I am voting for Obama

[old school]

Historically speaking, centralizing and strengthening a government is about the best way to take away rights and due process.  Both candidates want to do this, so I don't see this as a valid argument for supporting Obama.

I just have to say, I loved you on Jeopardy. LOL, couldnt help myself  

I can agree with this part of your statement. And, yes, I do believe Obama will unwind the patriot act either in part or in full. I don't believe Mc Cain will. I think Mc Cain has been completely reprogrammed for the Bush agenda. I really just don't trust him. No spin, No BS made up facts swift boat attack, I just sincerely don't trust Mc Cain.

I don't think this is absolutely true to all.  The means for self defense are the first thing an authoritarian needs to take before they can take anything else.  So it makes sense to defend said means at all costs, not so much to fulfill some SHTF fantasy, but to prevent step 2 from happening.

Hey, lets be clear. I think the right to bear arms is essential to protect us from our own government too. I just think that Due process and Liberty outrank the single aspect of gun rights. However, I think you do entertain the cowboy fantasy. I think we all do. But it is essential that we understand that without due process, in these modern times, we are massively hopelessly outgunned as individuals. And you must realize the if they pick on you individually, all of your fellow gun rights advocates won't help you. This is what they will say:
You remember Alex?
Oh yeah, I remember Alex, he is that guy that got busted for having too much black powder in the reloading room. They said he was planning to build a bomb and plan a terrorist act.
Wow, he seemed normal, who would have guessed he was some kind of nut..................................
End of your story.
That is what can happen when we surrender all of our rights and trust the governement to do the right thing. And yes, it can happen to you.

[alex_trebek]

And, yes, I do believe Obama will unwind the patriot act either in part or in full.

I don't since he voted to renew it.

I don't believe Mc Cain will. I think Mc Cain has been completely reprogrammed for the Bush agenda. I really just don't trust him. No spin, No BS made up facts swift boat attack, I just sincerely don't trust Mc Cain.

I don't trust him either.  I wouldn't say he is completely reprogrammed.  I think a lot of it is him trying to pander to far right republicans, a lot of it is probably his view.  I am not supporting him at all, I just don't see how Obama is the solution to the problem.

[Perd Hapley]

What specifically is "the Bush agenda," and in what areas has McCain been reprogrammed?

[old school]

I wouldn't say he is completely reprogrammed.  I think a lot of it is him trying to pander to far right republicans

I really truly hope you are right. If he just uses the far right to get elected and then turns out to be a moderate while in office, I would be thrilled. However, I don't think that is what will happen. I think he will be surrounded by the same people while in office that are directing his campaign. But, as I said, I would be glad to be proven wrong.

[pinoyinus]

Actually that isn't the case-doing this could potentially be an act of war AND a crime on the part of the Russians who did it.  That's clear from your example.  If this weren't the case, Osama Bin Laden could claim that his henchmen committed no crime in killing Daniel Pearl, since, after all, he wasn't a citizen of the state where they nabbed him and he had no rights as "an enemy of state" of Afghanistan.  Just turn the tables and we can all see how morally and logically bankrupt this idea is.

You're absolutely right.  Osama did not make any claims that his henchmen did any crime.  That was the case even after 9/11.  Instead of calling them criminals, he praised his minions for their "heroic" act.  Does that mean that they deserve no punishment?  And if Russia is to abduct an innocent US citizen and torture/kill him, it can be interpreted as an act of war.  And that's how the US govt. is looking at terrorist activities - acts of war - not criminal activity.  You cannot treat acts of war as you would ordinary US nationals who commit crimes.  Once you do, you would have to reveal your intelligence assets/methods in a civilain court where all documents are public information.  This will compromise national security.  That is what the left wants.

Acts of war that don't break the criminal law mean: no personal liability for the agents who carried it out.

Ie, if Russia orders an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier, you can't arrest the Russian pilot and charge him with a crime.

Acts of war can be criminal too though: for example, if Russia ordered a secret agent to blow up a bus in New York, the proper response would be to capture and try the agent for his crime, as well as to respond to the act of war.

