If Ashcroft sends the goons to silence you, Jeff, then he has definitely gone overboard. Anti-American propaganda... hmmm... is very hard to define. I'd personally paint it as any act which would result in the unnatural turning of opinion against the US war aims in this case. I know, that's a pitiful definition, and I don't think even Johnny Cochrane could translate it into legalese that passed constitutional muster. But I think most Americans would understand what I mean by it. You know, that 80% or so that support the war... Keep in mind that we have recourse, unlike most other countries in wartime. Any individual case can be brought to the Supreme Court, and my guess is that they might be dealing with a number of such cases very soon (those detainees, for starters). If they rule the DoJ actions to be unconstitutional, then so be it. And vice versa. As Timing pointed out, we have yet to see any of these new measures put into practice with the exception of the detainees, and you can blame your elected official for that if you need to blame someone. I still don't think they'll be much of a real threat to our liberties. The media will play it up as a desecration of our constitutional liberties, but I doubt anything substantial will come of it. I am really hoping I'm right.
grummet: I believe that John Ashcroft evinces the political characteristics of fascism. I'm not being sensationalistic. Fascism has become... oddly enough... a bit TOO closely linked with Hitler. Yes, it's a very bad, authoritarian theory of government. But there are all sorts of conotations to calling someone a fascist that have nothing to do with the objective reality of fascist. In calling Ashcroft a fascist, I'm arguing that he's authoritarian and out of synch with democratic, liberal principles (in the classic definition of liberal, wouldn't expect him to be in synch wit hthe modern one!). I'm not saying he's a Nazi. Treeman: Ashcroft isn't just referring to critics of American foreign policy, he's actually lambased Senators (including Republicans) who oppose the draconian measures approved by the administration. It is greatly disputed how much censorship should be possible during wartime. I, and many others, would assert that only that which is intrinsically related to national security should be sensored. That which is tangentially related should be allowed. It's not the military tribunals that I'm disputed, but rather its scope. Furthermore, right now, we have the most conservative court in the history of the US (I'm really not joking, they've reversed some positions that prior conservative courts had maintained). Bottom-line, the executive is still assuming a great deal of power. That's always dangerous, regardless of situation. \ Hypocrisy is beside the point. Many legal scholars nearly had a stroke when the current anti-terrorism bill was passed. I, myself, was disturbed, but wasn't foresighted enough to actually see aything ever coming of it . The Constitution, as a document, is not immutable. Rather, I refer to the supposition that the Constition is an enunciation of principle, rather than a strict contract-document. The Constitution does not "create" rights, but rather acknowledges naturally existing rights, in theory. The principle, then, should hold regardless of the politics of the day. Interpretation, realistically, does change, but that's irrelevant to my argument above.
Draconian? What exactly is "draconian" about what DoJ has done so far? I don't think they're taking my advice and sticking hot pokers up people's butts for information... I agree. The question is, of course, what is a threat to national security? That will, unfortunately, have to be a judgment call on the part of investigators. There's just no way around that that I see. What do you mean by scope? Reminder, # of foreign nationals tried in military courts to date: 0. If you mean its potential reach, as I said I really don't think that they will be common occurrances. It will depend on the circumstances. Now, if we start rounding up foreigners and trying them all in secret, then we have a problem... But I don't see that happening. The executive always assumes greater power in wartime. War is the Executive's domain, not Congress's or the Judiciary's. That is perfectly normal, and thank the Founders it works that way. True, but those "rights" can be turned into "privelages" (which can be taken away) at the whim of a few Supreme Court justices. We all basically understand the gist of what those "rights" mean, but that doesn't mean that they are set in stone. Or that ink is non-erasable... As for principles... Whose principles? As I said, we all have a basic understanding of what our rights are supposed to be, but each and every one of us has our own unique subjective version of the details and what they should mean for government. Unfortunately only 9 of us get to put those subjective interpretations into legally binding print in the Constitution... It's not for us to decide.
