Whipped Because of a Teddy Bear

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Allow me to rephrase. It is not the law or the actions that are at all similar, it is the implication that scares me in both cases. We could, potentially, have a government that does such things. They WON’T because we’re a civilized, sane nation, but they COULD. Read the USA Patriot act. “enemy combatant” isn’t defined very well.[/quote]

So, let’s see - since we WON’T (your words), how can you get upset about how we COULD? That doesn’t even make sense.

You can hate the Patriot Act, no problem - but I suspect you haven’t read the Act.

That said, you should also consider reading your Constitution:

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.

You shouldn’t read my posting of this as playing fast and loose with this important right, it’s not - what you should realize is that the Constitution recognizes that there may be an even higher priority than the right of habeas corpus. Fetishizing the right outside of the context of national security - which the Constitution expressly contemplates - won’t do you any good.

It bears repeating, over and over - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Allow me to rephrase. It is not the law or the actions that are at all similar, it is the implication that scares me in both cases. We could, potentially, have a government that does such things. They WON’T because we’re a civilized, sane nation, but they COULD. Read the USA Patriot act. “enemy combatant” isn’t defined very well.

So, let’s see - since we WON’T (your words), how can you get upset about how we COULD? That doesn’t even make sense.

I’m sorry for being so “crazy”, but I have a very strong dislike of the Patriot act. It is a DISGRACE to this nation to even have such potential for something as disgusting as a lack of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is THE right, without it the Constitution might as well be toilet paper in a jail cell.

You can hate the Patriot Act, no problem - but I suspect you haven’t read the Act.

That said, you should also consider reading your Constitution:

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.

You shouldn’t read my posting of this as playing fast and loose with this important right, it’s not - what you should realize is that the Constitution recognizes that there may be an even higher priority than the right of habeas corpus. Fetishizing the right outside of the context of national security - which the Constitution expressly contemplates - won’t do you any good.

It bears repeating, over and over - the Constitution is not a suicide pact. [/quote]

The last line especially hit me like a thunderbolt! ;D
Really! I’m going to read it again, in a new light. The last line here is sheer brilliance, Thunderbolt! Thank you!!

23

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The last line especially hit me like a thunderbolt! ;D[/quote]

Fair to say, thunderstruck? ;>

All kidding aside, it’s not my invention. But it is still an important - perhaps the most important - concept regarding civil liberties in wartime in terms of understanding the Constitution as it is, not as some modern Jacobin* wants it to be.

*credit Mikeyali for resurrecting the label

24

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If the prophet Muhummed is so sacred to Sudan’s indigenous people, the teacher should have been more wary of naming a teddy bear after him.

That being said, I’m glad the US (Rome) is actively making the rest of the world in to Rome as well.

25

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Read the USA Patriot act. “enemy combatant” isn’t defined very well.

[/quote]

Please define who our enemies are then? Describe in detail, who they are and where exactly they are from, then you could satisfy your mind. Terrorists belong to no single nation, are of no know nationality (Yeah right) so how, in a time of WAR, when trying to derail the next 9/11, do you propose we craft such an act to defend our country?

You can’t, unless you have FULL access to information. I’d have no problem proving I’m not a terrorist.

So we should just leave it all like it was so we can just WAIT for the enemy to appear after it is too late.

26

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Allow me to rephrase. It is not the law or the actions that are at all similar, it is the implication that scares me in both cases. We could, potentially, have a government that does such things. They WON’T because we’re a civilized, sane nation, but they COULD. Read the USA Patriot act. “enemy combatant” isn’t defined very well.

So, let’s see - since we WON’T (your words), how can you get upset about how we COULD? That doesn’t even make sense.

I’m sorry for being so “crazy”, but I have a very strong dislike of the Patriot act. It is a DISGRACE to this nation to even have such potential for something as disgusting as a lack of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is THE right, without it the Constitution might as well be toilet paper in a jail cell.

You can hate the Patriot Act, no problem - but I suspect you haven’t read the Act.

That said, you should also consider reading your Constitution:

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.

You shouldn’t read my posting of this as playing fast and loose with this important right, it’s not - what you should realize is that the Constitution recognizes that there may be an even higher priority than the right of habeas corpus. Fetishizing the right outside of the context of national security - which the Constitution expressly contemplates - won’t do you any good.

