The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People who went to Afghanistan for terror training are bad to have walking around. But they didn't do anything that can probably be proved. As an example, it is not illegal to go to Afghanistan- it is not illegal (not something that puts you in jail at least) to bring a box cutter through security, it is not illegal to take jet aircraft classes, and it is not illegal to buy large quantities of fetrilizer. And we can't profile someone because they are Islamic.

And guess what, most of these guys don't do anything illegal until the airplane has been hijacked or the bomb assembled. Yes Captain it would be nice if we could put together a nice conspiracy case together- but conspiracy to do what? Bring box cutters on a plane? Why prosecute Atta but not my kid?

All I'm saying is that for certain of these people, letting them on the street is not an attractive option. Yes it would be nice if laws caught up, and maybe there are some better laws that could provide help- but right now- today Padilla or whoever else wants to kill thousands of us. That is the dilemma facing people who are holding these guys. It's like capturing an enemy airplane loaded with bombs, questioning the pilot and saying "we have to let him have his plane back because we can't prove he is on the other side."

You all act like that dilemma isn't hard, or real.

So your solution is....?

If you can't respond with something consistent with Civics 101, you're proposing a Constitutional Amendment to limit the scope of the 5th Amendment. Dr. Spanky, of course, already has his 5th Amendment proposal, to get rid of the Exclusionary Rule, and I'm his second, but let's hear yours, and see if it is something that anyone other than Ms. Coulter will agree with. Without a second, we can't consider the motion.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
The Left is so disconnected from the real world, it's like a cartoon.

While the Dems are singing and handwringing over putting panties on terrorists head, John Q. Public yawns and wonders why we aren't sticking a hot poker up his anus and electrocuting his balls.

While the Dems are blustering and filibustering over the renewal of the Patriot Act, John Q. Public wants to know why Democrats so hate the country that they would prefer another terrorist attack than let the GOP do their job.

While the Dems are leaking and shrieking about "secret" foreign detention cells, John Q. Public wonders why we aren't summarily executing these cretins to begin with.

And now, while the Dems are screeching and threatening impeaching over perfectly legal and highly precedented wiretaps of potential terrorists, John Q. Public wonders why Democrats are more concerned about the privacy of murderers than of allowing the government to gather important preventive intelligence.

If you Demwits keep up this pace of distancing yourselves from public opinion, the Greens may overtake you in 2008.

My dear, would you like to go out shooting with me some time? I've got this lovely repeater I think you would like.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't give a fuck what the judge is short listed for- and change my hypo from Saudis to US citizens. What would you do with them? Let them go, right? They didn't do anything wrong.

Here is reality. The laws do not reflect where we are at. The Uk has more realistic laws on this. I'm glad the admin says that it will hold onto some guy who had Afghan training. What do you think he was up to- just wanted to become a lean mean fighting machine?

You seem to cross the Canadian border a lot. Suppose one of your clients has the surname Mehmet? At what point should Homeland SEcurity grab you at the border and throw you in a Navy brig for a year or two without a hearing or access to counsel while they do a really thorough check of this Mehmet guy?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You seem to cross the Canadian border a lot. Suppose one of your clients has the surname Mehmet? At what point should Homeland SEcurity grab you at the border and throw you in a Navy brig for a year or two without a hearing or access to counsel while they do a really thorough check of this Mehmet guy?

wouldn't happen to me. I always buy booze at the duty free so they'd know I'm no fundamentalist.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty and Spank- my 7 year old son (at the time) tried to bring a laser gun on a plane- if we had caught M. Atta version 2 with his box cutters that morning he would only be different because he was an Arab. My boy doesn't belong in prison and neither does that guy, right- that where your socratic method leads. The law doesn't fit today- the UK's might- our's does not.

the only real question is whether you let the killer go because the law doesn't address the crime yet-. Ty I know your answer, but Spank I'm still hopeful.

The only real question is what gives you the ability to determine the guy is a killer? Under then facts given, you don't know, do you?

So then, how caqn you justify holding him? All you KNOW is that he's an Arab and he had a box cutter.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wouldn't happen to me. I always buy booze at the duty free so they'd know I'm no fundamentalist.

Good cover. NSA now knows, though.

Time to take up smoking?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. say we caught Mr. Atta hinself. One tower of the WTC still stands. We charge him with everything we can- nothing. You would be in favor of letting him go. Got that, but do you see why others might want to just hold on to him and ask for the laws to catch up. I mean, why do you think people went to Afghansitan during the Clinton protectorate, just to get the training to make them more well-rounded?

Conf to fringey- I made this post much less nasty soley because of you. Nasate.

Explain how what you are advocating is different from what we are condemning China for. I personally feel that when declaring someone a "suspected enemy of the State" is enough to lock them away, then it's the State that has become the enemy.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Whoa Dude, that was like really immature and not at all funny

That is a good start. Thank you.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you use your property to harm others something is exiting your property and effecting someone elses. You are responsible for your property and everything that exits it. If smoke is leaving your property and going into your neighbors property you are infringing on his property rights. The stuff I was talking about is if the government decides that your property is a wetland and says you can't build on it. That is a taking without just compensation. Or if you own a shop and the government decides your area is now not zoned for commerical use. These things should be compensated (not prevented - I believe in the power of eminent domain - just compensated).