Fascism is Mussolini's baby. From dictionary.com That, IMO, pretty much describes at least the direction of all of Ashcroft's anti-terrorism changes under the current regime. Here's Mussolini's essay on what facism is. Note that the tone isn't that of some evil, despotic malifactor. Rather, it is that of a well-meaning (albeit jaded) benifactor of humanity.
Interestingly Jeff copied the same quote from Treeman I copied. I don't think it's a matter of silencing those who have opinions that are contrary to John Ashcroft's opinions, but more a matter of trying to tell those who constantly spew anti-American propaganda to shut the hell up, or he will shut them the hell up. There's not much I can say but: An all time classic. He He he Just as an aside spewing what you or Ashcroft say is "Anti-American" is protected under the First Amendment, which is actually quite an "American" concept.
A couple of questions: 1) Which dictator is going to rule this new fascist state? GWB or Ashcroft? Or will Ashcroft be to GWB as Himmler was to Hitler? 2) Socioeconomic controls... Does this mean that we can expect a radical move towards socialism ala Europe? Should we expect a 45% tax rate from these anti-tax conservatives? 3) Terrorizing the opposition? Are we going to start a suicide bomber corps? 4) Belligerent nationalism - you mean patriotism in time of war? My God, that would be horrible... 5) Racism - I agree that Ashcroft might be a little racist, but he is even more constrained by politically correct forces than the rest of us. Are we in for an apartheid state? I think people are overreacting to this. Thank you, media outlets, for unduly scaring the crap out of the American extremes.
Not if national security is threatened, Mrs. Fonda. Something tells me that you're not among those who will decide whether or not national security is threatened; you're more likely to try to organize a campus anti-US/anti-War rally. Just keep going...
Argumentation? Is that some kind of course they offer? Sorry, I'm just an ordinary person who has an opinion. I didn't know I needed a major in Argumentation 101 to express it. If you want to talk about this topic with me, why don't you go ahead and let your balls drop, and lose the dorky academia references, mkay? Um, no. If Ashcroft is saying that there are people who are politicizing this issue (which is all your quotes of him demonstrate), and those people are only aiding terrorists, this says nothing about those who offer valid points about lost liberty. The article you provided only shows Ashcroft lashing out at those politicizing the issue, nothing more. There is no mention of those with valid complaints. You don't need a phd to determine that. Sorry, didn't take the Cohesive Unity 101 class, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Any time you want to translate that into English, I may have an opinion on it. Dork. Do you have proof that our current policy does "erode liberty"? Please post it if you do. I'd like to see where the court has decided that Ashrcroft's current policies, specifically, have eroded liberty. Until then, I'll assume they don't. Again, there could have been a court decision today that I wasn't aware of, and if so, I'd love to hear about it. Nope. Ashcroft did not say anything about those who assert that his policies undermine national unity are frightening people. Once again, I will post words from your own article that quote him as saying those who "pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty" are aiding terrorists, NOT those who have valid complaints. You may be used to winning this way in "debate class", but I'm just a normal American who has an opinion, and I don't give a **** how your high school debate teacher decided who "wins" an argument.
Tell me then why the Senate is so pissed off at Ashcroft's actions? They are pissed off because Ashcroft has essentialy removed himself from any sort of constitutional restraints. He can arrest anyone he wants, without having any sort of public scrutiny and without any sort of judicial review. There are 608 people unidentified people being held on 'imigration charges' without somuch as a name or an official declaration of charges. These people aren't entitled to private discussions with their lawyer, or any contact with the outside world. According to NPR, the detainees were given 1 call a week, and were given a list of 20+ groups from which to get a lawyer, of which 13 didn't even have any lawyers on staff. Also, the justice department has refused to release individuals despite court decisions that the justice department has no recourse to hold these individuals. Further, despite pleas to the contrary, Ashcroft/Bushes decree on military tribunals for 'terrorists' has no express provisions for a judge, proof beyond reasonable doubt, or the presumption of burden of proof on the government, or judicial review, or public trials. The government is acting in the context of the 'declared war' on Germany in WWII. Bush/Ashcroft haven't asked for any such declaration. Historically, broad descision making powers have been granted to the administrative branch, but only after congress officialy declares a 'state of war'. In short, if what we have seen in the US were to occur in, say, a South American nation, the Bush administration would be speaking of them in the same vein as Amnisty International discusses China. Bush/Ashcroft, however, make the assumption that they are somehow less deserving of scruitiny just because they think they're right. Great. Wonderfull. But, I'm sure ol' Adolph belived that all the Jews deserved to die. The point is that individuals aren't omniscent, and require the harsh glare of public scrutiny to remain fair. The Ashcroft/Bush position is, at best, an exercice in extreme hubiris. I'll accept that these people think that they're doing the right thing. Unfortunately, as is the case with most fascist pigs, they're incapable of seeing a situation from any body elses point of view. Further proof that all Republicians are deficient when it comes to complete cognitive functionality.
