Republican Doom And Gloom
The cloud of growing doom hanging over Republicans as they skulk the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. is becoming more and more visible as the 2008 elections stumble down the campaign trail. It may break in a cloudburst of Democratic landslides this November, which Republicans are beginning to fully realize. Because the bad news for the Republicans is coming so fast and furious, I (once again) pay homage to the late great Herb Caen, and offer them up to you in a return of the Three-Dot Thursday format. Without further ado...
...Not one, but two possible Republican "October Surprises" went down in flames today. First, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed the habeas corpus rights of prisoners held by the U.S. in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This is the third strike for the Bush administration's efforts to try these people in star chamber sessions (where they can't even see the evidence against them), and the practical result is that the military tribunals they had planned for the rest of this year (right up to Election Day, one would assume) will be put on indefinite hold. Congress can't even overturn this decision, and Bush can't ignore it. So plans to get lots of good press with "trials" right before the election are now down the drain. All decisions in the matter will likely now be the purview of the next occupant of the Oval Office.
...October Surprise Number Two went down in flames as well. Iraqi leaders are now telling Bush not to expect any Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) before American elections in November. This means Bush will likely be forced to settle for a one-year extension of the United Nations authorization of force, and any long-term security agreement between us and Iraq will be discussed, again, with the next president. Not Bush.
...Barack Obama is up in the polls. Way up. Pollster.com has a nice graph showing Obama's "bounce" since he clinched the Democratic nomination, or you can check out yourself. Of course, the real battle will be fought in the Electoral College, but this is also good news for Obama. RealClearPolitics has Obama up in their rather conservative electoral map, but Electoral-Vote.com is much more optimistic for Obama -- they're predicting a 304-221 split, with Virginia still up in the air. You can play this game yourself at a fun page on the USA Today website. I started with the Electoral-Vote.com split, added Virginia, then just went hog-wild with optimism and gave Obama North Carolina, Montana, and Alaska as well. This left me with a 338-200 blowout for Obama. Whew!
...If electoral maps for president aren't wonky enough for you, you can also check out Electoral-Vote.com's Senate and House estimates as well. They've got the Senate right now at 58-42, and that includes giving up Minnesota and Oregon to the Republicans. I think both those states are winnable for Democrats, which would give them a filibuster-proof 60-40 majority. OK, I have to sit down now. Actually, one of those 60 would be Joe Lieberman, but even so, that's an astounding number to shoot for.
...The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC) is having a bit of fun with the quality of opponent the Republicans seem to be offering up. They've got a "Rotten Recruits" page up, where they itemize some of the jokers they're running against. My favorite has got to be the guy who was supposed to run against John Kerry in Massachusetts. All he had to do to get on the ballot was turn in 10,000 signatures on time. The due date came, and he turned in 9,970, so he won't be on the ballot this fall. Or, take Arkansas -- the GOP isn't even fielding a candidate in the race there. Democrats are running against the Keystone Kops now? No wonder Republicans are so gloomy these days.
...The Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, who has been mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, is reported to have taken place in an exorcism while in college. Adding to Jindal's woes is the fact that he's getting a bill on his desk soon which would allow teaching creationist dogma in the state's public schools. He is being coy about whether he's going to sign it or not, but it passed the statehouse with whoppingly big veto-proof majorities, so it may not even matter. I'm guessing McCain will take a pass on him, but then who knows?
...A new "Gang of 14" of Republican Congressmen are publicly stating they won't back John McCain in the election. On a political-earthquake scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 28. Here's the list, courtesy of The Hill (the whole article is a hoot to read):
Republican members who have not endorsed or publicly backed McCain include Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Jones, Peterson, John Doolittle (Calif.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Frank Wolf (Va.). [Wolf contacted The Hill following publication of the article to correct his staff's error. His staff had said he has "yet to endorse McCain" and did not return follow-up phone calls this week].