If regulations are instituted to make the markets more efficient I have no problem with them. For example information usually makes a market perform better. But the market is almost always a better determiner of price, demand and need than the government is.





Again - making the markets more efficient. Sometimes the government intervens for reasons other than making the markets more efficient. When this is done for health, safety or environmental reasons, that is fine, but any other reason is usually bad.




Your problem is that you equate free markets with anarchy. They are two different concepts. The term market implies that you have a functioning market that requires a system of government. Without a government to enforce the rules of the "market" you don't have one. The strongest simply gets the goods. You need a respect for private property and contract law which the government needs to enforce. The first step in creating an efficient market is a respect for property rights. Without property rights you get no market. Externalities are an infringement on property rights. The most basic rule of markets. If you are dumping stuff off your property (be it a gas, liquid or solid) you are infringing either on your neighbors property rights, the public's property rights or both. The government needs to start enforcing property rights for individuals and for public property.

You forgot something . . .

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are really reaching here Ty. This is ridiculous. If you disagree with me on this does that mean that every person on this planet should have the same rights as a US citizen as far as the US government is concerned? Of course not. I didn't go to that absurd extreme because it does not ad to the conversation at all.

I made sure, because of your tendency to take everything to its extreme, that I said that I did not think foreign nationals should not have any rights whatsoever.

When it comes to national security I don't think foreign nationals ought to have their property confiscated. Nor do I think that they should have their organs removed and given to law enforcement personnel.

What I do think is that their rights as a criminal defendent are not the same as a US citizen.



US Citizens need rights because we need to guard against the government turning into a tyranical dictatorship. That problem doesn't exist with non-US citizens. In this country serial killers get rights regardless of its fairness. We err on the side of protecting people rights over justice because of our fear if we don't, the government might start abusing the rights of its citizens. We let people that we are almost sure are guilty, and will probably commit the same crime again, go free because of desire not to let our government start abusing the rights of our citizens. Since foreigners are not citizens, then that is not a problem. If the serial killer happens to be a foreigner then the full rights don't apply.

What is at issue with foreigners is relations with other countries and concepts of basic fairness. If we want our citizens treated a certain way by other countrys then we better reciprocate. But otherwise we should balance what is fair with national security.

And all that stuff about how all men are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights was just puff advertising?

If that's the case, then the only argument that you can really make about Iraq is that we went there because it's more convenient for us to have a democratic (well, up to a point) state than it was to have Saddam.

And if your ability to claim certain rights is based solely on an accident of birth, then what real moral basis is there for those rights?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Explain how what you are advocating is different from what we are condemning China for. I personally feel that when declaring someone a "suspected enemy of the State" is enough to lock them away, then it's the State that has become the enemy.

Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

wonk, I'm putting you down for "crime."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am pretty sure that Southern Gentlement is a liberal making conservative arguments to show how absurd they are. I thought you were the same but now I am not so sure. Either way, you are not doing a good job. If you think you are making the conservative argument, you are not very persuasive. If you are trying to show how absurd the conservative arguments are, you are not doing that well either.

Raggedy Ann Coulter is and was a Penske sock. Whether it's Penske himself or his favorite stooge posting at this point is irrelevant. The screed is coming from the same source.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Raggedy Ann Coulter is and was a Penske sock. Whether it's Penske himself or his favorite stooge posting at this point is irrelevant. The screed is coming from the same source.

Penske doesn't sock.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

wonk, I'm putting you down for "crime."

What's interesting is that in the four years subsequent, Congress has not used its constitutional power to declare war.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People who went to Afghanistan for terror training are bad to have walking around. But they didn't do anything that can probably be proved. As an example, it is not illegal to go to Afghanistan- it is not illegal (not something that puts you in jail at least) to bring a box cutter through security, it is not illegal to take jet aircraft classes, and it is not illegal to buy large quantities of fetrilizer. And we can't profile someone because they are Islamic.

And guess what, most of these guys don't do anything illegal until the airplane has been hijacked or the bomb assembled. Yes Captain it would be nice if we could put together a nice conspiracy case together- but conspiracy to do what? Bring box cutters on a plane? Why prosecute Atta but not my kid?

All I'm saying is that for certain of these people, letting them on the street is not an attractive option. Yes it would be nice if laws caught up, and maybe there are some better laws that could provide help- but right now- today Padilla or whoever else wants to kill thousands of us. That is the dilemma facing people who are holding these guys. It's like capturing an enemy airplane loaded with bombs, questioning the pilot and saying "we have to let him have his plane back because we can't prove he is on the other side."

You all act like that dilemma isn't hard, or real.

We're not acting like it isn't a real dilemma. But hard facts make bad law, Hank. The plain simple truth is that either we are a democracy that values human rights and civil liberties or we are not.

The people disagreeing with you have come down on the side of America remaining a free country. You have identified yourself as one who is willing to part with that principle.