That is how these things have always been handled-even before there was a "left" in this country.  You can't punish people for acts of war that aren't also crimes; but you can punish them for acts of war that are crimes, provided that you prove them guilty of the act.

I think you fail to make the distinction between attackers who are acting on behalf of a soveriegn power (soldiers wearing the uniform/colors of that sovereign power) and terrorists who are answerable to no one.  A soldier acts under orders while a terrorist acts on his own free will.  This is one of the reasons why a soldier cannot be prosecuted criminally.  You cannot equate a soldier to a terrorist.  For the left however, our brave men and women in the military are terrorists who deserve to be hated.

I agree that you cannot punish people unless you prove them guilty.  This still applies to this day and this is the principle of habeas corpus.  I contend however, that this only applies to US citizens/residents.  Other people may disagree and take the position that they apply to all people regardless of citizenship  and residence.  But if that were true, how come we're not collecting taxes from all the people who are protected by US laws?  If all people are covered by the US constitution, then they should be made to pay US taxes, right?

[roo_ster]

My main point is that giving up due process, privacy and personal freedoms is MORE DANGEROUS than even giving up gun rights. People on here seem to entertain the fact that if they have their guns, no one in the government will dare tread on them. Lets get real. If you say that, you are saying that you are going to shoot it out with the police, cia, fbi or military if they try to imprision you without due process. We all know that is not how it is gonna go. That cowboys fantasy is not gonna happen.

Lemme see:

1. Obama voted FOR the PATRIOT Act.

2. Obama voted FOR the recent FISA bill that was essentially a logroll over the Dems and made the ISPs & phone companies immune from lawsuits when they lie about their privacy policy and hand over all your records to fed.gov without even a warrant.

From my point of view, Obama talks big about the rights of foreign enemy combatants, but is pathetically willing to sell US citizens for his 30 pieces of silver.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, why is it that Democrats always seem to want to protect terrorists and abuse Americans?

Shouldn't that be, you know, the other way around?

[agricola]

I think you fail to make the distinction between attackers who are acting on behalf of a soveriegn power (soldiers wearing the uniform/colors of that sovereign power) and terrorists who are answerable to no one.  A soldier acts under orders while a terrorist acts on his own free will.  This is one of the reasons why a soldier cannot be prosecuted criminally.  You cannot equate a soldier to a terrorist.  For the left however, our brave men and women in the military are terrorists who deserve to be hated.

I agree that you cannot punish people unless you prove them guilty.  This still applies to this day and this is the principle of habeas corpus.  I contend however, that this only applies to US citizens/residents.  Other people may disagree and take the position that they apply to all people regardless of citizenship  and residence.  But if that were true, how come we're not collecting taxes from all the people who are protected by US laws?  If all people are covered by the US constitution, then they should be made to pay US taxes, right?

Again, this is why the decision not to allow these detainees POW status was so incredibly foolish.  POW can be held for as long as the war lasts (which in this case is pretty infinite) and they could be held accountable for their crimes in military courts and could have had the death penalty. 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[De Selby]

Alex, I think he means "earned" in the sense of "fought for." 

fistful,

That you find it laughable doesn't make it any less true.  It doesn't appear that any further discussion of the obvious will help you on the difference between suspending for invasion or rebellion, and granting the government license to refuse habeas indefinitely to anyone for the foreseeable future so long as the government applies the magic label of "terrorist."

Well, at least now you're drawing a distinction that makes sense.  Still, even an indefinite suspension for certain cases is clearly not an abolition.  So long as habeas is in effect for 99.9999% of us, it's hard to make a case that it has been abolished.  So come on, laugh at yourself.  It will do you some good. 

Crime against humanity is a technical term now?  Still wish we could use a term with less melodrama. 

The point is that habeas can be denied not by some strict standard that by its operation excludes 99.9999 percent of us, but rather at the sole discretion of the executive-hence, in reality, all of us who have it only have it so long as the executive decides not to label us with the magic label.  So if you trust the government not to abuse its powers, it makes sense, but for realists who believe that government tends to overuse its authority for its own purposes, this is clearly a disastrous state of affairs.