...As if that weren't enough bad news for McCain, if reports from the fringes can be believed (courtesy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks such filth), even White Supremacists are moving to Obama's side. Yes, you read that right. The White Power folks are going to vote for a black man over John McCain. They have a theory that things have to get worse before they get better, and that President Obama will mean more recruits for their evil cause, but still -- if you can't even count on the KKK vote when you are running against a black man, it would seem to me that your campaign is in trouble.
...Finally (I saved the best for last), here is the quote of the week from one of a new breed of what is being called "Obamacons" -- conservatives for Obama. Once again, yes, you read that right. In a piece on the phenomenon in The New Republic, one of the economic advisers who helped put together Newt Gingrich's "Contract For America" (which helped us get into the mess we're now in) was quoted saying the following (from Page 3 of the article):
Of far greater importance, in [Larry] Hunter's view, is that Obama has the potential to "scramble the political deck, break up old alliances, and bring odd bedfellows together in a new coalition." And, what's more important, he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse." Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it "will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come."
Wow. That's just... wow.
Makes me feel sorry for the Republicans, almost.
Almost.
-- Chris Weigant
Like I have always said, if Obama is elected, it's going to be a wild ride. I just hope the bridge ain't out..
First, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed the habeas corpus rights of prisoners held by the U.S. in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This is the third strike for the Bush administration's efforts to try these people in star chamber sessions (where they can't even see the evidence against them), and the practical result is that the military tribunals they had planned for the rest of this year (right up to Election Day, one would assume) will be put on indefinite hold. Congress can't even overturn this decision, and Bush can't ignore it.
Ahh Ahh Ahh... Not so fast..
I seem to recall the same jubilation when the SCOTUS struck down the ability to torture scumbag terrorists for intel..
But what happened?? That ruling beget the MCA and THAT was supported by many Democrats.
I see this ruling as more of the same. The SCOTUS says, "You can't do dis, dat and de other thing under the current laws" so this will simply allow the Administration to craft another law that will allow "dis, dat and de other thing".. And it will, likely, be passed by Congress..
So, just as the previous ruling was a "loss" for the GOP that turned into a huge WIN for the GOP (in the form of the MCA) and a huge PR loss for the Dems, I think that this will be the same.
Michale.....
Baby steps. One decision at a time.
It will be interesting to see how much the Bush administration actually heeds the ruling, however. And whether Congress has the backbone to stand up to "terror" legislation that the administration is likely to propose. Good point, Michale.
Already, Mukasey is laying the groundwork:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD91969SO0
I'd actually look forward to a fight over this issue, though. We have the Constitution on our side and we should argue that we are fighting for rights and freedoms.
Imprisonment without charges is the right of tyrants and monarchs. Not one of the principles America was founded on.
And the more Bush "works around" the balance of power, the more he looks like a monarch.
The Republican strategy of characterizing the opposition as wimps is getting old as neo-conservative policy keeps failing.
- Dave
p.s. And with the Klan on our side, how can we lose? :)
"we should argue that we are fighting for rights and freedoms."
No offense, but this would be a very bad argument to make.
Because the response would be, "Why on earth would you want to fight for the rights and freedoms of terrorists??"
Which would, in turn, put the Dems on the defensive... AGAIN...
The simple fact is, terrorism these days is NOT a Law Enforcement/Judicial issue. It's a military issue and should be handled as such.
Anything less and we're already defeated before we start.
Michale.....
"The simple fact is, terrorism these days is NOT a Law Enforcement/Judicial issue. It's a military issue and should be handled as such."
Actually it is a Law Enforcement/Judicial issue, and I hope it's kept that way. Because if not, you may one day find a lot more things being called "terrorism" and our own citizens being locked away with no rights to be heard in court.
Actually it is a Law Enforcement/Judicial issue, and I hope it's kept that way.
Really??
So, tell me.. How is the NYPD doing in the hills of Afghanistan?? How many Al Qaeda types have been Mirandized before the Predator missile sent them to the waiting arms of their 70 virgins??
