Must we add America to list of ‘terrorists’?
The suspension of habeas corpus concerning those deemed “enemy military combatants” in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be viewed as a disgrace to the standards to which we hold ourselves as Americans.
The United States is the most powerful nation in the world and should stand for integrity, justice and equality. Allowing our government to strip away the rights of prisoners of war for protection from our own malice should not only be considered unacceptable, it should enrage citizens who believe that America must uphold U.S. constitutional rights under all circumstances.
For years, the U.S. government and citizens have been using the word “terrorist” loosely, considering anyone who poses a threat to fall under that label. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary provides the following definition for “terrorist”: “an advocate or practitioner of terror as a means of coercion.” This exactly defines the tactics the U.S. military has used on the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps we should consider adding America onto the long list of “terrorists.”
Natalie Johnson, Denver
In accordance to international law, any combatant captured that does not wear a uniform and does not have a form of military id, they are to be considered spies and sabatures and can be executed without trial. That is also in accordance with the Geneiva convention. The fact they are alive, recieving better care than they would ever give their prisoners and the fact they will have a trial at all nulifies your whole argument. Perhaps we should treat them as they treat US troops? Behead them, torture them to death or mass executions? Would that be more to your liking Natalie?
Posted by Nick on May 15, 2007 01:39 AMI say lets put them back in the cave they came out of but this time will fill it with dirt before they get out. If they do come out of their hole then beheading on tv would do.
we would be just like them and natalie could hold their hands
Natalie - They are not "prisoners of war". Nick made that argument as well as can be made, if we are using the Geneva Convention as our guide. These "enemy combatants" are indeed being treated better than they have any LEGAL right to be treated at all. certainly better than they would give our boys and girls on the battlefield and if captured. So please stop "making up the rules" as you go in another transparent attack on the President and the policies of this administration. Disagree with the war, disagree with whatever you want - BUT please refrain from making arguments based on nonexistent laws and facts, but only based on your uninformed/illinformed assertions.
"should be viewed as a disgrace to the standards to which we hold ourselves as Americans."
I think you should be viewed as a disgrace for you views. These people are probably living better lives under U.S. custody than they did in their cave or mud hut! In addition...if they harmed one little hair on one of our soldiers, they don't deserve anything other than a piece of lead.
I'm adding Natalie to my long list of morons.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 07:20 AMNatalie, Natalie, Natalie, where do you get your misinformation?
As the others have stated. The Geneva Convention excludes enemy combatants. They may be executed without trail. They are not citizens of the United States. Therefore the Constituation does not apply to them.
They are treated better than our troops were treated by them. They receive health care, they can worship, they have gained weight.
On the other hand, our captured troops are killed.
Think about it Natalie.
Thank You Nick and Michael for setting another person straight who think terrorists have rights under the Geneva Convention and The Constitution.
People who think like her should be shipped to Iraq and introduced to some members of a terrorist group. She can sit down and explain their rights to them. Then Off with her head!
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 07:37 AM
You notice how many people have conveniently forgotten about how many American citizens are currently in Guantanamo right now???
Nick,Imust warn tou the mediator for these post don't like facts.Answer to nats. post.No.Add the democrats to the list of terrorist enablers.
Posted by Keith on May 15, 2007 07:50 AMAll previous commenter's:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Bush is claiming the right to detain US citizens as well. Witness the case of Jose Padilla:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14190289.htm
Question: How do we know that these individuals are the enemy if they're never charged with any crimes and are never given a chance to defend their innocence? How would you like to be caught in that catch 22?
It's such an obvious slippery-slope. Imagine that a "liberal" president is elected, and suddenly your political views are out of favor. What is to stop the new "liberal" President from using this newly established precedent and proclaim you an "enemy combatant"? What's to stop him/her from throwing you in jail forever without charges?
Believing the President should have such extra-legal authority makes you either a) ignorant of our nations founding documents or b) Authoritarian Bush Cultists withered by fear and in need of Dear Leader to protect them. Have you really invested such trust in the goodness of politicians that you would give him the power to throw your friends and family in jail without trial or access to a lawyer?
I can't think of a less American point-of-view.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 07:57 AMJohn II,
There is neither rebellion or invasion in this case.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 07:59 AMUp-chuck,people who had information to put clinton in jail or removed from office had the irs sick on them by clinton,documented fact.Plus you had those untimely suicides.Yeah.
Posted by Keith on May 15, 2007 08:25 AMAnd where are they documented keith?
Posted by Shane on May 15, 2007 08:34 AMShane - in Keith's head, and other repositories of wingnut mythology.
Posted by patrick on May 15, 2007 08:41 AMshane,you have to do your own research but check with Robert Novak,Jennifer Flowers ,etc.Just kike clinton fireing U.S.attorneys who were his criminal activities.Do research before you show your ignorance.
Posted by Keith on May 15, 2007 09:00 AMshane,you have to do your own research but check with Robert Novak,Jennifer Flowers ,etc.Just kike clinton fireing U.S.attorneys who were his criminal activities.Do research before you show your ignorance.
Posted by Keith on May 15, 2007 09:00 AMCharles B.,
"There is neither rebellion or invasion in this case."
This sure looks like an invasion to me.
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 09:07 AM
Can't you enlighten me? If it's documented, tell me where I can find it, and I will be happy to do my research on it.
Posted by Shane on May 15, 2007 09:22 AMA "Terrorist Bill of Rights" is a perverted way to start protecting yourself from murderers who have no rights. Webster' s doesn't define the standard here, internal law does.
Posted by Hank on May 15, 2007 09:34 AM(crickets chirping)
Posted by Shane on May 15, 2007 09:48 AMGood sentiments Natalie.
Nick, Michael, Karen, perhaps you can show us where in the Geneva Convention the exclusion is made for "enemy combatants", and where it says that summary execution is prescribed.
Taking Nick’s claim that since they are “sabatures” (sic) and therefore can be “executed without trial”.
Not quite what the actual convention says though
An occupying power may sentence civilians to death if they are guilty of serious acts of sabotage : but only if these offenses were punishable by death by local laws before the occupation began. (Convention IV, Art. 68)
Also
Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trail is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)
Since I cannot find the term “Enemy Combatant” in the any of the four conventions or the three protocols, perhaps you would be so kind as to refer to the passage in which this term is defined and used, and where it says that such people can be “executed without trial”.
Charles B.,
One of the features that makes this forum so much fun is the total predictability of the responses to any and all efforts to hold reasoned debate, or discussion, on the issues.
