The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Dr Maturin]

The days of rioting in France are leading them AWAY from their ties with America, not closer to them.

Huh? Refusing to support the war in Iraq in order the hide their dubious dealings with the Baathist regime led them away from us. Well, FURTHER away. The rioting should be a huge wake up call.

To everyone on the subject of the terrorists at Gitmo:

If that is the case why did the government release several hundreds of prisoners after more than a year? Who says that the rest IS guilty? Not any judge that I am aware of.

They were never charged. If they had been, we couldn't simply release them in such a manner.

The reason the judiciary can't oversee the detainees is that we do not intend to prosecute them. The means by which we capture and detain the terrorists probably wouldn't hold up in court. Hence, we do not prosecute them and simply hold them for the duration of the emergency. It's rather elementary. We are not "destroying the Constitution." I'm not happy with many things Bush has or has not done while in office, but his conducting of the war on terror isn't one of them.

Vyce made the exact same point that I did. These guys are obviously terrorists. You think we're just picking up random Arab and Pakistani immigrants off the street?

And no, of course I don't think the thugs deserve the same rights as you and I do. And not necessarily because they're foreigners.

so we are, each according to our ability

Marxist!

Again, we are not CONTROLLING what people read. We are monitoring for terrorists. Guys, we are fighting a war unlike any other war ever fought. I really wish we could just bomb and raid and hold ground. But this is much, much different. We have an insidious enemy willing to sacrifice anything to succeed in their dark goals.

Today, one of the greatest problems with our nation is that people with no interest in the news, and no ability to find out the truth of politicians statements, are casting votes for those politicians.

That is one of the most incredulous things I've read in a long time. Are you sure about that? This is the age of information. Your precious libraries offer internet access, where anything can be found.

Statue of Liberty stuff

One of my liberal friends used that "huddled masses" line with me once. Where, I must ask, is that in any of our policies?

[David Panzer]

Guys, we are fighting a war unlike any other war ever fought.

Actually, the military and government is. Civilians are busy with among other things: athletics be it playing, coaching, watching, and betting; pursuing various forms of entertainment from family friendly to the bizarre, an example of bizarre provided by George Carlin "2 consenting adults in leather boy scout uniforms hitting each other on the head with ball-peen hammers while taking turns blowing the cat"; normal day-to-day activites; and whatever else people do during a day.

So while my government is fighting another "war against [insert the buzz-word of the day], I'm continuing on in my life.

The rest of your post doesn't mean much to me, except that one line I quoted.

[Radhil]

At the risk of violating my current head-in-sand policy, I looked in here. And I think the days posts can be summed up fairly well.

ZHD and friends trust the government completely. The rest (me too) don't, also completely. Point blank, finito, simple.

I have high doubts that any form of logical inquiry would sway either side, considering that both sides arguements spring from the core assumptions.

Going back to my nap now. I'll leave cookies on the table.

[Dr Maturin]

ZHD and friends trust the government completely.

Bravo, Radhil. Bravo, I say, for completely getting it wrong. Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you even read my posts for the last two years?

I trust the government to protect our nation, because, well, if they don't then they won't exist. I don't, however, trust that every action they take is in our best interests. Handguns banned in the city of SF, eminent domain determined to be legal, banning free speech...

But even so, I trust the press less than I trust the government.

Going back to my nap now.

I have some advice for you, my friend: wake up.

[David Panzer]

I have some advice for you, my friend: wake up.

I received the same comment in an email from the creator/owner of a website dedicated to revealing the truth about "The Illuminati". Funniest email I ever received. Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, Monty Python's Flying Circus, the Marx Brothers, Sam Kinison, Bill Hicks, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and Taiwanese Parliament combined cannot compare to the laughter that that combination of 10 words and 3 puncuation marks elicited.

[Radhil]

Bravo, Radhil. Bravo, I say, for completely getting it wrong. Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you even read my posts for the last two years?

Yup. Whirl'o'fun, lemme tell ya.

No further sarcasm, 'cause I'm honestly not interested in the usual back'n'forth. I'm wrong? OK, I revise and qualify my statement. ZHD and friends trust the government as it stands now, concerning all decisions touching on the war on terror, completely. Better?

