its whole income is less than 20% of the federal budget. The intelligence community as well has come under fire for failing to detect the terrorist threat, but a careful analysis reveals that the intelligence community has been repeatedly been cut in size, and yet tasked with doing a great deal more than they had to deal with in the Cold War years. At the same time, President Clintion issued an Executive Order in 1995 that disallowed the CIA from recruiting informants who were involved in human rights abuses or illeagal activies. So, we not only cut our intelligence services, but we also blinded them as well. One of the unsavory parts of our political reality is that we must use whatever tactics we can to eliminate threats against our national security. We witnessed on September 11th what happens when we let our gaurd down.
I just hope it doesn't happen again before we are more prepared.
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
w9ofa:
The United States of America is by no means a democracy: a democracy is indeed a scary idea. The founding documents set forth the idea that the MINORITY has a right to live the way they want to live as long as they harm no one else or their property. A democracy is controlled by the majority, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights directly affect making sure that the MINORITY can live the life the way they want to. In recent times, this has changed, and we have indeed become a democracy, meaning many people in the minority (not the racial minority necessarily) are secluded from being "normal" because of their opinions, or actions, or even religions. That's not what this country was founded on -- creating laws because they work for the majority??? Not a chance.
You, as most others on this site and others I post to, are confused by what I mean by non-intervention. I DO NOT MEAN ISOLATIONISM. Non-intervention by our Government includes TOTALLY free trade, no sanctions and no subsidies. Let U.S. people and corporations trade freely with others, even let citizens here invest in other countries if they want, freely. End embargoes and sanctions. THIS is foreign policy. Our CIA and other agencies uprooting other governments, screwing over their people repeatedly (too long to list), and helping virtually no one but OTHER countries' elites doesn't help.
Our government shall not interevene, period. It was made to principally make sure that every UNITED STATES citizen is protected from infringment of their GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE rights. Now, its changed. It tried to "flatten" the curve, tries to gives people a better life. BUT THE ONLY WAY to a better life is to work hard for it. Even those kids who get multi-million dollar trust funds need to work hard to keep them, look how many end up in blue collars by the third generation!
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're either blind or trolling. There were entire MOVIES made about the USA's primary interest in the Gulf War being one of oil (eg, Three Kings). If even moronic Hollywood script writers can figure it out then it's hardly a big secret.
benefits (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is my homework :
The Caspian oil basin is a very important one.
Cheney , as CEO of Halliburton in 1998:"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian". Estimates have only been rising since.
but actually the whole of central asia is involved. I read that Wolfowitz is very much in favor of grabbing all of it and stripping Russia bare.
A big problem with the caspian and central asian resources is getting them out through a safe way. There are in several possible corridors.
- Iran is shortest, but boycotted in every possible way.
- The corridor to Turkey is difficult to secure.
- China is more than 2000 miles.
- The corridor to kosovo is an interesting issue, because the US has been very active in the Balkan conflicts, using NATO as a front, and secured the pipeline(see fort Bondsteel) and the public did not even notice what was going on. Macedonia is needed too in the plan, and underway. The US strategy in the Balkan deserves a lot of attention.
For one thing, the unrestrained free traffic of Afghan heroin through Kosovo increases financing of opposition in Russian border states like Chechnya.
- The Afghanistan-Pakistan corridor is best known for the Unocal line in construction, which has been interrupted in Afghanistan since i think 1998(that was the year they asked government for help).
But Afghanistan is also a starting point for moving north. Russian sources are afraid(well, to be honest , i only found one) that the US will try to drive a mass of refugees north, use it to destabilise the region and create an alibi to intervene with NATO. British and US diplomacy already requested Pakistan to keep the borders closed(I think, can't remember the source right now). I guess they did not need much pressing.
For this you need weak humanitarian aid inside Afghanistan.
The only mobile troops of Russia are being pinned down in Chechnya, and Bin Laden does not seem to have control there. Hoe much reason will US need to move north?
As is well known, not everyone thinks international approval is necessary.
If you feel like a very long google session, each time take 2 or 3 words at random from:
Halliburton, Brown and Root, AMBO
That bang you just heard is from a surveillance server that just blew up
The web, real educational at times. And addictive too
Re:Who is really at fault in this "War"... (Score:2)
It's also disingenuous to say that the oil you refer to is controlled by the Taliban. The simple fact is that most of that land is unsurveyed. The oil that would be at question here is from the former Soviet Republics near Afghanistan, and the suggested oil interest is a pipeline through Afghanistan.
