<b>haven</b>: I'm too old to infinitely prevaricate. Three times a week is just about right! Sure your questions were fair. I like <b>treeman's</b> answers; I'm sure <b>MadMax</b> being the sterling litigator that he is will come up with equally good (or identical) responses. I'm just spoofing to show your bias. Apparently you are calling them fascists over nothing (see treeman) and even you admit as much (an "iota" of increased security). When did liberalism get such a cynical underbelly? Typically, fascism has been more results-oriented than this! Reserve issues of "trust" and the compulsory group hugs for your Men's Coming of Age meetings at the University. Leave the governing to our duly elected or appointed leaders who <b>more than ever</b> need our support. Our own soil has never been under attack such as this. In the end we, and you, will thank them. I know I'm just an idiot in your ivory-towered estimation, but many of our civil liberties are compromised already by our laws. Ask Steve Francis or Mo Taylor about it.
haven: When was that rejected????? No one here has offered any proof that any American has lost a single right, so that's just smoke. And your opinion as to the interpretation of the constitution is pretty meaningless in comparison to the Supreme Court's opinion. When they say that noncitizens are guaranteed full constitutional rights, then I'll listen. When they rule any of Ashcroft's actions unconstitutional, then I'll listen. You're a smart guy, and I love arguing with you, but there's just nothing there on this issue.
Treeman: 1. Of course, the Supreme Court lost all credibility in Bush v Gore. Conservatives and liberals, alike. I'll not discriminate there. What so disenfranchised me about that decision... was that the liberals should have been *more* likely to vote for Bush... and the conservatives *more* likely to vote for Gore. Gore had the better case... but if anybody should have voted for Bush, it should have been the liberals. Even among conservative legal scholars, most thought Gore had the better case. But that didn't really matter, in the end. Incidentally, I think the Supreme Court has arrived at the fact that it has to pretty much agree with the executive in a situation like this or lose credibility. In the past, whenSupreme Court has been willing to defy the executive on issues of national security... they've been ignored. So this time, they very well mgiht have reasoned: why take the credibility hit when it doesn't matter anyway? Wouldn't be surprising. That was essentially what they did during the New Deal, what Roosevelt threatened to pack the court. 2. And I don't see how the new liscence of the government to tap religious/political groups so easily isn't a violation of civil liberties. There's a reason this hasn't been allowed in the past. In all probability, they've already begun doing this. Hence, civil liberties have already been violated. And the closing of public records? Imo, that's a violation of civil liberty as well. I'm willing to compromise on this in cases of national security... but what about hte Austin papers? That's insane. 3. Regardless of this debate, you can still answer my questions. In fact, I'm violating my own prohibitions by responding to you without answers to these questions. Why does it hurt to establish a brightline? What's wrong with doing so?
haven: 1. So you're saying that the Supreme Court has lost all credibility with yourself? Are you trying to imply that their word is somehow less important than yours? C'mon... 2. They busted the Holy Land Foundation for funneling money to Hamas, so what. That's a good thing IMO. And the Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional. As for executive privelage, same thing. When the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, I'll listen. 3. What do you mean by "brightline"? Do you mean the point at which we say "enough is enough"? That's the Supreme Court's job, haven. You may not like what the Supreme Court thinks, but what they think becomes the law of the land, not what haven or treeman at the ClutchCity BBS.
They've closed down the top three Muslim charities in America in the past few weeks...I wonder if there are some Muslims here who are starting to get pissed off? I wonder if AIPAC was pressuring them to do something to show 'solidarity' with Israel. At least I'm sure thats the assumption numerous people will reach. Bonier for 2008.
Treeman: You're arguing from authority again! Authority doesn't determine Truth... boy: Do you really believe that the US government wants to repress normal, Muslim charities? That seems almost as absurd as the classic BobRainey assumption that the only point in gun registration is so that the government can keep them on file until the day when they're all confiscated.
