The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Karachi Vyce]

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

Wrong. I've actually worked in government before, so I know just how badly it can mishandle things, or occasionally, just be flat-out corrupt.

It's really more along the lines of, when it comes to fighting the war on terror, or the war on.....well, pretty much anyone who means to destroy us or out way of life.....I trust the government more than say........you. Or any civilian, really.

If the government tells me, "We need to stick these guys down in Cuba and maybe, sometimes, smack the shit out of them to make them tell us when their terrorist buddies are gonna try and hit us next.", I'm more willing to put my faith in them than in some bleeding-heart who thinks we need to be nice to the poor Islamofascists who are really just FREEDOM FIGHTERS fighting against the OPPRESSION of American imperialism and give them lots of hugs and love letters 'cause maybe then they won't want to blow us up anymore.

[David Panzer]

If the government says (fill in the blank), I naturally view it with skepticism. Every. Single. Damned. Word. Even the punctuation marks, spaces, numbers, gestures, breathing. The simple fact that it's a politician saying it, or someone employed by said politician justifies it.

[SpooRancher]

I find it interesting that when links were requested for ZHD's evidence, he has yet to provide them.

[Der Mike]

"If there is sufficient probable cause, why not allow the information to be presented to a judge and a warrant be issued? Or are all of the judges under suspicion as well?"


You are aware that a judge has to approve all searches of library records, right?


"My problem with holding the people is that they have NOT been brought to trial. They are merely being held in a prison, for an undetermined amount of time, without access to a lawyer or even being able to send letters to their families, with NO CHARGES."


Seeing as how they are not American citizens, they have no right to a trial outside of a military tribunal. Nor do they have a right to a a lawyer. Nor do they have a right to send correspondence to family.


"Charge them or release them, is what the Constitution says."


The Constitution speaks as to what to do with non-American citizens picked up for attacking American soldiers?

Where?


"So, you believe in destroying the Constitution in order to protect the borders? Attilla the Hun and Adolph Hitler would be proud."


You seem to believe that the Constitution actually applies to NON-CITIZENS. You, hopefully, will learn that it pretty specifically applies to only citizens. If we WANTED to, we could throw every non-citizen out of this country tomorrow and it wouldn't violate a single law on the books.


"The point I was making is that we were not allowing these "foreign combatants" legal defense. We seem be be doing a much better job of protecting the rights of the military members who committed the crimes in Abu Ghraib than the random people we picked up during our sweeps of Afghanistan and Iraq."


That whole "the military people are American citizens and the combatants aren't" seems to be a difficult concept for some.


"But, I suppose you believe that we only need to worry about the rights of the American Citizens, is that right?"


YES! Bingo! That is ALL we have to worry about. Seeing as how our Constitution doesn't apply to everybody on the planet and all.


"Forcing the Iraqis to sodomize each other?"


You will back up that claim with some actual proof, right?


"BTW : Enemy combatants have loads of rights, all neatly laid out by the international community and signed by the U.S. (Geneva, remember?)."


Read the Conventions. Those in Gitmo and Abu Gharib do not qualify for them, for several reasons. Not least of which is the lack of uniforms, the lack of avoiding fighting amongs innocents, and the lack of a coherent and concrete command structure.

The Conventions were passed to both protect soldiers AND to try and force people to fight a war without putting innocent lives at risk. If a side refuses to honor THEIR obligations under the Conventions, then nobody is expected or required to treat them as POW's.


"If they are all guilty why doesn't the U.S. government drag them in front of a judge? It would earn America a lot of respect if they turned out to be really right about this."


Outside of the utter debacle that it would be? Outside of ruining the entire attempt to get intel to prevent future attacks?

Besides those reasons?


"2) The declaration of human rights was instigated and signed by the U.S.A. There is also the small matter of enemy combatants vs. terrorists. Not all of those at Gitmo were Taliban. To name an example : there were(and perhaps still are, who is to say?) 'enemy combatants' who where given the choice: fight or die, and your whole village with you.
And even if you are completely right, are you saying that the U.S.A. is stooping to the level of the Afghan-taliban? "


The people at Gitmo are given new Korans (a stupid policy on our part. Give them something that DOESN'T inspire violence, please) which they did not get at home. They get food, which they didn't get at home. They get medical treatment, which they did not get at home.