You are thinking of the terrorism of the 70s and 80s. There is no police agency (local, state or even Federal) that has the capabilities to take the fight to the terrorists. Law Enforcement, by it's VERY DEFINITION, is a REACTIVE process..
To effectively combat terrorism on a global scale (which is what we are facing) we must have a PRO-ACTIVE agency.
And, to date, the only "agency" capable of doing this on a global scale is the US Armed Forces.
And, considering that there has not been a terrorist attack on US proper since 9/11, I would say that the US Military is doing a damn fine job.
Michale.....
The NYPD may not be in Afghanistan but the FBI is. They have been training Afghan forces pretty much since day one and continue to do so.
Personally I think the military is not the ideal part of government to fight terrorism. I would prefer the FBI, i.e. law enforcement, domestically and the CIA, a civilian agency last I heard, abroad. With help from the US armed forces when needed. Given the mandate and more importantly, the money, I think both can handle their side of the job. Especially now that they are required to talk to each other.
I think the reason there has been not terrorism attack in the US proper since 9/11 has more, though not all, to do with the fact Bush stuck his flag in the center of the middle east and said, "attack us here!". And they did. I give Bush kudos as it worked quite well. I just don't think killing American troops in a foreign land do to terrorism is any more or less preferred or moral to killing civilians in the US do to terrorism.
"Why on earth would you want to fight for the rights and freedoms of terrorists??"
It’s not about rights and freedoms of terrorists. You can do what ever you want to them with in reason (killing/imprisonment, fine. Spanish inquisition, not so fine). It’s about proving they are terrorists first. Grabbing a random person from from a foreign land and calling them a terrorist does not a terrorist make. Show proof or be a hell of a lot better getting proof when you grab them.
It’s easy to protect the freedoms and rights of your neighbor who feeds the cat and checks the mail when you are on vacation. A little more difficult to do so with the “scumbags†but it is still important. That way everyone in our society or anyone that has to deal with us knows if the worst people get due process than they are likely too as well. If a few scumbags slip through to protect that then so be it.
"it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".
Benjamin Franklin
BashiBazouk and Michale -
Two minor points (it's Friday, gotta get the talking points done). First, please don't forget the anthrax attacks. OK, (a) it could have been domestic terrorism, (b) it was almost immediately after 9/11, and (c) it was a footnote compared to 9/11; but having said all that, people died. Sorry, it's a personal bugaboo of mine -- we HAVE been attacked since 9/11.
And BB, I'm not entirely sure of how the CIA is classified. Sometimes they're considered military, sometimes civilian. "Quasi-military" is what I've heard used to describe them, although I fully admit I really have no idea what that means as to legalisms.
Michale - Seems like the court system did a pretty good job against the first guy to attack the WTC, back in the 90s. Isn't he (Omar? I forget his name) still in prison? After being convicted of terrorism in federal court? What exactly is wrong with how his case was handled??
gotta run, sorry for the shortness of my comments.
-CW
One more thing...
Nobody wants to comment on Republicans calling their own party a rotting zombie corpse?!?
heh heh.
-CW
I think the reason there has been not terrorism attack in the US proper since 9/11 has more, though not all, to do with the fact Bush stuck his flag in the center of the middle east and said, "attack us here!".>
EXACTLY...
While I do understand your moral qualms over such a strategy, when you get right down to it, the military exists to safeguard the civilian population. Even if it means to die..
In that, the military is serving it's function. I know that sounds cold and analytical (and it is) but those are the facts.
Bush has created battlegrounds overseas so that Americans can be safe at home. But do you think anyone on the Left is going to give him credit for that?? Nooooooooo, of course not...
"it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".
That little outdated gem is right up with "One man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter" for antiquity and complete irrelevance to today's world..
