Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rand Paul Filibusters Brennan Nomination

Politics 2013 Rand Paul Filibuster Drone Policy Senate

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#61 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:12 PM

View PostCait, on 08 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on 08 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Ya know Cait all of that ^^^ is true but there is NO NEED what-so-ever to try and paint people that aren't willing to get as amped up
as you are over this issue as so partisan that they are unwilling to see or act.  That's crap and you aren't listening.

That's not what I was doing and there is no need whatsoever to use ALL caps to yell at me.  My opinion isn't crap, and I certainly am listening.  

I call a person a partisan when they act like a partisan.  Someone, anyone, who was up in arms about Bush Sr. and the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act, but brushes off the Drone attacks, killing Americans on foreign soil without due process and thinking the President has the right to kill Americans on American soil if need be, is by definition a partisan.  Being called a partisan isn't a bad thing.  It's just someone who believes in one side over another. So, lets not pretend I called anyone anything negative.  I simply stated the obvious.

My point in stating the obvious was to illustrate that these laws and Presidential expansion of power are bad for our freedoms no matter who does it.  It was wrong when W did it.  It is wrong now when Obama does it.  That Presidential power should NOT rely on a benevolent President who will use the power with perfect logic and morality.  The people should not have to trust the government to act wisely.  We should be able to see if the government is wise and state out loud when it isn't, without regard to political affiliations.  

We are sold the partisan lie every single day in news and radio imo.  The whole idea of politics today sis to convince you that the other side will "Destroy American" so vote for your guy.  Just don't look to closely at how much the same they all are.  Just pay attention to the differences and hate the other guy.  This is the lie political parties sell us so they can maintain their own power and get re-elected.  

And in closing, the fact that I believe that partisanship is tearing our country apart is MY opinion.  Republicans and Democrats alike believe there are only two sides to a political issue.  Well there are far more imo.  There are those like me who believe partisanship has caused a kind of political blindness.  We only see bad in the other side, and good in our own.  But to a non-partisan, we see a danger in both political parties.

And, I'm entitled to my opinion as a member without me being accused of spewing crap and not listening to others, thank you very much.

Ok, you're the Mod. I appreciate you trying to make me look like some kid of jerk, I'm not and your redefine of me is so far off the mark and you know it.
But it's your forum and your board.  I'm out.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#62 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:10 PM

View PostDev F, on 08 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 08 March 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. No where in the Constitution does it say that American citizens who are suspected pf being enemy combatants can be killed without due process.  In fact, the Constitution says exactly the opposite.
Inherent in the concept of warfare is the notion that enemy combatants may be targeted without going through a judicial process. If American citizens were somehow exempt from that, any Union soldier who killed an enemy during an offensive action in the Civil War would have been guilty of murder.

Well, that's not exactly an appropriate example.  War was declared against the succeeding states.  Even if Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union, the South had established its own government.  It was indeed a civil war, but it was declared, and there were two nations in conflict.  If one side won there would be one nation.  If the other side won, we would have two nations.  

I don't think this is exactly analogous to what we're talking about.  But, even then,  Lincoln over stepped his Constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus.  It wasn't Constitutional.  Now there have been many historians who can look back and say Lincoln had to do it due to the nature of the war.  Maybe they even have a point.  Maybe.  But the war on terror will have no end.  No END.  

That's what has people like me up in arms.  These laws aren't some temporary measure to ensure national security during a specific time of declared war.  We're not talking about Japanese Internment camps that were emptied as soon as the war was over..  These laws and positions have become permanent  and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.  There will be no crushing battle that defeats one side or the other like in the Civil War or WWII.  There are no sides in fact.  No boundaries.  No hill or battlefield to take.  There is no end in sight, because there is no nation state on the other side of this battle.  Combatants are constantly moving to new sites, new nations.  They are in fact just people with no nation, just a religion and a cause.  How do you defeat that on a battlefield   Truth is, you don't, and none of the sacrifices we've made in personal freedoms will ever end this.  But we will end up less free.  We will surrender our privacy.  And who knows if we will ever get it back again.

Quote

The problem is not that Americans can be considered enemy combatants under certain circumstances, because of course they can. The problem is when the government expands the definition of "enemy combatant" to include people who aren't actually soldiers on the battlefield in any conventional sense.

Exactly.  And as I quoted up thread, there are Constructional procedures for Americans who are deemed traitors or who give comfort to an enemy.  It is spelled out in the Constitution [Article II, Section 3].  They have rights as Americans even if they are traitors or enemy combatants.  They have rights.  Rights no one is even considering.  It's the fact that Americans aren't even considering the civil rights violations here that has me MOST worried.  

It's one thing to keep POW's confined until a war is over.  At the end of a war, POW's are released.  But, it matters even then how POW's are treated.  We as nations of the world have said how POV's should be treated.  The fact that we say this is a war, but treat captives of this war not as POW's but as some newly defined enemy is disturbing to me.  It always has been.  But, I think that is a topic for another day.