EDIT: And I was awake for the election, and various times afterwards. What it got me was grayer hair and less sleep. I also probably see better now then I did then. So no thanks.

[Dr Maturin]

I'm wrong? OK, I revise and qualify my statement. ZHD and friends trust the government as it stands now, concerning all decisions touching on the war on terror, completely. Better?

Close. I explained my logic for the trust I have in them concerning the war, but there are no absolutes. But again, I trust them infinitely less in other areas. Areas where, currently, there are problems. And like I said, I trust the press less than I trust the government.

[David Panzer]

I trust ESPN

[AaronB]

Going back to my nap now. I'll leave cookies on the table.

But you never said what kind of cookies!

[WorkerCaste]

(1)They were never charged. (2)If they had been, we couldn't simply release them in such a manner.

(3)The reason the judiciary can't oversee the detainees is that we do not intend to prosecute them. (4)The means by which we capture and detain the terrorists probably wouldn't hold up in court. (5)Hence, we do not prosecute them and simply hold them for the duration of the emergency. It's rather elementary. (6)We are not "destroying the Constitution." (7)I'm not happy with many things Bush has or has not done while in office, but his conducting of the war on terror isn't one of them.

Vyce made the exact same point that I did. (8)These guys are obviously terrorists. (9)You think we're just picking up random Arab and Pakistani immigrants off the street?

[Sentence identification added for ease in responding]

We've both made our cases and we're starting to repeat ourselves, so I'll just comment shorthanded here:

(1) Agree.
(2) You can always drop charges. Happens every day. Works just fine.
(3) Agree.
(4) Not sure myself (insufficient insight into the operations), but don't doubt that many of the cases are so questionable that they could not be tried.
(5) Agree. Of course, the "emergency" is the presence of terrorism. Anyone who thinks this emergency will end in our lifetimes, raise your hand.
(6) No, we're not. Circumventing it it. Weakening it. Yes. Even people intending to destroy it couldn't do it all at once.
(7) I agree that that's what you think.
(8) Because the ones that are detaining them tell us so? I'm not convinced, and you didn't address the release of so many that were previously "obviously terrorists". After a year they decided they were wrong on perhaps 15% of the detainees in the most open of the detention facilities.
(9) Not random, no, but not necessarily guilty, either.

Marxist!

Actually, the Marx brothers never did much for me. Oh, wait, you mean the other guy! Hmmm. I doubt he would think so, but that line is straight out of the doctrine, isn't it?

[Dr Maturin]

[Sentence identification added for ease in responding]

We've both made our cases and we're starting to repeat ourselves, so I'll just comment shorthanded here:

(1) Agree.
(2) You can always drop charges. Happens every day. Works just fine.
(3) Agree.
(4) Not sure myself (insufficient insight into the operations), but don't doubt that many of the cases are so questionable that they could not be tried.

Well, it's like a shield for the military personnel and agents who might apprehend terrorists. The methods they use could be construed as illegal, even if the terrorist(s) they captured were flat out guilty.

(5) Agree. Of course, the "emergency" is the presence of terrorism.

Not necessarily. See my response to (8).

(6) No, we're not. Circumventing it it. Weakening it. Yes. Even people intending to destroy it couldn't do it all at once.

Again, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. We ARE weakening it, but by anything we're doing concerning the war on terror. There are real, tangible issues we must worry about.

(7) I agree that that's what you think.

Well, the thing I am most unhappy with is his refusal to use the veto power.

(8) Because the ones that are detaining them tell us so? I'm not convinced, and you didn't address the release of so many that were previously "obviously terrorists". After a year they decided they were wrong on perhaps 15% of the detainees in the most open of the detention facilities.

Who said that anyone decided that they weren't guilty? They were held until they were no longer considered a threat and until no more useful information could be obtained from them.

(9) Not random, no, but not necessarily guilty, either.

Do you know how many of these immigrants we've picked up on American soil?

I doubt he would think so, but that line is straight out of the doctrine, isn't it?

It must have been a subconscious, compulsive action...

