Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006) by Molly Ivins - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-04-2006, 08:36 AM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yes I do and the right to control your mind is important and the substances that go into it should be your choice, nothing should be immune from this even if it can kill you.
But what's the difference between deregulating heroin and prescription drugs then?

To even acknowledge that there's over-the-counter and prescription drugs is to acknowledge that the government has a place in regulating controlled substances.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 08:51 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:37 PM
There is no way in hell that a degree of freedom like that would be instituted in a democracy; but that shouldn't stop pushing for as much freedom as possible; it isn't impossible to see marijuana and opioids legalised.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 11:01 AM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
.
Do you see a higher and higher tax burden as an issue of economic liberty?
Do you worry when the judicial branch bypasses the democratic process when they "make" law?
Do you think about smokers and civil liberties in 2006?


1. no, i see taxes as means to more fairly distribute wealth across society and a way to enforce that those to whom much has been given, much is expected in return. Melon made a great point about corporations, too.

2. laws are up for interpretation by the judiciary. that's how it's always worked. civil rights are not up for popular vote.

3. i'm somewhat libertarian when it comes to smoking and drinking and drug use -- just so long as it doesn't imapct my life, then do what you want. i see the crackdown on smokers in bars (DC goes into a smoke ban this january!) not as an infringement on the rights of a smoker, but as a protection of restaurant workers and bartenders not to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke that could potentially kill them.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 02:04 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
no, i see taxes as means to more fairly distribute wealth across society and a way to enforce that those to whom much has been given, much is expected in return. Melon made a great point about corporations, too.
Funny how liberty is defined by the ideological prism we view it through. If I took your wallet and gave it to the first "needy" person I saw, we'd call that robbery. But when the government does it it's ok? I'm not really wanting to debate these issues, I'm using them to illustrate my point. Where you see a role for government--I see a lessening of liberty, in this case, the freedom to keep what one rightfully earned. Conversely, where you see the erosion of civil rights regarding the War on Terror, I see aggresive action meant to lessen the chance of another attack.
Quote:
i'm somewhat libertarian when it comes to smoking and drinking and drug use -- just so long as it doesn't imapct my life, then do what you want. i see the crackdown on smokers in bars (DC goes into a smoke ban this january!) not as an infringement on the rights of a smoker, but as a protection of restaurant workers and bartenders not to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke that could potentially kill them.
I never smoked but I'm against smoking bans on private property because, in the spirit of Martin Niemöller, how long before the "nanny state" comes after me. You see it as a matter of public health. I see a loss of liberty. Fine, same issue, two different takes.
Quote:
laws are up for interpretation by the judiciary. that's how it's always worked. civil rights are not up for popular vote.
So, you believe in the "living constitution" that after 200 years finds "rights" to abortion and bans school prayer, but the constitution is suddenly not open to interpretation when George Bush needs the flexibility to fight an enemy that uses tactics and technology unimagined by our founders.

There are countless other examples, the BIG point being. As a conservative, it's in our DNA to seek lower taxes and limit the size and scope of government. I'm never happy when the government gets more control over our lives but sometimes tradeoffs are necessary aren't they? So I support the majority of Bush's proposals mainly because, in his words--
Quote:
I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 02:26 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

The definition of "war," which is specifically defined under the Constitution, has become so broad as to be meaningless. As such, you could say that we're constantly "at war," and that the executive power has the permanent right to disregard the separation of powers--running contrary to the idea of the democracy.
Melon
I understand your point, but let us not forget that war was declared on us--by Usama bin Laden in 1996. That we choose not to listen was an error with tragic consequences.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 06:26 PM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Funny how liberty is defined by the ideological prism we view it through. If I took your wallet and gave it to the first "needy" person I saw, we'd call that robbery. But when the government does it it's ok? I'm not really wanting to debate these issues, I'm using them to illustrate my point. Where you see a role for government--I see a lessening of liberty, in this case, the freedom to keep what one rightfully earned. Conversely, where you see the erosion of civil rights regarding the War on Terror, I see aggresive action meant to lessen the chance of another attack.


no one is asking me to give my whole wallet to someone, but if i give him some money, and someone else gives him some money, and he's able to take that money, go back to school, and age a job, then maybe he won't actually steal my wallet.

and i find welfare to be a weak anti-tax argument. there are certain things that only government has the ability to do -- defend the country, educate the masses, build roads, and ensure health care for everyone. when certain basic needs are met we actually have more liberty for more people. money only means liberty if you have money.