It bears repeating, over and over - the Constitution is not a suicide pact. [/quote]

…We’re being invaded by a foreign nation? We have a revolution? Since when? I have known those lines, and agree with them. I don’t believe the constitution is anything more than paper with a national government written on it. It’s worked BECAUSE it is so flexible and NOT a suicide pact.

I’ve gotten through a good portion of the Patriot Act. I suppose I read more of it later. But I’ve read plenty ABOUT it, articles tht use direct quotes. And so far I haven’t seen any evidence or articles to the contrary. Care to supply? Not an argument for it, but an article showing how it does not suspend Habeas Corpus?

And I hate it because of the ideal. I can’t have ideals? Seems to me plenty of people base their political beliefs on their personal ideals. I don’t want something that implies Habeas Corpus should be sacrificed when we are not under attack.

27

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Read the USA Patriot act. “enemy combatant” isn’t defined very well.

Please define who our enemies are then? Describe in detail, who they are and where exactly they are from, then you could satisfy your mind. Terrorists belong to no single nation, are of no know nationality (Yeah right) so how, in a time of WAR, when trying to derail the next 9/11, do you propose we craft such an act to defend our country?

You can’t, unless you have FULL access to information. I’d have no problem proving I’m not a terrorist.
So we should just leave it all like it was so we can just WAIT for the enemy to appear after it is too late.

[/quote]

Enemy: Someone with the means, ability to carry out those means, and motivation to harm the nation as a whole.

And why is necessary to imprison terrorists without a trial anyway? Shouldn’t real terrorists be basic open and shut cases anyway?

28

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

…We’re being invaded by a foreign nation? We have a revolution? Since when?[/quote]

Foreign nationals planting themselves in our midst in order to attack us via explosives and sabotage? Are you joking?

I can’t help you there. Wow.

I am not sure what you are getting at - did I argue that the Patriot Act doesn’t modify habeas corpus?

You can have ideals as much as you want - but what happens when the real world exposes them as naive, or even worse, dangerous? Mine say liberty is worth protecting. Mine also know not to cling to outdated versions of “attack” that only mean gunboats rolling up off the coast of Manhattan island. Such a presumption invites aggression.

29

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

And I hate it because of the ideal. I can’t have ideals? Seems to me plenty of people base their political beliefs on their personal ideals. I don’t want something that implies Habeas Corpus should be sacrificed when we are not under attack.[/quote]

Beowolf,

Please tell me someone took over your account while I was away.

If it’s you, are you ok?

“when we are not under attack?”

I’m taken aback. I’m saddened that you aren’t watching all the mass murder plots being broken up.

I’m saddened that you aren’t at least peripherally aware that there are plenty of national security triumphs happening that AREN’T being reported.

Again, if this is you, I’m worried about your state of mind.

JeffR

P.S. Idealism must be tempered by realism and experience.

30

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I’m saddened that you aren’t at least peripherally aware that there are plenty of national security triumphs happening that AREN’T being reported.

[/quote]

How can anyone be AWARE of anything that isn’t reported, or isn’t visible to the human eye?

31

I saw this story a few days ago. These kinds of abuses are so common in the muslim world it hardly seems worth pointing it out. Even the Grand Mufti of Sweden hasn’t commented on this and it’s already up to the second page.

Violence is a hallowed tradition in Islam that goes all the way back to it’s founder.

If westerners don’t want to be targets for muslim violence they need to separate themselves from muslims.

32

[quote]plateau wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I’m saddened that you aren’t at least peripherally aware that there are plenty of national security triumphs happening that AREN’T being reported.

How can anyone be AWARE of anything that isn’t reported, or isn’t visible to the human eye?[/quote]

I haven’t had the pleasure of dicussing issues with you.

Therefore, I don’t know if you are serious or just being a smart ass.

However, I’ll have to assume you are being serious.

If so, use your brain. We are in an information war. What the press gets wind of is the tip of the iceberg.

If you don’t believe me, wait 10 years and read about it in various biographies or de-classified documents.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense realizes that some things are CLASSIFIED (aka you don’t know the details). Therefore, anyone with sense should be peripherally aware that there are national security triumphs you won’t hear about for a period of time.

Proof: No attacks on our mainland. Trust me, it isn’t coincidence or lack of desire from our enemies.

Oh, if you are just being obtuse to be a smart ass, I wish you ill.

JeffR

33

Images of the Prophet are not forbidden, according to the Koran.

“Although there is no ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed, likenesses are considered highly offensive by Muslims.”

Tell us again Lixy how Muslims aren’t nuttier than a bunch of goddamned fruitcakes.