Allow me to administer to you one of my infamous OCS ethics tests.. :D
To whit, you are in charge of a team in New York City. You have in your custody 1000 men. You know for a fact that 999 of those men are completely innocent. One of them you know for a fact is a terrorist who's intent is to set off a nuclear bomb in the heart of New York City.
You have absolutely NO WAY to determine which is the guilty man. You don't have time to torture them to learn the truth and you are philosophically against torture anyways. You have NEST teams (yea, I know it's redundant) canvassing the city, but they will need at least a week to detect the bomb and get it out of the city.
So, here are your choices.
You can hold all 1000 men in custody for 1 week to give your NEST teams time to detect and diffuse the bomb. You do this knowing that only ONE man is guilty and the other 999 are completely innocent.
Or, you can simply release all 1000 men and watch New York City go up in a nuclear cloud.
These are your only two choices. Any other choice will result in the detonation of the nuclear device.
So, what's it gonna be?? Is it REALLY "better" that 1000 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be detained???
@CW
we HAVE been attacked since 9/11.
The CT community generally views the anthrax "attacks" and the 9/11 attacks as two different branches of the same attack...
As far as the CIA goes, they do have "quasi" military operations. They are capable of mounting LIMITED (emphasis) military style operations. But they are neither manned nor equipped to mount sustained operations against terrorist targets, which is what is required to be successful..
When the CIA has ops it needs to employ on a large scale, guess who they gonna call?? I'll give you a hint. It ain't the Ghostbusters...
Michale.....
Michale -
Well... it's stretching it a bit, but I suppose you could lump the anthrax and 9/11 attacks together (nobody's ever proved that, by the way). As long as we don't forget the dead and wounded from that attack, that's really my main point.
As for the CIA, I was mainly addressing the legalisms. Don't the CIA occasionally come under military command, as when they are operating on a battlefield? I believe they actually took the front line positions in the war on Afghanistan. So, in this situation, aren't they considered part of the military chain of command? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know a whole lot about the boundaries of civilian/military structure, I must admit. But I wasn't commenting on anything else, just the legalisms involved.
-CW
Regarding the second point, the CIA has traditionally taken the driver's seat in special ops that required the "muscle" of the military. Ex: Operation Phoenix during Vietnam, etc etc
Although I have been out of the field for many many (MANY) moons :D I doubt the tradecraft has changed so much. Garnering what I can from current events, it's my guess it has not..
Consequently, it can be accurately argued that the CIA doesn't serve a branch of the needs of the military, but rather the military serves a branch and the needs of the CIA..
Of course, one must take into account the existence of the DIA which competes with the CIA for the "attentions" of the military. One would think that the DIA would have an "in" (so to speak) but it's been my experience that the CIA is given prefs.. This also doesn't take into account the various intelligence agencies within the various branches of services. I have worked in the USAF's OSI (But I never got to meet Steve Austin or Oscar Goldman!! :( hehehehe) and I can tell you that the various agencies jealousy guard their turf. Granted, this is all pre 9/11, but the "nature of the beast" pretty much indicates to me that not much has changed..
I want to address the 9/11 Anthrax attacks, but my daughter is giving me dirty looks and expecting me to come to dinner, so I'll address that in a bit..
Michale.....
Maybe the problem is that we just aren't going far enough. Locking away 1000 people won't guarantee that we stop terrorism. Sure, we may get the one hypothetical terrorist in the 1000. But what about all the other hypothetical terrorists out there?
And what about the fox terrier-ists, and the hippie tarot-ists, and the Democratists, and anyone else we just don't like.
To Guantanamo with everyone!
I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way we can ensure this is to lock everyone away. Only then can we be truly safe from the terrorists with their nuclear bombs (When did terrorists get the bomb - btw? Was this in the news?) and other poodle-destroying weapons!
I sure am glad there's spineless people out there who are so easily willing to throw away their rights and give the President the power to imprison anyone he wants as long as he thinks they are a terrorist.