"Crime against humanity" has been a technical term at least since Nuremburg-the nazis were charged with it.

[De Selby]

Scout26,

I think we're on the same page here-you're saying that enemy combatants shouldn't necessarily get civilian trials.  I agree, and not only that-the Supreme Court agrees.  I think the problem here is that you are not clear on the details of how Bush's guantanamo system worked.

But the SCOTUS has basically said "No, use the US Courts." which are not designed to to deal with enemy combatants, Ex parte Quirin (aka "settled Law") be damned.

Ex Parte Quirin specifically raised the issue of detainees right to challenge the process by which they are tried; the Court pointed to it but then moved on since the Quirin plaintiffs didn't litigate that subject.  Read Ex Parte Quirin.

But anyway, that is NOT what the Supreme Court said.  You are simply wrong in stating that the recent decision said "use US courts."  What it said was: US courts can review the processes used to try detainees at Guantanamo.  So now a person convicted by a Guantanamo trial can claim that the government used a sham process designed to rubber stamp the executive decision to detain these people.  That is the extent of the ruling-it says absolutely nothing about "civilian trials."

Re: the laws that define torture.  Congress writes the laws and the members of oversight intelligence committee's determine what is torture, and in 2002 those members (including Ms Pelosi)  said that waterboarding is NOT torture. 

Yeah, but we agreed already that Congress does not judge guilt or innocence-how can anyone honestly read those statutes and conclude that water boarding does NOT meet the definition???

The big picture you're missing here is that obviously the white house concluded that it was torture-else there was absolutely no reason to come up with Guantanamo and "enemy combatant status."  That's literally the only reason for this entire scheme-to skirt torture laws that they knew would ban the practices they wanted to use (that fact is public already) and to skirt the laws requiring trial before imposing punishment (also public.)  Even the White House knew that these things were the law-but because of pinheaded lawyerism, they convinced themselves that just doing all this illegal stuff in Guantanamo would put them beyond the power of the courts to judge their illegal conduct.

[De Selby]

I think you fail to make the distinction between attackers who are acting on behalf of a soveriegn power (soldiers wearing the uniform/colors of that sovereign power) and terrorists who are answerable to no one.  A soldier acts under orders while a terrorist acts on his own free will.  This is one of the reasons why a soldier cannot be prosecuted criminally.  You cannot equate a soldier to a terrorist.  For the left however, our brave men and women in the military are terrorists who deserve to be hated.

I agree that you cannot punish people unless you prove them guilty.  This still applies to this day and this is the principle of habeas corpus.  I contend however, that this only applies to US citizens/residents.  Other people may disagree and take the position that they apply to all people regardless of citizenship  and residence.  But if that were true, how come we're not collecting taxes from all the people who are protected by US laws?  If all people are covered by the US constitution, then they should be made to pay US taxes, right?

Again, this is why the decision not to allow these detainees POW status was so incredibly foolish.  POW can be held for as long as the war lasts (which in this case is pretty infinite) and they could be held accountable for their crimes in military courts and could have had the death penalty. 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

See, you're presuming that all they wanted to do was hold them-that isn't the case.  They also wanted to torture them for information, and then give them sentences ranging from life imprisonment to death without having a genuine trial to assess guilt.

When you factor that motive in, then the decision not to treat them as POW's makes perfect sense: POW's have fairly well defined legal rights, and the practices the white house wanted to employ violated all of them.

[Perd Hapley]

I wouldn't say he is completely reprogrammed.  I think a lot of it is him trying to pander to far right republicans

I really truly hope you are right. If he just uses the far right to get elected and then turns out to be a moderate while in office, I would be thrilled. However, I don't think that is what will happen. I think he will be surrounded by the same people while in office that are directing his campaign. But, as I said, I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Wait a minute.  You're saying the Bush agenda is "far right"?     You really think Bush is "far right"? 