I commend you most heartily for all your efforts to rise above the level of this totally predictable ranting and insulting that has become the hallmark of those who hold to the Conservative party-line; and who so vehemently express that Conservative party-line on any and all subjects.
And you are also to be complimented for sticking to the subject; especially in the face of the other totally predictable Conservative party-line followers' attempts to twist words out of their actual meanings; abuse and misuse sources; and/or otherwise seek to avoid dealing with the topic at hand by the introduction of totally irrelevant assertions on unrelated topics.
I know it's just my opinion; but I have stated elsewhere - on a line which now appears to have been pushed into the archives - that the one individual on this whole forum who is the most outstanding, most representative, most expressive, and most articulate voice of Conservatism is the individual posting as, "Keith". No one presents the true Conservative position on anything and everything better than he does.
It is not a horse-race of course; but were it so, I would have to say that there are at least two others, more or less currently giving him a nearly "neck and neck" competition.
In any event, thanks Charles, for pointing out the glaringly fatal flaw in the Conservative argument for continuing the likes of Guantanamo, etc., i.e., it is being used, under the Patriot Act, to hold AMERICAN CITIZENS, now detained under "SUSPICION" of some kind of complicity, or sympathy, with terrorists, or terrorism.
A violation of the Bill of Rights which the Conservatives all heartily applaud; just so long as no one dares mention "gun control".
Charles B. and Bango Skank,
One of the features that makes this forum so much fun is the total predictability of the responses to any and all efforts to hold reasoned debate, or discussion, on the issues.
I commend you both most heartily for all your efforts to rise above the level of this totally predictable ranting and insulting that has become the hallmark of those who hold to the Conservative party-line; and who so vehemently express that Conservative party-line on any and all subjects.
And you are also to be complimented for sticking to the subject; especially in the face of the other totally predictable Conservative party-line followers' attempts to twist words out of their actual meanings; abuse and misuse sources; and/or otherwise seek to avoid dealing with the topic at hand by the introduction of totally irrelevant assertions on unrelated topics.
I know it's just my opinion; but I have stated elsewhere - on a line which now appears to have been pushed into the archives - that the one individual on this whole forum who is the most outstanding, most representative, most expressive, and most articulate voice of Conservatism is the individual posting as, "Keith". No one presents the true Conservative position on anything and everything better than he does.
It is not a horse-race of course; but were it so, I would have to say that there are at least two others, more or less currently giving him a nearly "neck and neck" competition.
In any event, thanks Charles, for pointing out the glaringly fatal flaw in the Conservative argument for continuing the likes of Guantanamo, etc., i.e., it is being used, under the Patriot Act, to hold AMERICAN CITIZENS, now detained under "SUSPICION" of some kind of complicity, or sympathy, with terrorists, or terrorism.
A violation of the Bill of Rights which the Conservatives all heartily applaud; just so long as no one dares mention "gun control".
And thanks to you, Bango Skank for doing the research, and posting the facts, that the Conservatives never do.
Charles B., Old Grouch and Mr. Skank,
Do you agree with this statement from Ms. Johnson:
"Perhaps we should consider adding America onto the long list of “terrorists.”Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 10:02 AM
I see the old arrogant hippie is active elsewhere. He is deathy afraid of conservatives it seems.
Posted by truthy on May 15, 2007 10:03 AM"Natalie, Natalie, Natalie, where do you get your misinformation?"
She probably watches tv or reads the paper. People often confuse these stories they read or hear with actual news.
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 10:21 AMWhy can't more people just listen to the newscasters in their head?
Posted by Robert on May 15, 2007 10:55 AMJohnII, I think she has voiced an admirable sentiment, but I think the terminology is fatally flawed.
I think the term “terrorist” is just a convenient bit of nonsense used to denote displeasure, censure, and claim moral high ground over the actions of some “other”.
It has no technical meaning, and tells one nothing other than how the speaker views the target of the epithet.
By that token, Natalie obviously feels that the US no longer has the moral high ground, and is in her view comporting itself badly.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 15, 2007 10:58 AMNightline May 15 featured a guest signed up to interrogate prisoners in Iraq by use of torture; he had to opt out of the program and to this day he has nightmares.
Good job Keith: You left out the insult and vulgarity; your post was enjoyed. I'll repeat my post here so you are forwarned:
Keith, my boy, you are courting expulsion. Big Brother is watching. The moderator provides, like cross examination mandates a large berth, the posters in this forum are accorded freedom to say nearly anything they so desire but there is a limit. You are about to be stricken from this forum. You need to chill out and comport yourself accordingly.
We will miss you. Sharon enjoys a good laugh in reading your posts; Old Grouch good naturedly singles you out for ridicule. I am singled out for ridicule; however, my response is not vulgarity or insult; I just hit 'em with chunks of silence.
I'll prophesy that one more vulgar outburst from you will result in your suspension from this forum as the moderator's paitence with you will have run out. Posting the same opinion five times on the same subject matter is abuse of this forum. Me, your friendly deicide chosen to drain the swamp of repression gods create.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com ffrf.org on May 15, 2007 11:20 AMNatalie....Watch the news in the coming days and pay real strict attention when the newscaster relates the news about the tortured, mutilated, remains of the three American soldiers recently captured by those ( human scum er...humane insurgents.)
If these "enemy military combatants" weren't in cells where they belong, they would be standing right along side the Muslim devils that kill our troops.
I suggest you go stick your uninformed head up your butt and cry foul because I'm postive it really reeks just like your letter!!
Posted by A on May 15, 2007 11:26 AMThe problem with America and Gitmo is a problem of principle. There are people being turned into the “authorities” in the war zones just to collect the reward money. This creates a situation where one is turned over, locked up and throw away the key, far any petty, meanspirited reason, or just plain greed. With greed being a neocon value, I am sure all you neocon’s can relate. So the bottom line is that between one to two dozen of the nearly 400 detainees at Gitmo should be held as terrorists. The fact that there are at least 350+ unjustly help prisoners with no way to challenge their detainment is a utter disgrace! I am not saying release everyone, just detain the real terrorists, not some joe blow farmer who gets swept up for looking at someone sideways. What we are doing is more akin to what the Soviets or any other oppressive regime did/does, short of executing them, and is a total disgrace to the real values of America, liberal or conservative.
Posted by Western Slope on May 15, 2007 11:42 AMIs this thread just more proof of the obvious?
Baseless assertions from the right.
Request for data supporting their positions from the left.