The deoxy.org link is ridiculous. The reason that the US was found guilty is that this "International War Crimes Tribunal", which is not to be confused with ICTY in the Hague, was a kangaroo assembly set up for the propagation of the ideas of the deranged Ramsey Clarke. If you follow the link, the Testimony and Evidence section is exclusively prosecution. There is no defense allowed. Michael Ratner, one of the signatories of the "findings", litigated two cases opposing the Gulf War. This was clearly not an impartial inquiry, and was not sanctioned by any meaningful international agency.
I don't like big government either, but if you think that non-intervention and free trade are compatible ideas in this world, you're dreaming.
Oh, and it's "toeing the line", not "towing the line". HTH
Black Tuesday & the Passive American (Long Ess (Score:2, Interesting)
"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."
The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)
ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.
The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post [washingtonpost.com] then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here [afcomm.com] Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"
He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.
WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES
Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."
Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.
What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.
Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.
New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.
There are at least two reasons for this:
THE FIRST is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)
THE SECOND is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.
THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN
It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.
We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.
Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..
And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.
Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.
But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.
THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE
We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.
We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.
If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.
To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.
This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.
We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.
If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.
If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.
If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.
But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.
FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Liberty Crew [jpfo.org] Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR
Re:Black Tuesday & the Passive American (Long (Score:2)
Before one can uphold the Bill of Rights, one must understand them.
The Bill of Rights is a misnomer for the articles it contains: it is better called the "Bill of Prohibitions."
The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The freedoms it is focused on are granted to all humans of all nations from birth, "God-given" rights if you will. The Bill of Rights was written to restrict government from infringing on these inherent rights.
Once you read it and see that the government is prohibited from infringing in any way these rights, you will understand how screwed we are as a country.
/usr/games/fortune quote of the day (Score:2)
be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be
propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war
and they are screened at once from scrutiny.
assert the freedom of speech and of the press. Cling to this as the bulwark
of all our rights and privileges.
-- William Ellery Channing
inter arma silent leges (Score:2)
Now where were we?
Too Obvious To Pass Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps a the most significant reason to support the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, someone better armed than you will take away your rights.
Re:Too Obvious To Pass Up (Score:2)
I see the reasoning but have never understood the logic. A bunch of shotguns is no match for the US government in any event... or have you been stockpiling nukes and not telling anyone? I fail to see how any collection of ordinary citizens is going to be "better armed" than the United States Army.
Re:Too Obvious To Pass Up (Score:2)
... Apparently, someone forgot to tell the Viet Cong that they didn't stand a chance, because the US Army had much better weapons and they could just steamroll over the VC effortlessly.
Let's look at history here, shall we?
- Great Britain versus the Zulus at Isandhlwana. Score: Zulus 1, GB 0
- The Soviet Union versus the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Score: Mujahedeen 1, Soviet Union 0.
- Colombia versus FARC in the Andes. Score: FARC 1, Colombia 1, at Halftime.
- The French Foreign Legion versus Ho Chi Minh at Dienbienphu. Score: Uncle Ho 1, Legion Etranger 0
- (Doubleheader) The US Army versus Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, immediately after FFL/Ho Chi Minh. Score: Uncle Ho 1, Uncle Sam 0
... do I really need to go on about how historically shortsighted your post is?Re:Too Obvious To Pass Up (Score:2)
It was not rifle fire that brought down the Soviets. It was the ability of the Stingers to deprive them of air transport
The other examples mentioned were colonial adventures or foreign wars, and shows nothing about the ability of an armed US population to "deter" US government policies at home. It's quite clear the Viet Cong didn't beat "the US Army". They beat the fraction of the Army that was deployed to fight them, most of the military being constrained politically and physically by the rest of the world situation. In the fevered apocalyptic world in which the evil US Army is resisted by a band of freedom-loving ordinary citzens, we're no longer talking about a politically constrained Army. The assumption always seems to be that the US government "has gone too far" and is willing to contemplate massive force against its own citizens to enforce some policy. In such a world, the kid gloves would be off and you wouldn't be facing a leased dog. The ordinary citizens would be facing the full might of the Army.
Ask the militiamen from a few years back how successful their plan of armed resistance was. How about that guy who declared a Free State and insisted on his right to print money, etc.? Having the guns doesn't really seem to get things done after all.
I would be willing to bet that, when passing a tax package, not a single Representative says, "Oh, wait. What if my constituents take to the hills as partisans?" In an established democracy such as the US -- especially a nuclear one -- the best "deterrent" is the ballot, not the bullet. People make decisions on electability, not survivability. And thank God for that.