[q]So, you believe in the "living constitution" that after 200 years finds "rights" to abortion and bans school prayer, but the constitution is suddenly not open to interpretation when George Bush needs the flexibility to fight an enemy that uses tactics and technology unimagined by our founders.[/q]

George Bush simply has to make the legal case that he needs to torture people to keep us safe. he has not done so, at least to my satisfaction. those who fought for the right to have an abortion and protect the separation of church and state have all presented legal cases and won.


Quote:
There are countless other examples, the BIG point being. As a conservative, it's in our DNA to seek lower taxes and limit the size and scope of government. I'm never happy when the government gets more control over our lives but sometimes tradeoffs are necessary aren't they? So I support the majority of Bush's proposals mainly because, in his words--
how do you feel about drug testing for high school students?

my point is that if you think that George Bush is about lowering taxes and limiting the size and scope of the government, you've got yourself the wrong man. he and the Congress spend like drunken sailors, and it's often to enforce a highly specific brand of morality. so two men can't get married. how else are we going to limit and "defend" marriage? people within acceptable age limits? people within the same religion? same race?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 07:09 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

how do you feel about drug testing for high school students?

my point is that if you think that George Bush is about lowering taxes and limiting the size and scope of the government, you've got yourself the wrong man. he and the Congress spend like drunken sailors, and it's often to enforce a highly specific brand of morality. so two men can't get married. how else are we going to limit and "defend" marriage? people within acceptable age limits? people within the same religion? same race?
Drug testing? That's a good one. My instincts, especially under the age of 21, is no. Even in adults I'm leery, but public safety is certainly an issue in some cases so grudgingly I'm accepting it. One of the necessary tradeoffs I mentioned. Had to take my first one about 3 years ago in fact. Also, the use of performance enhancing drugs in athletics can only be detected and discouraged through drug testing.

As far as the spending of Republicans. I'm of the opinion that losing the house this fall would be the best thing for them.
Wake-'em-the-f#@k-up.
As a bonus, 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel=GOP landslide in '08.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 07:15 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

As a bonus, 2 years of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel=GOP landslide in '08.


initially, i hadn't thought that the Dems were going to win back both the house and the senate. maybe the house, and they'd pick up seats, but i didn't see a 1994 tidal wave.

now, with Sen. Allen sticking his cowboy boot in his mouth and the Foley scandal, it might be a landslide.

i don't have much faith in Pelosi and Rangel, but they couldn't hardly be any worse than what's going on right now.

and i hope, if power shifts to the Dems, Bush is indicted for war crimes.

i really do.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 08:12 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

and i hope, if power shifts to the Dems, Bush is indicted for war crimes.

i really do.
Poor George, he gets blamed because he did TOO LITTLE to prevent 9/11 and he gets blamed for doing TOO MUCH to prevent another one.

I'd think twice before putting poor George on trial.
1) Imagine the facts that might come out about attacks that have been prevented by this president's policies. American's may have a collective "gulp."
2) Imagine also the embarrassment of Saddam, Osama (by satellite), and other terrorists taking the stand and sounding exactly like... Howard Dean. Wouldn't be good for the Dems image would it?

Besides, Mitt pardons him anyway.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 09:12 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
I understand your point, but let us not forget that war was declared on us--by Usama bin Laden in 1996. That we choose not to listen was an error with tragic consequences.
Osama bin Laden cannot declare war, because he's not a state. This is, after all, the justification as to why captured terrorists are "enemy combatants," not "prisoners of war."

It cannot be "a war" to justify the erosion of democracy on one hand, and a "police action" to justify the indefinite detention of criminal suspects on the other.