Crickets chirping.
I rest my case.
Posted by Republicans are repugnant liars on May 15, 2007 11:44 AM"I think the term “terrorist” is just a convenient bit of nonsense"
This from the mind of Bango. Why don't you go over to Iraq and tell al Qaeda they're nothing more than "convenient nonsense?" Oh, and be sure to bring along a platter large enough for your head!
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 11:46 AMI read these forums from time to time, and it's striking how few of you crazy wingnuts actually even TRY to respond to legitimate issues raised by people who aren't part of the slowest 26% of the country.
Your party used to be for smaller government, not completely unchecked federal government power. You used to oppose this sort of draconian measure when it was the Commies, or Saddam, or some other bogeyman of the day, but now, you all seem to want everybody accused of being a terrorist sympathizer to either die straight away, or be tortured into confessing lies.
That none of you seem to grasp the enormity of the situation here - arresting and detaining people while giving them no chance to prove their innocence - is mind boggling. This is America. We aren't supposed to do the Gulag thing here.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 12:20 PMLets recap.
Yes - terrorists exist who are anti-American
Yes - the U.S, now and in the past has either supported or turned a blind eye to those who were acting in our interests.
No - most of the people being held at Gitmo are not being held in violation of the Geneva convention due to the uniformed military clause (actually an important clause)
Yes - Gitmo is still morally repugnant.
Yes - US citizens, taken on US soil, (and other friendly nationalities) have been held for years without trial in direct violation of constitutional rights.
No - Jose Padilla is probably not completely innocent, but shouldn't he have been given his chance in court years ago?
My own point - Jose Padilla is small potatoes compared with the f*sked up things that the U.S. government did to a COMPLETELY INNOCENT GERMAN CIVILIAN (unless you support forced stripping and insertion in the anus, and then 2 months detention even AFTER you find out he's innocent -- do you?)
What does this mean to me? America is not a yet terrorist country, but there are quite a few people (in govt. and otherwise) who apparently want it to become one.
Posted by Doug H. on May 15, 2007 12:25 PMKW responded to Bango saying:
"I think the term “terrorist” is just a convenient bit of nonsense"
By saying:
"This from the mind of Bango. Why don't you go over to Iraq and tell al Qaeda they're nothing more than "convenient nonsense?" Oh, and be sure to bring along a platter large enough for your head!"
You've committed a classic logical fallacy- The Red Herring: Look it up. And the last bit about the platter is an Appeal to Fear. Look that up too.
Seeya next time... perhaps after you've refined your arguments.
12:20,
Regardless of whether or not you feel what's happening is right, could you at least acknowledge that our Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in certain situations?
If you can acknowledge that, then what it really comes down to is whether or not we feel our nation's circumstances falls within the exceptions of rebellion or invasion.
Personally, I feel that since we were brutally attacked on September 11th, 2001, our nation is justified in suspending habeas corpus. Furthermore, since we know that many of our enemies have established citizenship in our own country, habeas corpus can also be suspended under the rebellion exception.
I'm glad that there is outrage against my position on this issue. Suspending habeas corpus should be a politically difficult thing to do.
Having said that, I think it hurts the discussion when some people start accusing their own country of being a terrorist nation or compares the country to the Gulag.
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 12:44 PMIt sure is too bad that the America haters among you (Libs) hold the US accountable for everything that has ever gone wrong in the world but the terrorists are never held accountable for anything. Of course I guess it's also America's fault that terrorists even exist. You libs need to wake up and see that this country is not always in the wrong. But I guess you condone masked gunmen who behead people because they have their reasons right???? For the life of me I can't understand why many Dems and all the Libs hate America the way they do.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 12:56 PM@12:56
I don't claim that there aren't a whole heck of a lot of people/countries/etc. out there that aren't in the wrong. I just want us to do our best to try to do as little wrong as we can. Call it patriotism or even nationalism, but I want America to have the moral high ground and to do what's right in general.
Posted by Doug H. on May 15, 2007 01:05 PM"Call it patriotism or even nationalism, but I want America to have the moral high ground and to do what's right in general."
Is there anyone on this forum who doesn't want the same thing?
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 01:10 PMJohn II,
Yes, the clause exists, but that isn't an argument for exercising it, or for it's use in the disputed context.
There isn't any historical precedent for the President using it besides Lincoln, and I think you will agree that the Nation's very existence was at stake, and even then, he was ultimately forced to get Congressional authorization.
Has Bush received or asked for authorization?
You also said:
"Having said that, I think it hurts the discussion when some people start accusing their own country of being a terrorist nation or compares the country to the Gulag."
And I'd like to ask: What if the accusations you mention were true? Would it be ok with you to discuss them then? Even if they're not, why is it taboo to discuss them?
Just curious...
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 01:11 PMCharles can you clarify your statement of the Red Herring for all of us? Want to make sure that the context of what you are saying.
Thank you
Posted by bwr on May 15, 2007 01:14 PM@ John II
I agree - I think everyone does in the abstract. But once you get politics involved all a sudden people, such as the comment 12:56, imply (if not flat out call it America-hating) that trying to hold ourselves accountable for our actions is anything but a good thing.
And as a note, the liberal side of the spectrum does the same thing, but usually on different issues. In both cases, however, the justification of "the other side does it too" only leads to everyone being worse.
Posted by Doug H. on May 15, 2007 01:21 PMbwr,
Not sure what that last sentence means.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
Bango was talking about terminology, specifically the meaning of the word "terrorist".
KW attacked him by implying that he was dismissing the threat of Al Qaida.
Here's one of a million sites that outline some of the common fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I'm sure you can find a few that apply to some of my own arguments.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 01:25 PMCharles B.,
"Yes, the clause exists, but that isn't an argument for exercising it, or for it's use in the disputed context."
Good. So we can agree the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in certain situations.
"There isn't any historical precedent for the President using it besides Lincoln..."
I think that statement cancels itself out. There is a historical precedent. The precedent was set by Mr. Lincoln.
"And I'd like to ask: What if the accusations you mention were true? Would it be ok with you to discuss them then? Even if they're not, why is it taboo to discuss them?"
I'm much more interested in arguing the specific situations in the context of the Constitution. There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. But, when people start making bombastic statements such as calling the US a terrorist nation or comparing it to the Soviet Gulags, I think they do it more for the sheer thrill of saying it rather than the desire to contribute to civil discussion.
If you really and truly feel this is a terrorist nation with Soviet-style Gulags, go right ahead and exclaim it. If not, that type of bombastic hyperbole probably hurts your case more than it helps it.