[Perd Hapley]

shootinstudent,

Regardless whether Bush's approach to habeas corpus is good or bad, (and I'm reserving my opinion on that for now) it does not amount to an abolition.  To say it does, is fear-mongering.

[De Selby]

shootinstudent,

Regardless whether Bush's approach to habeas corpus is good or bad, (and I'm reserving my opinion on that for now) it does not amount to an abolition.  To say it does, is fear-mongering.

It is perfectly accurate to say that Bush's approach to habeas is this:  Bush may deny habeas corpus by applying the label "enemy combatant" to any American citizen he chooses.  No judicial review or independent fact finding is necessary for an individual to be denied the right to habeas corpus.

Can we agree on that?

[old school]

So if you trust the government not to abuse its powers, it makes sense, but for realists who believe that government tends to overuse its authority for its own purposes, this is clearly a disastrous state of affairs.

Absolutely true to the point that it is even understated.

[longeyes]

It is perfectly accurate to say that Bush's approach to habeas is this:  Bush may deny habeas corpus by applying the label "enemy combatant" to any American citizen he chooses.  No judicial review or independent fact finding is necessary for an individual to be denied the right to habeas corpus.

And SCOTUS's approach to habeas corpus is to extend it to any enemy alien who breathes, giving them in effect the rights of American citizens and, de facto, derogating actual American citizenship by dilution?

[De Selby]

It is perfectly accurate to say that Bush's approach to habeas is this:  Bush may deny habeas corpus by applying the label "enemy combatant" to any American citizen he chooses.  No judicial review or independent fact finding is necessary for an individual to be denied the right to habeas corpus.

And SCOTUS's approach to habeas corpus is to extend it to any enemy alien who breathes, giving them in effect the rights of American citizens and, de facto, derogating actual American citizenship by dilution?

No-in fact that's not even close to what happened. 

But yeah, aside from that, the right to have crimes proven before you can be punished is not a special privilege of American citizenship.  That's called basic human decency-you can't be thrown in jail for life and waterboarded every day at the whim of someone else. 

[longeyes]

I think I understand what basic human decency is.   Do the detainees at Guantanamo?   How many American citizens have been indefinitely detained?

I refuse to look narrowly at the recent SCOTUS ruling outside the context of where the Fab Five have been trying, decision by decision, to take America.  Just examine the deep underlying premises of the ruling.  Leave the Magna Carta; take the cannolli.

[Phyphor]

Wow, this thread has survived this long?


IBTL

[old school]

This thread has survived because it has somehow turned into a great discussion. No IBTL needed here. I have learned quite a bit I did not know as a result of this discussion and I bet others have too.

[longeyes]

But yeah, aside from that, the right to have crimes proven before you can be punished is not a special privilege of American citizenship.  That's called basic human decency-you can't be thrown in jail for life and waterboarded every day at the whim of someone else.

I am not, as you may have already guessed, arguing for inhumanity.  I am arguing for recognizing when we are at war and for letting our military and military courts do what they are supposed to do in times of war.

[Fjolnirsson]

Hey, lets be clear. I think the right to bear arms is essential to protect us from our own government too. I just think that Due process and Liberty outrank the single aspect of gun rights. However, I think you do entertain the cowboy fantasy. I think we all do. But it is essential that we understand that without due process, in these modern times, we are massively hopelessly outgunned as individuals. And you must realize the if they pick on you individually, all of your fellow gun rights advocates won't help you. This is what they will say:
You remember Alex?
Oh yeah, I remember Alex, he is that guy that got busted for having too much black powder in the reloading room. They said he was planning to build a bomb and plan a terrorist act.
Wow, he seemed normal, who would have guessed he was some kind of nut..................................
End of your story.
That is what can happen when we surrender all of our rights and trust the governement to do the right thing. And yes, it can happen to you.