Of course, if you don't like the constitution, we're violating the Geneva Convention as well. Though it is much less stringant in dealing with POW's, it nonetheless seems worthy of Ashcroft's disdain.
Media circus. It's really that simple. Now, now, let's not start making things up. He's still very well within his constitutional constraints. The Supreme Court has ruled that military tribunals are constitutional, and unless those same congressman who passed the antiterrorism bill want to challenge its legality in the Supreme Court, he is within his constraints on the issue of detainees. He has always had the right to arrest anyone he wants, the only thing that's changed is how long he can detain noncitizens. Again, constitutional... And judicial review is still - and always will be - in place. They can talk to their lawyers, and through them the outside world. What should it matter whether or not someone's listening in since all of these noncitizens are all innocent? These aren't just people they yanked off the street, ya know... Link for this, please. First I've heard of it, not that it matters, since Congress OK'd the change in law. We have been attacked, and Congress passed a measure of support for the Prez in the early days of the war, remember? A formal declaration of war is not necessary. But if Bush asked for it, Congress would give him one. And again, why don't you consider attacking your congressman (instead of an administration at war) if you don't like the legislation they've passed? WTF are you talking about? Now you're comparing us to a police state that murders and imprisons ALL opposition groups??? How many people have we executed? Zero. How many 'terrorists' have we killed in order to harvest their organs? Zero. How many 'reeducation' (concentration) camps do we have? Zero. Jeebus, comparing us to China... (shaking head) I'm neither Repub nor Dem, but this statement says as much about the left as it does the right - more so. When are you guys going to figure out that this war isn't about liberal v. conservative, or Republican v. Democrat??? Osama and his buddies are counting on just this type of thinking to distract and divide Americans. Unfortunately, it works all too often.
<b>If Ashcroft sends the goons to silence you, Jeff, then he has definitely gone overboard. </b> he he he - good one. Ottoman: Great posts. treeman: I think the real concern here is that we don't know what those who have been rounded up and held are there for and they don't have much of an opportunity to defend themselves. If one of your family members had been rounded up and held for months without charges even if the charges were groundless, I would hope you would go and do whatever you could to free them. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: if one innocent life is lost in the pursuit of protecting the country, that is too many.
OK TheFreak's response to haven about argumentation and cohesive unity might be my favorite post of all time. Gotta update the signature.
I think they've probably got ample opportunity to defend themselves - they've got lawyers after all, which is more than most states give detainees in wartime - but I agree to an extent with your concern about the charges. I would hope that those close to the detainees are at least apprised of the charges; I haven't heard anything about whether or not that is the case. I would think that the media would have reported that if so, but one never knows... Although I could understand that in those cases where releasing information relating to charges could compromise information relevant to an investigation or people involved in it would be witheld. This could very well be a legitemate security precaution, or it could be something else. Unfortunately, only the investigators know that... I'd be more curious why these people aren't cooperating. Apparently, none of them are talking about anything, and they are for the most part being uncooperative. That's according to media and DoJ reports of course, but it makes one think they're hiding something... Again, the FBI didn't just yank a bunch of arabic-looking men off the streets; these guys' names all came up in the course of the investigation, and in most cases probably for a good reason. Many of them are likely tied to Al Qaeda. That's an admirable opinion, but I for one believe that a few thousand innocent lives being destroyed because we refused to even risk injuring a single potentially innocent (and likely guilty) life would be a far greater tragedy. Just a difference in philosophy, I guess...