Thanks Charles. Understand what a Red Herring is. I did not explain my question quite right but you did answer my question though. I was wanting to get your context and have done so Thank you
Posted by bwr on May 15, 2007 01:42 PMThe precedent has been there for quite some time now. Back in World War II the United States interned its Japanese population in what for that day and time were the equivalent of concentration camps - and here in colorado, where it gets rather chilly and snowy in Winter, one might even say "Gulags".
Those detained there included not only those who were not yet Citizens, but also AMERICAN CITIZENS, by birth as well as by Naturalization. Their "crime"? Their ethnic origin; and the SUSPICION that they might support Japan rather than show loyalty to America.
Of course - as John II would have it - we can always just sweep it under the rug, and hope it will go away; because "it hurts discussion" to admit our mistakes, or fails to show us as the great "moral example", or whatever else one may use for a reason to justify wrong, and put a pretty face on things.
One of the "justifications" for this part of history was, of course, Abe Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, in wartime. So, since we are again in a "wartime" situation, just do it all over again, down at Guantanimo. After all, Abe did it. FDR did it. Why shouldn't Bush do it?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 15, 2007 01:50 PMNick: "In accordance to international law, any combatant captured that does not wear a uniform and does not have a form of military id, they are to be considered spies and sabatures and can be executed without trial. That is also in accordance with the Geneiva convention."
A person is certainly entitled to criticize the Geneva Convention. But he is not entitled, as Nick, did to misstate what it says.
Art. 30 of the Geneva Convention:
"Art. 30. A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial."
There is the threshold question of whether or not a person is an enemy combatant or a spy. Nick ignores that.
There is also the question of holding a person prisoner for many years, as the U.S. has done, without making a determination as to whether or not he is a spy or an enemy combatant. Nick ignores that.
When you ignore that hard questions, and when you misstate what the law is, your comments lose credibility.
Posted by Truth on May 15, 2007 01:53 PMCharles B - Interesting site. Do you consider it to be unbiased?
Posted by KW on May 15, 2007 02:38 PMCharles, I am never sure if KW does this stuff out of ignorance/sloppy-thinking or whether he does it on purpose to just be a spoiler.
Would be interesting to know.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 15, 2007 02:42 PMok Truth, lets just get it done. Quite taking prisoners and the ones we do have, lets treat them as they would treat us, behead them. As for enemy combatant, they are taken while possesing arms and in the act of combat against uniformed troops. That makes them enemy combatant.
Posted by Nick on May 15, 2007 02:49 PMNick, is that a serious suggestion or just "let's play gotcha with libs"?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 15, 2007 02:57 PM"If you really and truly feel this is a terrorist nation with Soviet-style Gulags, go right ahead and exclaim it. If not, that type of bombastic hyperbole probably hurts your case more than it helps it."
I never made the assertions you ascribe to me, but rather, I was defending the properness of discussing them.
I think you believe "civil discussion" is anything that doesn't attribute fault of any kind to the United States. Do you think the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII was proper? This will tell me a lot about your point of view.
You have yet to make any compelling argument in favor of suspending habeas besides your belief that you're in imminent danger unless George Bush is given extrajudicial powers to imprison US citizens indefinitely without a chance to prove their innocence.
When you're attempting to radically alter how things have been done for hundreds of years, the burden is on you (and George Bush) to prove that it's neccesary, not for me to prove it isn't.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 03:42 PMJohn II,
The post above was to you, sorry.
I forgot to add that your following point:
Charles B- "There isn't any historical precedent for the President using it besides Lincoln..."
I think that statement cancels itself out. There is a historical precedent. The precedent was set by Mr. Lincoln.
Right, but you left out where I said "and even he had to go back for Congressional approval".
That changes things doesn't it?
There is no precedent for a President suspending Habeas without having to get Congressional approval.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 03:49 PMNick, less then 7% of the detainees were taken possessing arms. 93% were taken doing nothing but were turned in for the reward money being offered. Let’s keep those that belong in Gitmo, and let the rest go. Oh, I forgot, that would be admitting that we were wrong to hold them in the first place. Lord knows, Bush and Co, will not admit they have ever lied, mislead, or done the wrong thing and will be remembered for it. Hell, the pentagon admits that at least 50 destinies should not have been held but is powerless to release them do to Bush.
Posted by Western Slope on May 15, 2007 03:51 PMCharles B.,
"I think you believe "civil discussion" is anything that doesn't attribute fault of any kind to the United States. Do you think the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII was proper? This will tell me a lot about your point of view."
It was not proper nor do I believe we are doing anything like that now. Assigning fault to the United States and having a civil discussion about it can peacefully co-exist.
"Right, but you left out where I said "and even he had to go back for Congressional approval".That changes things doesn't it?"
No. Mr. Lincoln did not seek Congressional approval for the suspension of habeas corpus. But, Mr. Bush did.
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 04:14 PM
I'm not sure that this board is aware that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bush, explicitly suspends habeas corpus. Sen. Salazar, joining a minority of the Democrats, voted in favor of the Act, after the Republican majority narrowly defeated a vote to remove the suspension of habeas provision in the Act. The new Democratic majority has made a few ripples in talking about reinstating habeas; they've done nothing.
This explicit suspension of habeas was probably because the Dept. of Justice feared that the exception to Geneva (the newly coined and invented "enemy combatant" provision, noted by Bango Skank not to be in the Convention) would not stand judicial scrutiny, and the detainees would win when they challenged their detention.
If, for any reason, the CIA thinks a non-citizen is a terrorist, they can now detain that person indefinitely at Guantanamo. Or, they can ship that person off to one of the "black sites;" a term used in reference to the detention facilities in the former Soviet Bloc, now our allies in the GWOT. Literally, these *are* the gulags.
Hyperbole aside (whether that makes us "terrorists") does anyone wonder why we're not trusted in the Arab world?
Posted by Con Mor on May 15, 2007 04:15 PMJohnII, was there anything else you wanted to discuss re "terrorism"?
John II,
"No. Mr. Lincoln did not seek Congressional approval for the suspension of habeas corpus. But, Mr. Bush did."
Wrong and wrong:
1) Lincoln met with much opposition upon suspending habeas- 1782 Including a finding by Chief Justice Taney on circuit that the President’s action was invalid. Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. 144 (No. 9487) (C.C.D. Md. 1861).