The cruelty is...?


"I specifically said "ideal" in that response, and the ideal that this country was founded on is that these are rights to which all people are inherently entitled. Legally, morally, practically -- all different points. See my previous posts over the past few days for some insight into my thoughts in those areas."


Idealism doesn't need to be a suicide pact.

Oh, and whomever is starting to take Pat Buchanan seriously --- have fun with that. You're about the only person who does. I prefer my people to not be raging anti-Semites, personally.


"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."


And if you're an American citizen, you have some standing.

We could always try the criminals by the legal statues of their country, if you REALLY want to go that route.

They are enemy combatants. They will be held until the combat ceases. That is common sense.
-=Mike

[Dr Maturin]

Just a quick observation before I head to work for a few hours...can we ever get through a debate without conservatives being compared to Hitler?

[Jan]

"If there is sufficient probable cause, why not allow the information to be presented to a judge and a warrant be issued? Or are all of the judges under suspicion as well?".

You are aware that a judge has to approve all searches of library records, right?

Not since the Patriot Act, from what I understand. Nor private business records, which I'm more familiar with. Somewhere back in the mists of time on this thread is paraphrased information that I got from the legal arm of the company I worked for at the time the PA passed. Basically it told us that if any branch of any agency asked for any information in the name of 'national security', the most we were allowed to do is look at identification to verify their official position. We could ask for a subpoena, we could ask for a receipt for any records they took, we could ask to retain copies, we could ask to keep a detailed list of everything taken but we had to accept 'no' for an answer to all of it.

I work for the hotel industry which has traditionally been happy to comply with law enforcement when presented with proper authority. I think that many people can see why hotels and motels would consider guest privacy important, right? As it stands now, any enforcement officer or 'initial agency' employee could walk in and investigate anybody for any reason just by uttering those magic words, 'national security'. Don't try to tell me it wouldn't happen, either (as somebody did before). I've lived in too many areas where the corruptability of law enforcement is legend and I've known a few who would do anything they could get away with in order to find out what they wanted to know. Maybe what they gathered wouldn't be admissable in court but that might not be what the ultimate goal is, anyway.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

That, Jan, sounds more like the company policy. What would the offical do if the hotel refused? Surround it with SWAT teams and raid it? They're probably trying to avoid any undue complications by refusing to protect some rich prick who was probably cheating on his wife, all the while partaking in illegal activities.

[Jan]

That, Jan, sounds more like the company policy. What would the offical do if the hotel refused? Surround it with SWAT teams and raid it? They're probably trying to avoid any undue complications by refusing to protect some rich prick who was probably cheating on his wife, all the while partaking in illegal activities.

Possible on the company policy, ZD. All I know is that the company asked their legal counsel what the policy should be following passage of the PA and that was what they were told.

It was a *total* reversal from regular policy regarding records, which was to provide them only upon subpoena. Hotels have been protecting the privacy of those spouse cheaters and runaway battered spouses and every type of celebrity, politician, entertainer and low-life equally, probably for as long as hotels have existed. And cooperating with law enforcement, too, for that matter. On several occasions places I've worked have provided rooms and technological assistance to enforcement agencies ranging from drug stings, to human trafficking investigations, to child porn suppliers to puppy farms. And unless the person requesting access to records stated that the request was covered by the PA, we were still expected to tell them to go whistle.

The concern was that agents would cite the PA when they were actually more interested in those spouses or runaways or whatever and just taking a shortcut. If you've ever had an off-duty sheriff's deputy wandering around your hotel with a shotgun looking for a runaway wife as I have, you don't necessarily trust the self-restraint of all the rest as much as you used to.

Jan

[Nacho]

Just a quick observation before I head to work for a few hours...can we ever get through a debate without conservatives being compared to Hitler?