Academics aren't just constructed in some parallel world that has nothing to do with yours. There's a reason people go to school. It's called "improving your mind." Anybody has an opinon. Anybody can interpret information. But some can do it much better than others, and logic and education are tools. Why don't you put down your red-blooded American act and use logic. I think we can both agree that logic is superior to mere assertion. Do you watch the news? Read it? I quoted this particular article because I found it singularly appalling... ...but Ashcroft asserts that anybody who disagrees with him on this issue as politicizing the issue! He doesn't even admit the possibility that there is honest disagreement! The essence of your argument is: "no, there are people that Ashcroft wouldn't mind pointing out their opinions... THESE people are just politicizing the issue..." But these people don't exist! If you disagree with him, you're aiding terrorists. Bah! Fascist! Ah, pulling the red-blooded (idiot) American act, again, I see. I'm not to blame for you being unsophisticated. Look after your own education before arguing with people who happen to have found some level of intellectual sophistication. Go drink a beer and polish your gun, loser. So, courts are the sole determinant of the erosion of liberty? That's an absurd statement. You make de facto erosion of liberty and de jure erosion synonyms, and they're not at all! Our current policies have eroded liberty prima facie. How do I know this? There are people in prison who haven't been charged with a crime. 5 years ago, that wouldnt've been possible. There's factual, hard erosion right there. Ashcroft doesn't admit that anyone had a valid concern. Even if these people were politicizing the issue, their concerns are not irrelevant. Ashcroft terms them phantom. His argument is: "trust us. We won't compromise your liberty. I promise." It's all in the text. He expects us all to take him at his word... and anybody who's suspicious is chasing after phantoms and politicizing the issue! You keep on saying that he's only dismissing these people's concerns because they're illegitimate. Problem is, his rubric for determining legitimacy doesn't allow for anything that doesn't fit his perspective! That's a paradigm that allows for radical censorship. The fact is, some very respectable, very conscienscous people suscpect his motives! He doesn't even accord them the dignity of having an honest opinion. It can't be honest, according to him... You're acting like an idiot who doesn't understand **** about politics, philosophy logic. Whether you like it or not, language, arguments, etc... all have underlying systems. While some things you can't answer, no matter what... we can expect internal consistency within a given argument. Whether or not you want to admit it, analyzing something logically is worth while and helps one to arrive at better conclusions. It's impossible to always use "plain language" because certain concepts don't have smaller synonyms. Break it down, and you lose precision. If you want to argue about this elsewhere, I'm sure there are people who want to discuss the subject on the level that you prefer. However, what's the point in coming in here and insulting me, then using arguments that I find ridiculously flawed? Is it productive in any form?
And here I was under the impression that it was just ignorant bull**** without an iota of logic. Look, assertion doesn't get you anywhere. But the only way you can "get" at the truth is by looking how things "fit together." Now, the only way you can do this is by finding the basis of where things start, and gradually "unpacking" these concepts. Just about all significant historical perspectives have determined that it's absolutely essential to believe in the efficacy of reason. Christian philosophy, neo-Platonists, Kantians, Marxists... it doesn't matter. If you don't recognize that certain logical principles hold true, you can't make sense of the world. It's just a collection of random events, without causality, or meaning. But if you do believe in the truth of reason... then you can prove a great deal once you make that initial leap of faith. And, in that sense, I think it's worth trying to understand reason more... and to learn its language. I've got a minor in philosophy for that reason. It may seem pedantic to you... but I think most of us want to understand more about the world, how it operates, and how we should act. Accordingly, I tend to speak in the language of the discipline on these issues.