So he went to Congress for approval:
1783 Act of March 3, 1863, 1, 12 Stat. 755. See Sellery, Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus as Viewed by Congress, 1 U. WIS. HISTORY BULL. 213 (1907).
2) Bush went to Congress after he had already been ignoring the law for years, thus his desire to make the authorization retroactive.
For insite into how Bush and Gonzales view the law read this latest outrage:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/comey-details-wiretapping-meeting/
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 04:44 PMOops, forgot to source the above references:
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/51-habeas-corpus-suspension.html
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 04:45 PMJohn II,
"Assigning fault to the United States and having a civil discussion about it can peacefully co-exist."
Exactly.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 04:52 PM
Charles B. -
Great research. The habeas provision is only under Article 1 anyway (conferring powers on the Congress) so it would be extraordinary for the President to exercise it. I think that's sort of your point; the President had been acting with, ahem, "extra-legal authority." In President Lincoln's case, there was no longer a Southern Delegation, so it was basically a formality.
I wonder if some of the more ... factually inclined ... members of this board have heard the presidential frontrunners' positions regarding restoring habeas?
Posted by Con Mor on May 15, 2007 05:00 PMCharles B.,
First of all, based on what you wrote in your last post, both Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Bush suspended habeas corpus first, then asked for congressional approval.
But, Mr. Lincoln did not initially seek congressional approval. Only after Taney ruled against his action, did he meet with Congress. And in his speech to Congress it did not seem like he was asking for anything.
In fact, after the speech, Congress rejected his suspensions of habeas corpus.
But, that didn't stop Mr. Lincoln from continuing the suspensions. He continued to do so for the next two years. Congress finally authorized it with the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863.
So, I'm not sure what you're arguing. Even if you call Mr. Lincoln's speech to Congress 'seeking congressional approval', he still ignored Congress when they rejected him.
Mr. Bush suspended habeas corpus, asked for the approval from Congress and received that approval.
So, based on your own admissions in your previous post, Mr. Bush's suspension of habeas corpus was not unprecedented.
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 05:29 PMJohn II,
I'll set aside context and concede your point about precedence, but this gets you no closer to offering a rationalization for suspending habeas now.
Are you ready to lay out your arguments as to why our Nation is in a similar kind of peril from an internal enemy now as then?
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 07:51 PMCharles B.,
"Are you ready to lay out your arguments as to why our Nation is in a similar kind of peril from an internal enemy now as then?"
First, let me say that it wasn't my intention to make an elaborate argument in support of the suspension of habeas corpus. Rather, I was trying to make the point that whether or not you (meaning everyone here) agree with the suspension, there is an allowance for that suspension in the Constitution.
Ms Johnson said:
"...it should enrage citizens who believe that America must uphold U.S. constitutional rights under all circumstances."
A lot of folks talk of habeas corpus as if it were an incontrovertible right in America. But, the Constitution allows for the suspension of certain rights under a specific set of circumstances. Ms. Johnson seems to believe otherwise.
Now, we can argue 'til the cows come home about whether or not our current circumstances matches "Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." But, we should all at least acknowledge what our Constitution allows.
We were invaded on September 11th, 2001, by an enemy that resided within our own borders. The damage inflicted upon us was massive.
We discovered how fatally vulnerable we were on that day. Since then, not only have we waged a war in two separate countries, but we're conducting covert special operations against jihadists all over the world.
I believe the risks of a major calamity from terrorist attacks on our soil are great enough to justify temporarily suspending habeas corpus.
Many will argue, understandably, that America is playing too rough for a nation that preaches about freedom and morality. But, I believe as a nation, we are becoming too effete. Yet we are not guaranteed this country for eternity.
The native Americans probably scanned the beautiful American landscape and felt as if this land was theirs forever. Obviously, they were wrong. But, they were not conquered in a matter of days, weeks, months or even years. They were conquered in a timespan measured by centuries. The decisions we make today will affect the security of this nation hundreds of years from now.
I support defending this country aggressively. Even if it means ruined political careers and pissed-off liberals. In the end, todays boisterous liberals and conservatives will be intermixed as bones and dust in a sound-proof soil. My great hope is that for at least the next 1000 years, that soil we are all destined to fertilize will remain the secure and cherished property of the United States of America.
John II,
Nobody ever disputed that there is a provision for suspension of habeas besides the original letter-writer., and she hasn't been part of this conversation.
Separating the flowery rhetoric from the substance, here is what I gather is your main justification for the suspension of habeas:
"We were invaded on September 11th, 2001, by an enemy that resided within our own borders. The damage inflicted upon us was massive."
Explain how the above constitutes either a) an invasion, or b) a rebellion. Please do that without stretching the semantics to fit your purpose.
Then there is your appeal to fear, which is the only other argument for suspension in your post, although it is not germane to the issue:
"I believe the risks of a major calamity from terrorist attacks on our soil are great enough to justify temporarily suspending habeas corpus."
Sorry, but "you believe" isn't enough for me. This simply doesn't fit with the required circumstances specified in the Constitution for the suspension of habeas.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 09:49 PMSomewhat on topic, have you heard about this latest outrage?
From a New York Times article:
"The military system of determining whether detainees are properly held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, includes an unusual practice: If Pentagon officials disagree with the result of a hearing, they order a second one, or even a third, until they approve of the finding."
These are the guys you want to invest such confidence in that you think they should have a unilateral right to extrajudicial judgement and detainment of US citizens.
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 09:53 PMCharles B.,
"Nobody ever disputed that there is a provision for suspension of habeas besides the original letter-writer., and she hasn't been part of this conversation."
You have a habit of saying something never happened and then immediately offering an example of when it indeed did happen.
The writer of the letter that has spawned this discussion is absolutely a part of this discussion. She disputed the provision and no one else on this forum challenged her disputation. So, by default, it gets accepted as fact in a public forum.
"Explain how the above constitutes either a) an invasion, or b) a rebellion. Please do that without stretching the semantics to fit your purpose."
We were invaded. That's as simple I can put it.
"Sorry, but "you believe" isn't enough for me. This simply doesn't fit with the required circumstances specified in the Constitution for the suspension of habeas."
That's perfectly fine with me. I was simply stating to you my beliefs on why I felt, as did the president and the congress, that we were justified in suspending habeas corpus. I didn't expect for one second that you'd agree with me.
Like I said before, I'm glad there is a lot of anger against my position on the issue. Suspending habeas corpus is a serious thing. Political careers and reputations should be ruined over the issue. So, although I disagree with you on this issue, I commend you for the disagreement.