I find it hard to believe that the some of the biggest charities are all involved in terrorist activities don't you? I don't think the government has a conspiracy against Muslims but I do believe its nice to say that we're improving national security and shutting off terrorist funds in the states isn't it? And right now these are easy targets.
haven: And "Truth", as you put it, doesn't determine law. The Supreme Court does. No way around that one, haven. boy: Yes, the Jews told the DoJ to shut down these innocent muslim "charities". It's all a big Zionist conspiracy. Yeah. That's it... Just where do you think these guys get their money, boy? Are the Jews paying their way, too? And you didn't answer me the other day: Do you think the recently released OBL tape is a fake? C'mon, tell the truth...
I could careless. I hope thats not the most 'convincing' proof they have to bomb a country and replace its rulers with a bunch of rapists though. And actually I have been to HLF fundraisers and I know people who have worked with GRF. They are anything but evil terrorists. Have you read the "evidence" against HLF? It is mere horse crap. They have unnamed sources who seem to recall certain people being introduced at certain HLF events. Thats about all.
Why does it not surprise me that you've contributed to an organization that the DoJ suspects of funneling money to terrorist groups? But then again you think that Hamas should be a legal organization, don't you? So you DO think that the tape was a fake? If you thought it was real then you'd understand why we're going after Osama and your Taliban buddies. Why am I not surprised...
boy, Let us approach this from a different direction. Name the organizations in Palestinian areas that handle the distribution of donated humanitarian aid. Mango
So then you believe that might makes right. No way around that one, treeman. In which case, Osama isn't evil. Neither was Hitler. It was all about one entity's ability to enforce it's standards on another. I don't buy that, but that's the rubric you're pointing towards.
haven: I don't believe that might makes right, and that's not what I'm implying. I'm simply pointing out that reality (what I think of as "truth") and law do not always match up; laws are made by people, and people have opinions that may or may not match what you see as "truth". More accurately, the people we elect and the people who are appointed to governing positions have opinions that may or may not match what you see as "truth", and their opinions make the laws. Not yours. We live in a democratic republic, and we allow our elected officials to make the rules. If you don't like the rules, then vote for someone else. And if others vote people into office that you don't agree with, then tough. Go volunteer for your candidate's campaign and try harder next time. When you're a Supreme Court justice what you think "should be" will matter far more than it does now. I understand that you're an idealist, and I can't really fault you for that, but you've got to inject a little pragmatism every once in a while.
treeman: Two ships passing in the night... If you *don't* believe in the concept that might makes right, then you *have* to acknowledge at least limited universal principles. If you follow me that far, you have to allow for a possible gap between "should be" and "is." As for being an idealist... I don't know about that. I tend to think of myself as cynical. I believe that absolute truth is unattainable in this world. I believe that economics dominate everything else. I'm a strict agnostic: no absolutes of God or atheism for me. I feel like our system is fundamentally unfair, but ultimately, pretty "good." Bleh bleh bleh... I suppose I like to think of myself as an idealist who recognizes that the world operates differently. And that doesn't bother me as much as some.
haven: Why? I have my own ideas about right and wrong, just like everybody else. Just like you, too. I don't think that there's any "universal principle"; I believe that many people have a good number of ideas in common, and some therefore mistakenly assume that those ideas must be "universal"... Belief doesn't make it so. If these "universal principles" you speak of actually existed, then don't you think they'd be applied "universally"? Obviously, they aren't... Clearly the idea that constitutional rights should be extended towards noncitizens is not a "universal principle". Many may believe that it should be, but it is not. Most of us want citizenship to retain meaning... There is a gap between what "should be" and what "is", because there are approximately 6 billion different versions of "should be", and only one "is". The "is" in this case is our system of government; thank Jeebus it allows us to express at least some form of what we think "should be". I also believe that absolute truth is unattainable, because I don't think it can ever be properly and completely perceived. I would tend to agree that economics dominates everything else. I'm also not religious (but not atheist either); I'm not arrogant enough to claim I have any inside knowledge of God's nature. I also feel like our system is fundamentally unfair, but about as good as we can do right now, and not too shabby on the whole... I also understand that the world doesn't operate according to my "should be". That's life.