Ok, try listening to this from NPR, though I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as the rantings of Communists trying to steal our bodily fluids. Consider, if you will, advancing to 3:45, where they clearly state: Continuing from that point, with a quote that perhaps best defines what is wrong with Ashcroft's actions, In otherwords, to paraphrase my girlfriend Ashcroft assumes too much. He assumes that everyone else accepts that his judgement is as flawless as he assumes it to be. This is essence of Facsism and the anthesis of the American government's system of checks and balances. You know why we're different from China? We have a series of constitutional checks and balances that we rigorously inforce, which keep the state police from oversteping their boundries, even when oversteping their boundries are in the nation's best intrest. You want to know why you scare me, treeman? It's because you are philosophically in favor of the same pragmatic 'realism' that states like China practice whereby the end justies the means no matter how offensive. In such a state, the ideals of justice and liberty, and the assumption that the state's rights are subordanant to the individual's rights are not even given lip service. In your 'pragmatic' reality, whatever the US does to defend itself is 'necessary', even when it violates every single belief that the United States is founded on. I would rather die a true American, overwhelmed in defense of the ideals of personal liberty that embody America, instead of accepting survival and maintining our superority if it means encorperating those philosophies which the US was founded in oposition of. What is more important, being on top of the hill, or being true to those philosophies which put you there? I honestly believe that you would advocate anything as long as the pragmatic goal of continued superiority was maintaned. The end doesn't justify the means. The US is better than the Talaban, because we consider the defense of the individual's rights and liberties to be the supreme goal. The founders of the country were most intrested in abstract philosophies. People like you erode everything about the US which makes us worthy to oppose the Talaban, as far as I'm concerned. I don't intend this to be particularly my 'anti-treeman' rant, free of the constrants of fairness, but rather it is perhaps the sumation of my observations about that which seperates you from the common philosophies of the BBS as a whole. I really believe that you, like Ashcroft, mean well, but are so overwhelemed in the particulars of the moment that you can't see the proverbial forest for the trees. More importantly, I belive that what you are willing to stand up for is more important than what becomes of you in the end.
Heh... I feel sort of sorry for China. They're the proverbial human rights whipping boy, but if you look at most of the world, they're relatively (very key word there) benign. If ya look at all the 3rd world authoritarian governments, you have to judge them by how much liberty the individual is allowed. In very repressive states, like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, many people have almost no choices or freedoms. (Saudi Arabia is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, but you rarely hear about it becaues of the oil) In China, there's only one true rule: don't **** with politics. Unless you're a high ranking member of the CCP, don't touch. The government's not going to get you for wearing daisey dukes, having pink hair, or listening to rock. You can read Adam Smith, Karl Marx, or Virginia Woolf. China even has relatively decent policies on women. Two "sort of" exceptions: 1. Forced abortion. This is, obviously, wrong. Strangely enough, it isn't a big deal in the cities. The government has so informed the urban populace of the problem that it's almost a part of their value system. A prof of mine who goes to China every summer said he makes it a habit of asking cabbies how many children they ahve. He says they invariable state with some confusion: "one, of course... why would I want more?" That's true even though you can now have two children if the first is a girl. The problem rests in rural areas where wealth is scarce and children represent teh social security system. So you have a lot of rural people wanting lots of kids... and resenting the government. Still, the population has to be constrained. My dispute with China here is over method rather than objectives. 2. Religion. China's relatively tolerant about religions with a nice, neat, hierarchical structure. Catholicism is fine, Tibetan Buddhism is mostly fine (except when the Dahlai Lama gets uppity politically!). Protestantism and ancestor worship are not fine, since China views these religions as potential sources of chaos. The way the CCP figures it, there are more than 10k ancestor wosrhip sights throught China. They're mostly independent. They're afraid of each one articulating a different message. Same with Protestantism (although fewer churches in China, of course) Just throwing in a response to Treeman's obligatory shot at China . Know it's a bit off topic, but I think China's perhaps the most INTERESTING country in the world today.
I would give my left testicle to present myself as lucidly in every day life as you do here. I would urge everyone to read these paragraphs several times, as I have done. They succenctly state the case that all objections should be at least heard, in order to seperate the legitimate from the illigetimate else how do we determine that which is legitimate? I think that I'm going to read these paragraphs 3 or 4 more times, think about them, then read them 3 or 4 additional times. I'd urge you to do the same.