Just invoke the time honored internet "Mandel Rule", which more or less says:

"The first to bring up Nazis or compare their interlocker/a group of people to Nazis loses the debate by default."


Tom Mandel

[Dr Maturin]

The concern was that agents would cite the PA when they were actually more interested in those spouses or runaways or whatever and just taking a shortcut. If you've ever had an off-duty sheriff's deputy wandering around your hotel with a shotgun looking for a runaway wife as I have, you don't necessarily trust the self-restraint of all the rest as much as you used to.

Well, that would be a misuse of the PA which federal officials probably wouldn't like very much; it'd water down the REAL purpose of the act. I'd report such abuse if I were the hotel owner.

[Jan]

Well, that would be a misuse of the PA which federal officials probably wouldn't like very much; it'd water down the REAL purpose of the act. I'd report such abuse if I were the hotel owner.

How would we ever know?? That's part of my point here. If somebody comes in and takes all of our phone records from x date to y date, how are we going to know who they were 'investigating' and if it's abusive or legitimate. With no subpoena and no receipt, exactly what would we have to report?

EDIT: BTW, who compared conservatives to Hitler? I don't see it...

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

How would we ever know?? That's part of my point here. If somebody comes in and takes all of our phone records from x date to y date, how are we going to know who they were 'investigating' and if it's abusive or legitimate. With no subpoena and no receipt, exactly what would we have to report?

Well, the frequency with which county Sheriff offices investigate matters of national security is unknown to me, but I'm making a wild guess that it isn't terribly high.

EDIT: BTW, who compared conservatives to Hitler? I don't see it...

So, you believe in destroying the Constitution in order to protect the borders? Attilla the Hun and Adolph Hitler would be proud.

I'm not saying we should ban such comments...I'm just making an observation.

[Jan]

So, you believe in destroying the Constitution in order to protect the borders? Attilla the Hun and Adolph Hitler would be proud.

I'm not saying we should ban such comments...I'm just making an observation.

Well, I don't think it raises the tone of the conversation at all, no. I tend to agree with Nacho that whoever brings the conversation that low shouldn't have their views taken seriously if that's the sort of debating tactic they have to use. However, it doesn't say anything about 'conservatives' either. All it refers to is a quote of yours. You aren't 'conservatives' any more than I'm 'liberals'. You're just ZD regardless of your beliefs.

I'm hoping that we can continue the tradition we established a while back to try to keep the dehumanizing labels to a minimum. It's served us well so far.

Jan

[Der Mike]

Not since the Patriot Act, from what I understand. Nor private business records, which I'm more familiar with.

You understand incorrectly. Nothing can be done without judicial approval.

Somewhere back in the mists of time on this thread is paraphrased information that I got from the legal arm of the company I worked for at the time the PA passed. Basically it told us that if any branch of any agency asked for any information in the name of 'national security', the most we were allowed to do is look at identification to verify their official position. We could ask for a subpoena, we could ask for a receipt for any records they took, we could ask to retain copies, we could ask to keep a detailed list of everything taken but we had to accept 'no' for an answer to all of it.

The legal arm of your company is doing your company a very poor job in terms of legal representation, as they clearly do not know the law.

I work for the hotel industry which has traditionally been happy to comply with law enforcement when presented with proper authority. I think that many people can see why hotels and motels would consider guest privacy important, right? As it stands now, any enforcement officer or 'initial agency' employee could walk in and investigate anybody for any reason just by uttering those magic words, 'national security'. Don't try to tell me it wouldn't happen, either (as somebody did before).

READ the PATRIOT Act. What you're stating is ILLEGAL. It CANNOT be done legally. Your company needs to hire new legal counsel because the ones they have do not know law one bit.

[Karachi Vyce]

The people at Gitmo are given new Korans (a stupid policy on our part. Give them something that DOESN'T inspire violence, please) which they did not get at home. They get food, which they didn't get at home. They get medical treatment, which they did not get at home.

The cruelty is...?

Not allowing them to continue their jyhad against Israel and the infidels who support her is the worst thing you can do to a Muslim male.