Re:Too Obvious To Pass Up (Score:2)
No, most of those examples are insurgent forces fighting as insurgents. What the Soviets feared weren't Stinger missiles--it was fanatical mujahedeen with AK-47s who could fit in effortlessly into the background. Mujahedeen who, on more than one occasion, skinned Soviet troops alive, within earshot of Soviet camps, just to demoralize the defenders within.
The Viet Cong were, in fact, supplied by an outside agency... namely, the US Army. That one actually works against you.
FARC are supplied by an internal agency... namely, the Colombian Army (from whom they steal equipment) and the narcosyndicates (likewise).
The Zulus overwhelmed the British with spears. Think about that one for a moment.
It was not rifle fire that brought down the Soviets. It was the ability of the Stingers to deprive them of air transport
Oh, please. Read up on Afghanistan. Why do you think nobody in their right mind wants to fight there? It's not because of air resupply difficulties. It has to do with Afghani insurgents who think it's fun to skin invaders alive, just so their screams can demoralize their friends who are safe inside their perimeter. The last time the British tried to invade Afghanistan, the Afghanis were stuck in a medieval level of technology and they still annihilated all but one single soldier.
It's quite clear the Viet Cong didn't beat "the US Army". They beat the fraction of the Army that was deployed to fight them, most of the military being constrained politically and physically by the rest of the world situation
<yawn> Let me get this straight. We beat "the fraction of the Japanese Imperial Army that was deployed to fight us in the Pacific, most of the military being constrained politically and physically by the rest of the world situation to keep already-won territories in China, Korea and Southeast Asia"? Armies are always limited by political and military reality. You're arguing the trivial here, and nothing nontrivial follows from a triviality.
In the fevered apocalyptic world in which the evil US Army is resisted by a band of freedom-loving ordinary citzens, we're no longer talking about a politically constrained Army.
Never read up on the Civil War, did you? When the "evil Union army [was] resisted by a band of freedom-loving ordinary citizens" (as the Confederate armies overwhelmingly were), the Union army still had enormous political constraints--and a lot of the soldiers didn't like the idea of fighting their own countrymen very much, either.
The ordinary citizens would be facing the full might of the Army.
Two point five million soldiers versus a nation with over one hundred fifty million armed citizens. Hmmm... my magic eight-ball says, Outlook Not Good.
Ask the militiamen from a few years back how successful their plan of armed resistance was.
It failed because, for all its warts and foibles, the United States Government is still in power at the sufferance of the people. One or two half-baked cranks with guns is a hell of a lot different from a popular uprising encompassing millions of people with guns.
I would be willing to bet that, when passing a tax package, not a single Representative says, "Oh, wait. What if my constituents take to the hills as partisans?"
Ask Teddy Kennedy if he thinks there are people out there who are willing to kill him if he passes a law which they disagree with. I seem to recall a couple of his brothers winding up on the losing side of extremely one-sided arguments.
I'm not condoning political assassination, by the by. It's deplorable. But you live in an astonishingly naieve dream world. If a politician does something unpopular enough, that politician stands a pretty good chance of not living long enough to see a re-election bid. That is why, by and large, politicians go to such extreme lengths to make sure people like them.
Alternate POV (Score:2)
Dissenting Opinion
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1, 37 (1949)
Baby and bathwater (Score:2)
Levinson, in establishing that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, clearly established that Congress does have the authority. In September, 1863, Congress subsequently granted Lincoln the authority he had assumed.
The threat today of detention without trial does not come from presidential decree but from Congress. The current anti-terrorism law [washingtonpost.com] imposes detention without trial on non-citizens for up to 7 days.
There is no doubt that detention without trial, along with denying access to a lawyer, are very useful tools in fighting terrorism. The pressure to adopt them doesn't have to come from a government bent on despotism but from an honest concern for protecting the lives of citizens. Given Congress' authority to enact such laws, people who oppose them on the grounds that they threaten civil liberties are in effect saying that their elected government poses a greater threat than the terrorists.
After 9/11, who can doubt where the greater threat lies?
bin Laden's guilt (Score:3, Insightful)
So what if he didn't do the WTC attacks? He's guilty of plenty of other things. As for suspending the Constitution in time of war - it clearly allows suspension of the writ of habeous corpus in the event of war/military action. And as for Executive Orders - all it takes to override them is Congress passing a law with enough majority to overrule a veto, and they cease to have an effect.