Posted by John II on May 15, 2007 10:45 PMCome on JohnII, you can't be serious about an attack being the same thing as an invasion. Besides the implication of large numbers, wouldn't invasion also imply at least some degree of occupation?
It certainly was an attack, and certainly a very spectacular one with a very high casualty ratio.
But I can't see how you can claim it as an invasion.
"It certainly was an attack, and certainly a very spectacular one with a very high casualty ratio.
But I can't see how you can claim it as an invasion."
Invasion-1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.
Does that clear it up?
Posted by No use on May 15, 2007 11:37 PMMr. Skank,
"you can't be serious about an attack being the same thing as an invasion."
The fact is that we were invaded long before 9/11/01. Both attacks on the World Trade Center (1993 and 2001) and the attack on the Pentagon were products of that invasion.
Granted, it's not an invasion like we experienced in 1812 from the British Army. It's worse than that. The enemy has infiltrated into our society and culture under the guise of citizenship and student visas.
My biggest complaint is that we have not responded forcefully enough. There should be another 100,000 troops in Iraq. We should conquer Iran as well. We should allow Israel to enter the war. Instead of worrying about setting up democracies, we should just carve out sections of land four ourselves. We should claim their oil. What's the point of spilling our own blood to conquer a country and then not keep it (at least some of it)? Let Russia have Afghanistan.
I realize certain people's liberal sensitivity meter is going off the charts at this point so I'll stop now. I'll save my thoughts on the need for a New Crusade for another day lest your outrage causes you to suffer an apoplectic fit.
JohnII, I am not much given to apoplexy, so no need to worry on my behalf ;)
I would be interested to know on what moral basis you would invade these countries and take their resources. Are you taking the Lockean position that “waste land” is up for grabs, or are you taking your moral position from elsewhere?
John II,
Why should anyone have an apoplectic fit at seeing that?
Everyone who reads these postings already knows that, for all intents and purposes, you feel that you are living in the wrong age; and that time ought to turn backwards to please you.
Time won't. So, why waste it on you?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 08:54 AMJohn II,
"I realize certain people's liberal sensitivity meter is going off the charts at this point so I'll stop now."
Yes, the fact that what you're advocating is both illegal and immoral might be cause for a bit of "sensitivity".
I think I get it now. You quibble small points not really in dispute in order to make yourself sound sensible to give cover to your radical ideas about imperial exploits born of pure greed and contemplated with sociopathic detachment.
Your ideas, as you say, should be met with the highest degree of resistance. What you propose is both inconsistent with our Nations founding principles and our current interests.
You should hang your head in shame for implying that others are being uncivil, when the ideas you espouse are so clearly barbaric.
Charles B.,
"What you propose is both inconsistent with our Nations founding principles and our current interests."
How so? Our founding fathers had no problem conquering a large part of North America. And our current interests certainly involve oil.
Mr. Skank was correct in mentioning John Locke's "waste land". We need the oil. The middle east is a cesspool of murderers and fanatics that are wasting a large portion of the earth.
Did you see the video posted a few days ago showing the stoning to death of a 15 year old girl? It was called an honor killing because her boyfriend was of a different religion.
That sort of culture does not deserve the land their ancestors happened to wander to thousands of years ago.
America would make much better use of that land.
John II:
I thought you were a thoughtful, somewhat misinformed individual. But this takes the cake:
"Instead of worrying about setting up democracies, we should just carve out sections of land four ourselves. We should claim their oil. What's the point of spilling our own blood to conquer a country and then not keep it (at least some of it)? Let Russia have Afghanistan."
My "liberal sensitivity meter" was certainly set off by that. Not only impossible to implement, you sound suspiciously like the Axis. Then there's this gem:
"That sort of culture does not deserve the land their ancestors happened to wander to thousands of years ago."
Wir mussen die Araben abrasieren!!
Now I realize that you're misinformed, hypocritical (have you started demonstrating against fertility clinics?), sexist, xenophibic, and a fascist to boot.
What's especially disturbing is that you're one of the "smart" conservatives here.
Con Mor,
"Now I realize that you're misinformed, hypocritical (have you started demonstrating against fertility clinics?), sexist, xenophibic, and a fascist to boot."
Where have I ever been misinformed or hypocritical? Just because I do not protest against fertility clinics does not make me a hypocrite. So, seriously, please provide a quote where I was misinformed or hypocritical. I think most folks here who read my posts may strongly disagree with my opinions but I doubt they would call me a hypocrite.
Now, as for "sexist, xenophibic, and a fascist to boot", you may be able to build a strong case against me. ;)
But, I'd greatly prefer if you addressed my points instead of engaging in ad hominem counter arguments.
For example, would you have argued against expanding the United States beyond the original 13 States?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 04:08 PMJust to set the record straight since you accused me of being misinformed and hypocritical on this forum ; a charge of one the near worst kind (lying would be the worst).
Here's a brief exchange from two months ago where I acknowledged I did not know something (not misinformed) and stated that it still doesn't change my opinion. Your charge of me being hypocritical would have been valid only if I changed my stance after hearing the new information.
*********
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/04/edwards_cancer.html#comments
Mr. Moron,
I noticed your sly Parthian shot: "6) fail to know facts tangential to the central argument (see fertility clinics, above)"
Just to clarify: The introduction of the information regarding the actions of fertility clinics, even though I was not aware of them, does not in any way change my opinion of the willful destruction of human embryos. So, it really does not matter if one entity does it or two entities, I still believe it is wrong.
Posted by John II on April 6, 2007 04:37 PM
John II -
Dang nice vocab!! I looked it up, and very nice usage.
That you still think it is wrong is precisely why I respect your opinion. Again, *If* I thought it was morally the same thing, I'd protest fertility clinics with the same fervor that I'd protest infanticide. Truth is, I don't think it's a moral equivalent.
But *some* people on the right 1) don't mention wasted embryos from fertility clinics in their media 2) don't protest fertility clinics when they find out.
Also, you have me convinced. See below
Signed -
Mr. Rogers for John II only; otherwise I'm just a "moron".
*******
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 04:54 PMJohn II -
You're kidding. You were misinformed about the destruction of embryos at fertility clinics (rember using the phrase "Parthian shot" to describe the swipe I took at your lack of knowledge?) You're a hypcrite for not speaking out about that destruction of embryos as you do speak out against that destruction for stem cells.