Here, today, we are discussing Presidential powers and what we as Americans will allow in our name.  Will we go along with anything as long as some politician can sell it to us effectively? Do we really hold the Constitution in such cheap regard?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#63 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:21 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 08 March 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:


Ok, you're the Mod. I appreciate you trying to make me look like some kid of jerk, I'm not and your redefine of me is so far off the mark and you know it.
But it's your forum and your board.  I'm out.

And this is unfair to me.  Why would I try to make you look like a jerk?  Why?  I only spoke [yes passionately] about my own POV.  I'm allowed to do that.  I was not disrespectful in my remarks and I never made any of them personal.  I spoke about my POV and issues like partisanship,  Presidential powers, etc.  I am speaking for myself, and I have been respectful of counter opinions.  I'm entitled to take exception to another's opinion, just as you are entitled to take exception to m y opinions.  But, I resent the fact that you've personalized my opinions and somehow made them some sort of an attack on you personally.  I have certainly NOT done that, and to infer that I have is unfair.

I was not speaking as a moderator, and under the new rules, no moderator would speak up.  So, please don't muddy this conversation with some insinuation that I was using some mod power.  Are you saying I can never answer a comment a member makes directly to me [as a member]?  Because that's what you are infering here.  That if I speak my own opinion and answer another member honestly from my POV that I am somehow exercising some mod power.  And that is totally false and unfair to me and all moderators,  but especially unfair to OT mods since we never interfere any longer except to issue a warning.  NEVER.  

I was answering your remarks, as I have a right to as a member.  I did not redefine you at all.  I never even mentioned your name or your politics or any such thing.  I spoke in general terms about what I fear and what I see.  If that felt like I was speaking about you, then you put that shoe on your own foot, not me.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#64 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:21 PM

This Directive [pdf]:

Quote

a. Establishes DoD policy and assigns responsibilities for the development and use of autonomous and semi-autonomous functions in weapon systems, including manned and unmanned platforms.

Unforgivable. Naïve, hopelessly unethical, immoral and unforgivable.

It's easy to joke about it but how utterly ABSURD is it that we have to have a campaign literally named the "Stop the Killer Robot" Campaign? The above directive was made just 3 days after Human Rights Watch issued a 50 page report called Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots in which they advocated that:

Quote

Governments should pre-emptively ban fully autonomous weapons because of the danger they pose to civilians in armed conflict

I don't give a caber toss who draws attention to this issue - it's way bigger than any one person. Turning killing into a computer game is bad enough. Letting the computer game run the show is utterly mind-blowing, and there just isn't enough sarcastic irony on the planet to fulfil the needs of the sentence "Autonomous killing robots? What could possibly go wrong?"

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#65 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:21 PM

I'll get to the defense autonomy directive later, and the civil war, wow, you guys are putting so many, so many things in here no one can address it all; so I'll start with one thing, the enemy and constitution thing; aside: the South states seceded, so they were not citizens in those battles ;) unless of course you consider that the North did not recognize the seceding of the rebels, so then they were still citizens? wow , things are so , so complicated eh?
;)
but now on the Constitution, which was written in a very, very different era than we have no with Intifada combatants who fight with no state but just a group with some bent jihad idea (bent coz so many stretch the jihad idea from how it was long ago) and hide in civvies behind skirts of mums and babes

Yes we had enemy combatants back when , like the Tories against the rebels before the United States, but that was before citizenship, and before the Constitution. Since the Constitution have we had the whole enemy combatant idea as the west wings use that these days? have that in 1890, or 1918, or 1944, or 1965? this idea of citizens get due process no matter what, and this new definition of enemy combatant whether citizen or not , I first heard it from W, after all my life with Reagan and Carter and Herbert and all the rest I never heard it > it makes things complicated, and what is or is not in or should be or anything else the Constitution as we try to have that in the modern complicated era?

wow I cannot even type that fast for all those thought streams, and spell, and typoes, and, and, with this whole folder :harper:
so,
get back to other points later:
but it does look like, and THAT is WHY we had the filibuster and the questions, and the Brenner hearings, and the AG, and west wing and all this issue, it does look like the west wing can decide with no other that you or I am an enemy combatant by witness of our actions or by PROFILE even though a US citizen > gov will do what they believe, not really what is the law but what they believe it to be, what their special attorneys can JUSTIFY in writings after the fact and in court> so > ? do you believe you have the right to hit an American citizen
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#66 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:16 PM

Personally I don't care what letter is in front of a Presidents name or whether I "trust" that President or not because even if I did, that persons time in office is no more than 8 years and I may NOT like or trust the next one. No president ever has that right, of course I don't think the government or law enforcement should have drones either because the potential for abuse is enormous. I opposed the Patriot Act under Bush and I still oppose it because it's a slipperly slope and no president ever seems willing to give up powers (even ones they opposed as a candidate).

Someone mentioned the civil war as it might apply to this situation and US citzens as enemy combatants. There's a difference between a civil war and covertly, without our consent assasinating US citizens for what you think they might do or who they may know.
Posted Image
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, 2013, Rand Paul, Filibuster, Drone Policy, Senate

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users