Ok. As I understand it, your argument is that the right to fair trial and freedom from unreasonable detention is more essential than the right to bear arms. Thus, you feel that Obama is a better choice than McCain.
I disagree, and this is why:
So, Obama signs into law a bill that says we can have single shot pistols in out homes for home defense, and nothing more. Or shotguns, or whatever. He also gets rid of the Patriot act, provides free room and board for hippies, immigrants and the old and infirm. He gives everyone detained by the US military the right to a trial by a jury of americans. He makes the oil companies release the decades worth of technology they've been sitting on, and we become non dependent on foreign oil. The economy is great, everyone has enough food, and the US becomes a beacon of light and hope. With me so far?

Now Obama dies/resigns/serves his terms/whatever. He's finished being president. Terminally stupid, the Dems run Kerry again, and he loses to Jeb Bush. Ole Jeb longs for the days of yore, when Republicans roamed the land, raping old ladies and stomping kittens to death. He reinstates the patriot act, gives tax breaks to the rich, sets up detention facilities and begins wholesale execution of anyone that crosses him. Hundreds of thousands take to the streets in protest, and the tanks roll over them, just like Tianamen Square. Nobody has private arms, because even the single shots have been banned, for the children. What do we do? Now we've lost all of our rights, because The Lightbringer, hallowed be his name, has an old school Chicago fear of guns.

Sure do wish we had 80 million privately owned weapons, don't we? Sure would be a nice time for a good ole' "cowboy fantasy" of untraceable rifle shots aimed at prominent oppressors, huh? Too bad, it's the new dark ages, where the biggest and the strongest have their way.

The 2nd amendment guarantees all the others. If you don't think privately owned weapons in the hands of a determined populace with a knowledge of local terrain and supply depots among the people can cause hell for the oppressors, you haven't studied much history. Sure, might not be a winning tactic, and the feds might mow everyone down anyway. But isn't the chance to die like a man important? I certainly wouldn't want to get it execution style if I had the chance to take a few of my oppressors with me.

[old school]

That was probably one of the best posts yet Fjolnirsson. Made your point and was absolutely entertaining. I think it is an absolute depiction of the fantasies that people entertain on this issue.
Also, The America that you describe sound an awful lot like Iraq is right now.

For me, I envision something more along the lines of the movie Vendetta. In that film, whenever someone speaks out or against the government, they are taken away and branded a traitor and anarchist. They are never seen again. In that scenario, individuals are powerless against the government because they gave complete control to the government because of fear of terrorism. Seems amazingly relevant doesn't it?

Great post.

[Manedwolf]

For me, I envision something more along the lines of the movie Vendetta. In that film, whenever someone speaks out or against the government, they are taken away and branded a traitor and anarchist. They are never seen again. In that scenario, individuals are powerless against the government because they gave complete control to the government because of fear of terrorism. Seems amazingly relevant doesn't it?

Great post.

But what's worse? The fear that that might happen...or the reality of the character assassination that occurs right now whenever someone dares to speak their mind in a way that the leftists (like Obama) consider un-PC? People not only get called "bigots" or "racist" or "closed-minded" or "violent" or "neanderthals" for daring to disagree with any aspect of leftist agendas, they even lose their livelihoods.

The Hollywood line of "You'll never work in this town again" has now become nationwide and all-pervasive due to the leftist intolerance for anyone who does not completely agree with them.

[roo_ster]

For me, I envision something more along the lines of the movie Vendetta. In that film, whenever someone speaks out or against the government, they are taken away and branded a traitor and anarchist. They are never seen again. In that scenario, individuals are powerless against the government because they gave complete control to the government because of fear of terrorism. Seems amazingly relevant doesn't it?

Great post.

But what's worse? The fear that that might happen...or the reality of the character assassination that occurs right now whenever someone dares to speak their mind in a way that the leftists (like Obama) consider un-PC? People not only get called "bigots" or "racist" or "closed-minded" or "violent" or "neanderthals" for daring to disagree with any aspect of leftist agendas, they even lose their livelihoods.

The Hollywood line of "You'll never work in this town again" has now become nationwide and all-pervasive due to the leftist intolerance for anyone who does not completely agree with them.

MW beat me to it.  One utterance in protest against PC/lefty policy in a corporation can get you canned and labeled in your industry.