I would add that you're a hypocrite for being so concerned with the souls of the unborn but not concerned with the deaths of so many innocent Arabs (and Persians, were we to invade Iran) whom you think "do not deserve the land of their ancestors." But I digress.
You actually want me to disengage from the ad hominem to address your "point." You think we should widen the war to include Israel and presumably, all the surrounding Arabic states, and Iran? To get their oil?
That will increase terrorism, bankrupt our finances, alienate our allies, deplete our armed forces, and undermine our moral credibility. Oh, we've already done that, haven't we? Maybe I should add that will be a military failure; unless you're willing to commit genocide, which you seem to be tilting toward.
Further, you seem to think that it's OK to take people across the globe, detain them, use (at least) "harsh" interrogation techniques, and not give them a chance to prove their innocence? How un-American can you get?
I thought you wanted to roll it back to the 19th Century, but now I think you want to roll it back to 1942 -- on the fascist side.
Posted by Con Mor on May 16, 2007 05:16 PMSo your great defense is that you're UNinformed, not MISinformed?!?
Glad that was cleared up.
Posted by Con Mor on May 16, 2007 05:31 PMCon Mor,
"You're kidding. You were misinformed about the destruction of embryos at fertility clinics (rember using the phrase "Parthian shot" to describe the swipe I took at your lack of knowledge?) You're a hypcrite for not speaking out about that destruction of embryos as you do speak out against that destruction for stem cells."
I was not "misinformed", I was simply not informed at all. Mr. Skank asked me a question about fertility clinics that I did not know. I didn't pretend to know either. I flat out told Mr. Skank I did not know what goes on at fertility clinics. It may be hard to believe, but I don't know everything. Do you? Are you saying because I did not know the specific practices of fertility clinics that you now have free license to label misinformed in general?
As for speaking out against fertility clinics, I already told you I oppose their practices involving the destruction of human embryos. I don't have to protest the clinics just like I don't protest abortion clinics. No hypocrisy there.
Why don't you answer my question about the expansion of this country from 13 states to 50 states?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 05:35 PMI never said you had to "protest." You're not fooling anyone in the degree to which you disapprove of stem cells and fertility clinics. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Is it whether I think expanding the US *was* a bad idea, or is it IF I were alive at the time, would I have been against expanding the US? Or is it, IF I were alive at the time, would I have been against expanding the US by committing genocide?
Either way, I don't understand what you're getting at.
Posted by Con Mor on May 16, 2007 06:02 PMCon Mor,
You're exact quote:
"(have you started demonstrating against fertility clinics?)"
Would you have supported the exapansion of the US from 13 if you were alive then? If you could change history, would you not let the Americans conquer the natives?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 06:05 PMOK you're right, I did say you should protest; your stance is still hypocritical.
Engaging in counter-factual speculation isn't really my thing. If I could have shot Hitler when he was just a drunk in a bar, that would have avoided the Holocaust, but could have come at even greater expense (say, the US doing that sort of thing). If I had been a Mayan, I would have been a Mayan. It's really a pretty stupid exercise at some point.
The U.S. has turned out to be the greatest country in the history of humanity; not without its faults, however. Probably, I would have been for it; my ancestors were here, and they did.
Posted by Con Mor on May 16, 2007 06:17 PMSo the same week that three of our brave soldiers are captured, Natalie see fit to bitch about our "inhumane treatment " of pow's currently being held in Guantanamo.
The last time Alqueda captured six G.I's THEY BEHEADED THEM and proudly released THE VIDEO for all to see.
Where is Natalie's ,or any other terrorist sympathising dems outrage ,demanding humane treatment WHEN OUR BOYS ARE BEING HELD?
... .... .....
CRICKETS
Posted by Get Real on May 16, 2007 07:20 PMJohn II,
I note that you never denied being a sociopath, which is the only way you could advocate the murder of innocents with such detachment.
Do you have kids?
Posted by Charles B on May 16, 2007 08:12 PMCon Mor,
"The U.S. has turned out to be the greatest country in the history of humanity; not without its faults, however. Probably, I would have been for it; my ancestors were here, and they did."
I don't think you've answered my question. Or maybe you did.
It's nice to hear you feel the U.S. turned out to be the greatest country in the history of humanity. You know, as well as I do, that this nation achieved greatness by conquering the native Americans (as well as the Spanish and buying off the French) from the east coast all the way to the west coast.
So, if we can both agree that this nation achieved greatness by conquering most of North America, why couldn't we achieve even more greatness by conquering the middle east?
Or do you feel it is only morally acceptable to conquer those who reside on the same continent? If so, why? Why is it acceptable to have conquered and claimed California but not Iraq?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 10:25 PMCharles B.,
"I note that you never denied being a sociopath, which is the only way you could advocate the murder of innocents with such detachment."
First of all, I never advocated the murdering of innocents. As I see it, innocents are already being murdered. I believe that a stronger response to Islamic extremism would result in less death of the innocent.
As far as being labeled a sociopath, I think that simply falls in line with the type of bombastic hyperbole often exclaimed by the left.
Why don't you answer the questions I've submitted in my last few posts?
Posted by John II on May 16, 2007 10:34 PMJohn II -
You wrote "So, if we can both agree that this nation achieved greatness by conquering most of North America, why couldn't we achieve even more greatness by conquering the middle east?"
That is a patently stupid question for at least two reasons: 1) North America is not the Middle East and 2) the Middle East is not North America.
Are you f*ckin 12?
Posted by Con Mor on May 17, 2007 05:00 AMNice dodge, Con Mor. And nice language too.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 07:11 AMJohn II,
"First of all, I never advocated the murdering of innocents."
So no innocents will die if the following plans were carried out?
" We should conquer Iran as well. We should allow Israel to enter the war. Instead of worrying about setting up democracies, we should just carve out sections of land four ourselves."
Then there's this:
"'ll save my thoughts on the need for a New Crusade for another day"
No innocent people killed in the Crusades at all I guess.
John II, you seem like an incredibly selfish person. You tut-tut people for using "bad language", yet the ideas you espouse are pure barbarism. Stated in a "civil" tone I suppose, but abhorant in their essence.
Dismissing my accusation that you display sociopathic detachment by calling it hyperbolic does not a refutation make.
You cite events that happened centuries ago- before much of our enlightenment as a society and a country had occurred- as reasoning for your imperial daydreams.
As for the questions I left unanswered: "How so? Our founding fathers had no problem conquering a large part of North America. And our current interests certainly involve oil."