34

[quote]plateau wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I’m saddened that you aren’t at least peripherally aware that there are plenty of national security triumphs happening that AREN’T being reported.

How can anyone be AWARE of anything that isn’t reported, or isn’t visible to the human eye?[/quote]

Have you been on a 5 year long camping trip?

35

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

And I hate it because of the ideal. I can’t have ideals? Seems to me plenty of people base their political beliefs on their personal ideals. I don’t want something that implies Habeas Corpus should be sacrificed when we are not under attack.

Beowolf,

Please tell me someone took over your account while I was away.

If it’s you, are you ok?

“when we are not under attack?”

I’m taken aback. I’m saddened that you aren’t watching all the mass murder plots being broken up.

I’m saddened that you aren’t at least peripherally aware that there are plenty of national security triumphs happening that AREN’T being reported.

Again, if this is you, I’m worried about your state of mind.

JeffR

P.S. Idealism must be tempered by realism and experience.[/quote]

Beo, I believe Jeff has a point here. The reason we haven’t been attacked again is because we stopped it, not because of the lack of desire to do so on the part of radical muslims.
For the record I abhor the Patriot Act.

36

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Images of the Prophet are not forbidden, according to the Koran.

“Although there is no ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed, likenesses are considered highly offensive by Muslims.”

Tell us again Lixy how Muslims aren’t nuttier than a bunch of goddamned fruitcakes.

[/quote]

Apparently these days, being “offended” has become the ultimate absolution. You can kill, maim, hurt and destroy people or things so long as you were offended it’s ok. Just like the Jena 6 bullshit. They were offended by the nooses, so it was a-ok to brutalize somebody 6 on 1. As long as you reason is that you were offended, anything behaviour is just peachy. I wonder how long until somebody uses that excuse in court and gets away with it?

37

I like to think all this mad violence is just the desperate death throes of Islam.

For years those that describe themselves as “liberal” have tried desperately to stifle any criticism of Islam as some form of intolerance (such stifling of debate is more akin to fascism that liberalism though, is it not?). The other incredible irony is that those in the west who defend the islamists and their “cultural differences” would be the first to be discrimated against under Islamic rule.

I am not a US citizen so I cannot comment on the Patriot act and such like. If people are imprisoned falsely then this should be corrected, but every time a transgression takes place it does not equate the US government to Stalin’s Russia(such criticism would not be possible if the state were such a force for evil).

Perhaps people in the west need to wake up to the fact that the west may not be perfect, but it is infitely preferrable to everywhere else in the world.

38

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That said, you should also consider reading your Constitution:

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.

You shouldn’t read my posting of this as playing fast and loose with this important right, it’s not - what you should realize is that the Constitution recognizes that there may be an even higher priority than the right of habeas corpus. Fetishizing the right outside of the context of national security - which the Constitution expressly contemplates - won’t do you any good.

It bears repeating, over and over - the Constitution is not a suicide pact. [/quote]

My disagreement with this is that the constitution allows for the suspension of the writ, not its limitation or selective grant. If the writ be suspended, it ought to be done conspicuously, and be a burden borne by all. When the Great Writ is selectively applied, it is too easy to make it perpetually so.

39

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Apparently these days, being “offended” has become the ultimate absolution. You can kill, maim, hurt and destroy people or things so long as you were offended it’s ok. Just like the Jena 6 bullshit. They were offended by the nooses, so it was a-ok to brutalize somebody 6 on 1. [/quote]

Jena 6 is far from bullshit…its bigger than “brutalizing” someone 6 on 1. If you understand the complete meaning of being brutalized,then you will understand what the real issue is…which provided the atmosphere for this incident to happen in the first place. But thats another discussion…just had to express that.

40

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
pat36 wrote:

Apparently these days, being “offended” has become the ultimate absolution. You can kill, maim, hurt and destroy people or things so long as you were offended it’s ok. Just like the Jena 6 bullshit. They were offended by the nooses, so it was a-ok to brutalize somebody 6 on 1.

Jena 6 is far from bullshit…its bigger than “brutalizing” someone 6 on 1. If you understand the complete meaning of being brutalized,then you will understand what the real issue is…which provided the atmosphere for this incident to happen in the first place. But thats another discussion…just had to express that.[/quote]

So it was a-ok to beat the shit out of that guy, who from what I understand wasn’t even one of the noose hangers? That’s the solution, kick some ones ass if your offended? Hey it works for the muslims, why not?