I will sleep better tonight because I know he doesn't need "proof" or anything crazy like that. He knows in his gut they're terrorists. If he says they're terrorists, that's enough for me.
Hell, I'm feeling safer just thinking about it.
Maybe the problem is that we just aren't going far enough. Locking away 1000 people won't guarantee that we stop terrorism. Sure, we may get the one hypothetical terrorist in the 1000. But what about all the other hypothetical terrorists out there?
I am talking about one specific scenario.
But I can understand why you would want to dodge such a scenario...
Because it totally lays bare the fallacy of the koom-bye-ya argument that the Left proposes.....
The Left's arguments are all great, IN THEORY.. In a perfect utopian society, they would be valid arguments.
But the REALITY of the situation totally negates the Left's talking points..
So, akadjian... What's your answer? Do you incarcerate 1000 men to save New York City, knowing that only 1 of them is a threat??
And, before you try and poo-poo the scenario as something out of "24", I invite you to recall 3 words. UNITED. FLIGHT. 93.
The "Kobiyashi Maru" scenario I have outlined above is something that military people are faced with each and every day..
You castigate the President. At least he has the courage to not only FACE such a decision but to actually MAKE the decision..
You can't even face such a decision in a blog!!
In the immortal words of Colonel Nathan R Jessup...
"I suggest you pick up a weapon.. And stand a post."
Michale.....
Anyways, where was I??
Oh, that's right.. The 9/11-Anthrax connection..
There were several reports of a couple 9/11 Hijackers that were treated in a FL emergency room for anthrax related symptoms. As the evidence shows, Florida figured prominently in both the 9/11 hijackers and the anthrax attacks. That can hardly be a coincidence..
The 9/11-Anthrax connection has been, publicly, played down. This was most likely due to the fact that, while the public could handle a "tangible" fear of terrorists hijacking airplanes, the intangible and hysterical fear of terrorist possessing and USING biological weapons of mass destruction would be something that was deemed to be outside the public's capability to handle..
But there is (or I should say WAS) considerable evidence to link the 9/11 attacks with the anthrax attacks..
Regardless of the connection, since the attacks were so close together, it is reasonable to say that US Proper has been terrorist attack free since 9/11..
No reasonable person would expect that authorities could have prepared for the Anthrax Attacks in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
But, it if will make ya'all feel better, I will amend my statement to read that the Bush Administration has kept US Proper free from terrorist attacks since 10/11... Better?? :D
Michale......
Only detain? No shooting, no torture? Your straw man is becoming soft. I'll have to start referring to it a a yarn man argument :-)
There was a nuke on United Flight 93?
As to the rest, if you put it that way, the answer to your ethics test is to reprogram the simulator to allow both the nuke to be found and 999 innocent men to be let go with in a legal time frame...
So I don't understand how imprisoning 1000 people has anything to do with preventing something like United Flight 93.
Seriously. So far as I understand, here was the situation w/ United Flight 93. The people on the flight KNEW through cell phone calls that terrorists had hijacked the plane and intended to do something similar to what had happened in NY. The EVIDENCE was overwhelming and pretty straightforward. The passengers made the decision to try to overpower the terrorists to prevent an attack. Am I missing something?
This is light years of difference from your hypothetical situation. 1) The passengers had evidence that the hijackers were terrorists and knew who the terrorists were, 2) they weren't imprisoning innocent people for no reason, 3) they really were forced to choose between two horrible alternatives.
The problem with your hypothetical situation is that you are saying we need to imprison all of these people because of something they MIGHT potentially MAYBE do someday though we HAVE NOT EVIDENCE. But let's put them in prison just in case because, well, why risk it. Using this logic, you could imprison anyone, for any reason, at any time.
This is not Kobayashi Maru! This is testicular sushi! I'm more disappointed in your blatant misuse of Star Trek analogies than anything else.
The only similarity I can see between your analogy and United Flight 93 is that terrorists are involved in both.