[WorkerCaste]

Well, it's like a shield for the military personnel and agents who might apprehend terrorists. The methods they use could be construed as illegal, even if the terrorist(s) they captured were flat out guilty.

And this, by me, is wrong. We put the legal protections for the accused in place because it becomes to easy to harm the innocent through error or malice by individuals. I think the protections are needed.

Who said that anyone decided that they weren't guilty? They were held until they were no longer considered a threat and until no more useful information could be obtained from them.

Do you know how many of these immigrants we've picked up on American soil?

That's a point, but who said they were guilty? No, I don't know how many have been picked up where. I don't even know how many are being held worldwide. I don't know the composition of the prisioners with regards to race, religion, country of origin. I don't know what the charges are. And... I can't find out. I could find out who was arrested in my community. I could get a copy of the court docket. These things can be know under our legal system.

Given our discussion of late, I thought I'd post a link to an article I just saw on Slate by David Cole. I liked it, so that tells you something of it's perspective.

Who They Are

[The Puzzled Pak'Ma'Ra]

WMD in Iraq, Found, Tolerance

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004

... It's a pitch to sell a book.... But interesting nonetheless...

... (Topic change)...

... Tolerance is a wonderful thing, and Americans show it more than any other group of people I've known (..note: Been to Europe, but long enough to know anything about it).

... But THERE HAVE TO BE LIMITS.

... In 2000, a very intelligent Chinese immigrant and his wife became naturalized Americans. Good for them. Then, for reasons beyond my understaning, this man is given a job in the design and development of America's most sensitive (secret) weapon systems...

... Well, what do you know? He's been sneaking computer disks to a contact from the People's Republic ever since he got the job. And due to his efforts, the Chinese now has the newest designs for Aegis Missile Systems, and has learned how to track the previously untrackable Virginia Class submarines... This is a huge blow to the US... though it's not getting much media attention... odd, that.

... A huge victory for the Chinese, brought on by a complete lack of intelligent consideration by those in authority in the US... and no doubt also by the lack of hard-science types of American birth... (we suck at science, relatively speaking).

... very disturbing.

[Jan]

... Tolerance is a wonderful thing, and Americans show it more than any other group of people I've known (..note: Been to Europe, but long enough to know anything about it).

... But THERE HAVE TO BE LIMITS.

... In 2000, a very intelligent Chinese immigrant and his wife became naturalized Americans. Good for them. Then, for reasons beyond my understaning, this man is given a job in the design and development of America's most sensitive (secret) weapon systems...

... Well, what do you know? He's been sneaking computer disks to a contact from the People's Republic ever since he got the job.

Here's where our ideals will get us into trouble every time. And I'm real sorry, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

He'd been here for at least 5 years, passed the test to become a citizen and also passed a background check at each level of security clearance he reached. I know those aren't just rubber-stamped, either, as members of my family have gotten clearances. On what grounds would you have denied him that job?

What exact criteria would you use to ensure security? Not allow any naturalized citizen clearance? Not allow any (insert whichever suspect ethnicity/religion/background is currently under suspicion here) to get clearance? What limits do you suggest?

I'm asking in all sincerity here, btw. I know I'm an idealist and I make no apologies for it so I'd like to hear what others think would be reasonable.

Jan

Jan

[The Puzzled Pak'Ma'Ra]

... Yeah, this is where it gets a bit sticky, I know. But we're talking about the national defense here, and the very possible deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of US servicemen, as well as sufferring major losses in a world war... that I hope never comes ...

... I'm not about to say, 'Only Americans BORN in America should be entrusted with such sensitive information', as spies who have done us terrible damage in the past were, in fact, born in the US. BUT, Chinese aggression is overt, blatant and obvious... Maybe that's where to begin . . .

... Of course, if upholding our values means allowing such horrendous slips, maybe it can't be helped. I am perhaps fortunate that I already speak some Chinese... I might be needing it one day ... (ridiculous overstatement, I know).

... The Chinese are more dangerous than Americans think. Their two goals are control and domination, and these ideas are not limited to their own country. They see their 'manifest destiny', and they are hellbent on achieving it.