Re: Our founding fathers. They lived hundreds of years ago in another time. As I stated above, there has been considerable enlightenment since then. There has been an attempt to establish order among the nations since then. Things aren't up for grabs like they used to be. Nations get beaten back now if they try to grab land. Your second point about our Nations interest in oil is incredibly short-sighted. Is that the only argument for it being in our interest? It goes back to your selfishness. It's fine for you to display it as an individual so long as you hurt no-one. Our Country however, should display more moral courage than you possess and try getting along with people instead of seeing them as expendable and mere impediments to your desire for material wealth and US hegemony.
Shallow, selfish, sociopathic.
Go ahead and chastise me for my hyperbole now oh "civil" one...
Charles B.,
First you say this:
"What you propose is both inconsistent with our Nations founding principles and our current interests."
And when I point out that the founding fathers had no problems conquering most of North America, you respond with this:
"Re: Our founding fathers. They lived hundreds of years ago in another time. As I stated above, there has been considerable enlightenment since then."
So, now you're arguing both sides. Am I consistent or inconsistent with the founding fathers?
Now that you've managed to switch your view of our founding fathers in a matter of 24 hours,can you tell me if it was wrong or right to conquer the Indians and claim their land? Would it be your enlightened preference that the United States remained just 13 states and left the rest for the natives?
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 08:33 AMPM Blair just said how great it is having a strong leader as George W. Bush for the world.Thank God we didn't have gore or kerry.WE WOULD OF ALL BEEN SCREWED!
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:34 AMPM Blair just said how great it is having a strong leader as George W. Bush for the world.Thank God we didn't have gore or kerry.WE WOULD OF ALL BEEN SCREWED!
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:34 AMPM Blair just said how great it is having a strong leader as George W. Bush for the world.Thank God we didn't have gore or kerry.WE WOULD OF ALL BEEN SCREWED!
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:34 AMCome on Charles B., don't give up like Con Mor.
Don't worry about the founding fathers inconsistency. Let's stick to the broader points. Just answer these straight-forward questions:
Was it wrong or right to conquer the Indians and claim their land?
Would it be your preference that the United States remained just 13 states and left the rest for the natives?
Should we not have taken land from Mexico?
Please resist the urge to offer a factually true yet irrelevant statement such as Con Mor offered:
"1) North America is not the Middle East and 2) the Middle East is not North America."
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 12:11 PM
JohnII, you didn't yet tell me what moral basis you are operating from
Posted by Bango Skank on May 17, 2007 01:31 PMMr. Skank,
Your mention of John Locke's "waste land" was spot on.
Do you believe America could make better use of the Middle East than anyone who resides there now? I do.
But, I'm not suggesting the annexation of the entire Middle East; just parts of it. Why not? Why should they own that land simply because their anscestors happened to wander there? Are they serving humanity by wasting all that land and causing all that needless conflict?
There's another Lockean principle that I'll refer to as the "noxious creature" clause:
"And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature."
Noxious cultures in the Middle East need punishment and we need reparations. The price of being noxious is that we get to annex some of the wasted land that they have taken for granted.
"Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation from him that has done it: and any other person, who finds it just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he has suffered."Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 03:24 PM
JohnII
I must admit that it has been a while since I touched Locke, but I do remember that he greatly influenced the US in how the Indian territories were dealt with.
One problem I found with his thinking was that he provided no way to adjudicate when it came to contending claims to rights or especially to goods.
So “wasteland” was very open to interpretation and there was no way to say why plowing land or building on it should be an “improvement” rather than using it as a nature preserve, for example. So your claim that America could put the oil to “better use” begs a standard interpretation of “better”. If the counter claim is that since oil gives rise to pollution, it is better to keep it safely underground, you would have no way to show that your use is “better” in a universal sense, but merely that you prefer it.
So Locke’s argument simply boils down to a handy excuse for whomever has the nature and power to impose their will to achieve their preferences.
By that standard it is simply a contest in exercising will and power, and also means that you have no moral grounds to object to 9/11 since that too was just a contest of wills, with the exercising of a preference and a will.
You could under this standard go ahead and punish the act, but only under the moral of power, not because it was wrong.
If you judge the 9/11 act as wrong, then you are invoking another moral code, and if it was a teleological one like Kant, then your invasion for acquisition would be equally wrong.
This thread belongs in the comic book section. Have at it, children.
Posted by Truth on May 18, 2007 04:40 PMMr. Skank,
Excellent points.
I've thought about those issues as well. Power definitely has a say in determining what's right and wrong and how punishment should be applied.
I often think about the life-style of the ancient Indians. I think I would much rather prefer their life-style to my own. But, that life-style only really works if the population is stagnant. At some point, a growing population becomes the direct enemy of the nomadic life-style.
Why should all the land of North America be entrusted to these simpletons while a growing population elsewhere could better cultivate the land?
You are correct to label 9/11 as a contest of wills. Both sides are right in their own eyes. And both sides wrong. As much as I despise our Islamic enemies, I also respect them.
They have a set of rules which they are willing to act upon and for which to die. They play their roles, we play ours.
Even though they properly play their roles in this world, that doesn't mean they are right. But, it does mean that power and righteousness is needed to punish them.
All this is assuming that there are real rights and wrongs in this world and not simply interpretations of right and wrong.
John Locke speaks of natural rights that men should follow. Those who flagrantly break those natural laws, thereby causing harm to others, should be punished. Yet, only those powerful enough to administer the punishment can actually do so.
So, I agree with your assessment that power plays a large part in determining what's right or wrong and what the punishment should be.
Posted by John II on May 19, 2007 11:28 AMJohnII
Locke invoked Christianity as a foundational part of his outlook, but had great difficulty in explaining how to get from the thought that everything is given by God equally to all mankind to use, to the notion that force could be used to deny somebody their God-given rights to land and resources on the basis that better use could be derived.
I think that he was unsuccessful in solving this and his attempt to use Consequentialism and Utilitarianism was barren. His approach would deprive you of some of the fundamental parts of Christianity which are essentially deontological rather than consequentialist. One is supposed to do good and believe not because of reward, but rather because it is the right thing to do. The Samaritan did not stop to help because of expected reward, but because it was right action.
Locke is unable to show how a stable society could result from mutual distrust and animosity, or why altruism could exist.
The only way to rescue Locke without resorting to either evolutionary biology or mysticism, is to have conventions and compacts in which mutual non-aggression is agreed.
May I suggest that the Contractarian writings may be of interest to you?
If you have not already read them, you may find John Rawls, and David Gauthier to be fruitful.