Kobayashi Maru is a "no win" situation. In your hypothetical this is not the case. There seem to be many other options for fighting international criminals that actually are more effective. One would be to actually do something to safeguard nuclear materials instead of randomly imprisoning 1000 people. Wouldn't this be more effective?
If only we had a way to prosecute thought crime * sigh *.
- Dave
"Has been was / Has been might again" - The Ben Folds Five
@BashiBazouk
Nice dodge.
You see my point? The Left (as it is represented here) is afraid to even face these questions in a blog.. Yet, ya'all feel qualified to castigate the people who have to make those decisions in real life..
There was a nuke on United Flight 93?
Are you being intentionally obtuse??
I can understand that you may not want to face the hard questions in life. Surely, one can see the attraction of sitting on high and passing judgment based on ZERO practical experience.
But the simple matter is, real life is full of hard questions and even harder answers..
If one is afraid to face these situations even in THEORY, how can one feel qualified to castigate those who face those situations in reality??
@akadjian
You are being too literal with the Flight 93 aspect.
The similarity is in that United Flight 93 was being targeted for shoot-down when it "crashed". Personally, I believe it was shot down, but that's my personal opinion.
In any case, it is analogous in the sense that it is an ethics dilemma. Do you kill a hundred innocent people in order to save thousands??
The problem with your hypothetical situation is that you are saying we need to imprison all of these people because of something they MIGHT potentially MAYBE do someday though we HAVE NOT EVIDENCE. But let's put them in prison just in case because, well, why risk it. Using this logic, you could imprison anyone, for any reason, at any time.
Once again, you are trying to evade the premise of the ethics questions by changing the scenario.
Congrats.
New York City just went up in a nuclear cloud and it's on your conscience.
"Kobayashi Maru is a "no win" situation. In your hypothetical this is not the case."
It IS the case. It's simply you refuse to accept it because it lays bare the fallacy of your argument.
I quote from my scenario.. "These are your only two choices. Any other choice will result in the detonation of the nuclear device."
You are changing the conditions of the scenario because you don't like what the outcome will say..
Like with the Kobyashi Maru scenario, there IS no "right" answer. Each option is morally DEFENSIBLE and morally INDEFENSIBLE, depending on where your morality lies.
Like with the Kobyashi Maru scenario, this ethics scenario is a test of character. It asks, "do you have the fortitude, the guts to make the tough call??"
To date, I have yet to meet anyone who does..
But hay, if you want pure, unadulterated and undeniable reality, I am happy to oblige you.
You are the military controller in the tower on Sep 11, 2001. You have a fully loaded airplane carrying 100+ passengers. The plane is heading towards Washington DC with the intent to crash the plane, killing all 100+ passengers and many thousands on the ground.
You have mere seconds to react.
Do you order the shoot-down??
Michale....
Flight 93 was reality. Your nuclear holocaust scenario is a completely false hypothetical. This was my point.
Either way, both of them have very little to do with a rationale for imprisoning people with no grounds.
And, whether or not I would choose to shoot down a plane full of passengers has nothing to do with justification for imprisoning people for no reason.
What you're trying to argue is that you're willing to make the tough choice and do anything to prevent terrorism. Including imprisoning people at RANDOM, with no GROUNDS or EVIDENCE, for something they HAVEN'T DONE. And, you have no idea whether this will be effective or not. It just might be, you don't know.
What we're trying to argue is that there are better, more effective ways that don't compromise our rights. And that we should be fighting to uphold the Constitution and the principles that our country was founded on. Does this take courage? Yes. Because it involves going against a President who is trying to redefine the balance of power using fear and propaganda.
It takes courage because the "fear mongers" will try to say, it will be your fault if people die. And no one wants to be responsible for people dying. No it won't.
The party of personal responsibility would like you to believe that it's your fault if you don't do what they want. This is how they get their way.
Do they really want to fight terrorism? Or, is this a wedge issue that helps them get their way?