As for Bush "not negotiating" - Afghanistan has made offers, sure, but none of them are sane. They want to try bin Laden themselves - yeah, that'll be a fair trial. They want to hand over bin Laden to a third country - as long as that country is one of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc. All countries whose populations (and probably judicial systems) are very bin Ladin-sympathetic. Once again, I'm sure he'd get a fair trial.
As for our "horrible" policies in the Middle East. Yes, I'll admit that some of the things we've done were horrible - but what about the other things that people so readily forget? Like the fact that Afghanistan's government's budget consists mostly of foriegn aid - and we provide most of that to them. And the sanctions in Iraq - they don't, as many people say, prevent food or medicine from getting in. They're deliver food and medicine to Iraq, and then have no idea if it's delivered to the appropriate places. Saddam was constructing weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, in violation of international law, and then won't allow people in to see that he's complying with international law. Even though the US allows Russian and UN weapons inspectors in at least once a year to verify their chemical/bio weapons factories are shut down.
I'm sick of all these Americans deciding that America is wrong in this. I'm a freaking citizen of Luxembourg, and I think America's right in this. Why do its own citizens think that it's wrong to defend itself?
Re:bin Laden's guilt (Score:2)
Oddly enough, the US NEVER EVER agreed to have a US soldier tried in international courts. Can you see the parallels? Will it be a fair trial for the soldiers of the US? I bet. Will it be fair for those damaged? No way.
Re:bin Laden's guilt (Score:2)
a quote.... (Score:2)
Here's the original, if you feel like polishing up your language skills or try a better translation.
In Kriegszeiten ist das Versäumnis zu lügen eine Nachlässigkeit, das Bezweifeln einer Lüge ein Vergehen und die Erklärung der Wahrheit ein Verbrechen. [Arthur Ponsonby, aus "Lügen in Kriegszeiten"]
And I quote.... (Score:2, Interesting)
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8, 1787.
(For those who don't know, the federalist papers were written in support of ratification of the constitution by some of the very people who wrote the constitution itself.)
"War is Peace" (Score:2)
Don't let the abusers wear you down. (Score:2)
Not time to emigrate. Time to protest.
Don't let the abusers wear you down.
U.S. government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:How Gov't Ignores Existing Law (Score:2)
A literal translation is almost never the correct translation. The most difficult things to translate are poetry and prose. In these, you must often completely change the sentence to get the true feeling, especially when slang is used. Slang almost never has similar phrase in the target lanquage, but the target language may have a slang expression that captures the true feeling intended by the original author.
Finally, she has nothing but contempt for machine translations.
Re:Has the U.S. government ever been on trial? (Score:2)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Debs in Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211 [findlaw.com]. It dealt somewhat with your first question, but the Supreme Court insists that everyone who argues before it be a party to the case. Since declarations of war are a power of the Senate, acting as if such a declaration existed when in fact it did not would be a matter of executive encroachment on the Senate; i.e., the Senate would have to sue the President in order for the Supreme Court's requirement of standing to be fulfilled. Of course, this would be more a matter of checks and balances than judicial action.
Executive encroachment of civil liberties frequently goes to trial, but the government usually wins.
Re:Has the U.S. government ever been on trial? (Score:2)
So, the idea that I'm a citizen and my President has unconstitutionally declared war -- exposing me to war taxes, suspension of liberties, and, conceivably, death in a foreign land -- does not give me "standing" in this issue?
You gotta love the Court.
Re:Has the U.S. government ever been on trial? (Score:2)
No, because any war taxes would have to be constitutionally approved by the Congress, as would any authorization of addition powers or general induction. The emergency powers that the President can invoke have already been approved by Congress upon declaration, by the President, of a state of emergency; a state of war need not be declared.
Who gains..? (Score:2)
The corporations gain - a flagging economy, then war - wow, sudden need for all of those products.
But do I think that reps of all of the multinationals got into this big room and hashed this plan out themselves in secret? Sounds like a squabble when the Taliban comes together for a meeting (tribal heads, etc).
No - probably not. I like your idea, though - not sure how true it is or not, but very plausible - I wondered the same thing the day of the attack (ie, did it come from within?)...
I can see something else, though - what if the heads of the major competing airlines to those who were big that got "used" staged this, perhaps in cooperation with whoever was likely to get the contract to rebuild/reconstruct the towers (or recondition - maybe they didn't even expect them to fall)? Sounds nutty, doesn't it? Or maybe it was heads of Boeing - being as they manufacture tons of military hardware, as well as civilian aircraft (which might need mods/changes/new systems for "safer" travel in these "times")? Actually, that last one...
Here's to hoping I don't "disappear"...