In the end, Bush cannot have his cake and eat it too. He is not our emperor, and the rule of law is in effect both in peace and wartime.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-04-2006, 11:45 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Poor George, he gets blamed because he did TOO LITTLE to prevent 9/11 and he gets blamed for doing TOO MUCH to prevent another one.

I'd think twice before putting poor George on trial.
1) Imagine the facts that might come out about attacks that have been prevented by this president's policies. American's may have a collective "gulp."
2) Imagine also the embarrassment of Saddam, Osama (by satellite), and other terrorists taking the stand and sounding exactly like... Howard Dean. Wouldn't be good for the Dems image would it?

Besides, Mitt pardons him anyway.

tell me, how many people are detained at GITMO, and how many have actually been charged with anything?

i cannot comprehend the willingness of this administration to TORTURE people. it boggles the mind and goes against everything we stand for as a society.

i could care less how this flies politically. this is about Western civilization and our values. this is much more about who we are than about what they do.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 07:59 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Osama bin Laden cannot declare war, because he's not a state. This is, after all, the justification as to why captured terrorists are "enemy combatants," not "prisoners of war."

It cannot be "a war" to justify the erosion of democracy on one hand, and a "police action" to justify the indefinite detention of criminal suspects on the other.

In the end, Bush cannot have his cake and eat it too. He is not our emperor, and the rule of law is in effect both in peace and wartime.

Melon
You're sharp.

Actually it's P.O.Ws, per the Geneva Conventions, that can be held indefinitely, or at least until a peace agreement or surrender.
Detainees was sort of a "in legal limbo" term which the Supreme Court has found to be wanting. That he's now getting congressional and court approval should be to Bush's credit by the way.

Of coarse you'd argue that Bush's hand was forced, but the fact that this is a form of warfare and a type of combatant, unknown at the time of the Conventions, isn't the fault of Bush. All he knew was that we, as a nation, could no longer afford to treat them as civil criminals.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 08:23 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



tell me, how many people are detained at GITMO, and how many have actually been charged with anything?

i cannot comprehend the willingness of this administration to TORTURE people. it boggles the mind and goes against everything we stand for as a society.

i could care less how this flies politically. this is about Western civilization and our values. this is much more about who we are than about what they do.
Sometime we're gonna have to compare definitions of torture.

Bush did a very smart thing actually, he had Congress define and set limits to the methods of interrogation (much nicer word than torture don't ya think?) And the methods are limited to isolation, sleep and sensation depravation and the such. Maybe some slapping. But hardly the lurid, sensational torture methods of bygone days. Hate to disappoint you, but it seems Bush isn't the sadistic tormenter of men that he's made out to be.

Maybe you were, but I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

(any Python fans?)
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 08:51 PM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Sometime we're gonna have to compare definitions of torture.

Bush did a very smart thing actually, he had Congress define and set limits to the methods of interrogation (much nicer word than torture don't ya think?) And the methods are limited to isolation, sleep and sensation depravation and the such. Maybe some slapping. But hardly the lurid, sensational torture methods of bygone days. Hate to disappoint you, but it seems Bush isn't the sadistic tormenter of men that he's made out to be.

Maybe you were, but I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

(any Python fans?)


but you're missing the critical part: it's all at the discreation of the executive. if Bush, the Decider, decides that he thinks a certain "technique" (where's our moral clarity now?) will be useful, then he can make it legal.

heard of waterboarding? the Khamer Rouge and Imperial Japan sure had. heard of "stress positions"? hypothermia? sleep deprivations for 35 out of 40 days?

ask yourself this question: in the days after Abu Ghraib, did you believe that the Congress of the United States would be formally decriminalizing the techniques depicted in many of those photographs - and allowing the president to use his discretion to order them?

Abu Ghraib will be American policy, a critical part of the the meaning of America across the world.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 11:11 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Well, here in Canada, there is a concern about our military handing over prisoners to the Afghans who might hand them over to the US. Many of us are now wary of giving prisoners to the US because of your policies and the recent Maher Arar case.

This would not have been a concern in the past but now.......
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com