To be truly strong as a nation, we have to realize that "terror" is being used as a wedge and we should fight back to protect our freedoms and our way of life from being taken away by a government that is only interested in making itself more powerful.
Sometimes I miss the "less government" Republicans. Whatever happened to them?
And, please Michale, is it possible you could write a response without trying to make me responsible for killing millions of people?
I didn't blame George Bush when 9/11 happened under his Presidency and I don't blame you for the deaths of millions of hypothetical people. So please quit blaming me for terrorism to try to win your argument.
p.s. Have you ever seen "Thank You for Smoking"? I think you'd get a kick out of it. Very funny.
"Well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty." - Nick Naylor, "Thank You For Smoking"
"Flight 93 was reality. Your nuclear holocaust scenario is a completely false hypothetical. This was my point."
"false hypothetical"??
What about it is "false"??
Regardless, you are still missing the point. It's a test. And you continue to fail..
Either way, both of them have very little to do with a rationale for imprisoning people with no grounds.
The Flight 93 scenario doesn't, granted.
But the OCS scenario does. That is what it is all about.
It just might be, you don't know.
For the purposes of this scenario, I ***DO*** know.. And so do you. You simply refuse to answer because of the fallacy of your argument. The scenario show the inherent flaw in your "principles" argument.
"And, please Michale, is it possible you could write a response without trying to make me responsible for killing millions of people?"
It's very easy to not be responsible for the killing of millions of people. Simply make the call..
I'll make it even easier for you...
Are your "principles" more important to you than the death of millions of innocent people??
"What we're trying to argue is that there are better, more effective ways that don't compromise our rights."
And what do you base that on??? What experience, education or training do you have that allows you to make such a statement??
Regardless of that, for the purposes of the scenario I laid out, there is no other alternative. Your choices are clear and unambigious. You can hold 999 innocent people for a week after which time, they will be allowed to go on their merry way.
Hell, I'll even make the decision easier for you. For the sake of the scenario, the 1000 people are not incarcerated in a jail, but rather put up at a guarded hotel, complete with hot meals and cable TV..
So, do you detain the 1000 people to save the lives of millions in New York City???
I didn't blame George Bush when 9/11 happened under his Presidency
Assuming this is true, you are in the minority as far as the Left goes. Regardless, what about the deaths in Iraq??
I don't blame you for the deaths of millions of hypothetical people.
Feel free to lay out any scenario you wish... You will find that I am not afraid to make the call..
So please quit blaming me for terrorism to try to win your argument.
I am not blaming you for terrorism.. I am blaming you for castigating the people who make the tough decisions in real life, when you are afraid to make the tough decisions in a blog. I am blaming you for the deaths of millions in hypothetical New York City because of your failure to comprehend that we are in a war and your way is the surest way to lose it..
But beyond that, I'de be happy to buy you a beer and discuss it in more depth. :D
Michale.....
"Well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty." - Nick Naylor, "Thank You For Smoking"
Naw, I haven't seen it.. You would probably consider me a anti-smoking nazi (I am!!) and anything to do with smoking automatically turns me off.. It's an unreasonable and illogical bias, but there it is.. :D
Michale.....
But, you want reality..
I have already given you the Flight 93 scenario.
That's reality..
Here's another one..
Authorities glean intel that indicates a major terrorist attack in a major US city is about to occur. Authorities swoop in covertly and start canvassing the hotels, obtaining hotel registers and other paper trails in an effort to identify the potential terrorists.
Do you have a problem with this??
Michale.....
Flight 93 is reality that even you admitted has nothing to do with imprisoning people with no evidence.
Similarly, with your new hotel scenario. Nothing to do with imprisoning people with no evidence.
Same as your 1000 people scenario that assumes some sort of magical advance psychic knowledge that 1 of these people is a terrorist but you have no idea who it is. This is not the situation in Guantanamo. It is a contrived situation. It is contrived because in real life there are better options. And in real life, just because you don't agree with the President on everything, doesn't mean you're responsible for the deaths of millions of people and poodles and kittens.
You either have evidence and can hold someone and charge them. Or you don't and should let them go. It is against our founding principles to hold people for no reason. Period.
From our Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Note that it doesn't say "take all this back if maybe there's a chance to prevent something, but we aren't quite sure and have no evidence, but we grant you the power to hold anyone for any reason at any time you'd like so long as you say the word 'terror' three times fast."
So are the people who wrote the Constitution responsible for the death of millions of people? Or is it just me? Just trying to get some clarity here.
- Dave
p.s. BTW - If you're an anti-smoking advocate, you'd probably like Thank You For Smoking.
p.s.s. I'm not castigating anyone. I disagree with our administration. That is also one of my fundamental rights. Is that right in question now too?
Flight 93 is reality that even you admitted has nothing to do with imprisoning people with no evidence.
Correct.. But it has everything to do with making tough calls to serve the greater good.
Which is what these "Ethics Tests" are all about.
You either have evidence and can hold someone and charge them. Or you don't and should let them go. It is against our founding principles to hold people for no reason. Period.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's say you DO have evidence, just not enough to narrow it down to a single person. I can "contrive" several logical scenarios as to how this happened. But HOW you know isn't really relevant to the question, now is it?
Suffice it to say you DO know and you DO know the outcome.. You have ALL the information necessary to make the decision...
"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it is invariably the WRONG decision."
-James T Kirk
You just don't WANT to make the decision.. I can understand it. Who would?
The point of the whole exercise is to perhaps allow you to feel some sympathy for the people who DO have to make these kinds of calls.
From our Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
During national emergencies and times of war, the US Constitution can AND HAS been suspended.
If you could prevent a nuclear attack on Los Angeles (I have been picking on NYC too much :D) by suspending parts of the US Constitution, would you do it??
"Hell yes, drop that fucker. Twice!"
Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact, to be followed to it's letter, regardless of the consequences to millions and millions of innocent lives.
I have given you several scenarios (plus there are more where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Surely you can see the logic of such a position.
So are the people who wrote the Constitution responsible for the death of millions of people? Or is it just me? Just trying to get some clarity here.
No, the people who treat it as an unbending and totalitarian rule are the ones that are responsible.
p.s. BTW - If you're an anti-smoking advocate, you'd probably like Thank You For Smoking.
OK, I'll watch it tonight and see... :D
p.s.s. I'm not castigating anyone. I disagree with our administration. That is also one of my fundamental rights. Is that right in question now too?
No one is saying anything about disagreement. Hell, even dissent is encouraged and logical.
But many on the Left (present company excepted of course) go way WAY beyond rational disagreement and logical dissent. They stray into the area of outright obstructionism and take actions and make statements that are detrimental to the security of this country.
THAT is simply not permissible..
Michale.....
If you don't have enough evidence to narrow it down to a single person, then you don't have the evidence to imprison.
That's it. That's the law. There's no need to contrive anything. You can contrive all the fictional terrorist scenarios you want, but coming up with fictional scenarios does not change the law, the Constitution, or the real principles behind freedom.
Republicans talk a lot about defending freedom, isn't it time they actually put their actions where their mouths are? Congratulations to Justice Kennedy for not siding with the politicized justices.
That is real courage. Sticking with your beliefs even when it may cost you politically.
Doesn't it say something when even 3 Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Republicans vote against abolishing habeus corpus?
What if you were imprisoned for no reason? Wouldn't you want to be charged with something and have an opportunity to prove your innocence? How would you feel if they just shipped you off to Guantanamo for 6 years, said you were a "terrorist," but never charged you with anything or showed you any evidence?
If you don't have enough evidence to narrow it down to a single person, then you don't have the evidence to imprison.
You seem to be confusing "justice" with "prevention"..
No one is advocating detaining innocent people as a punishment for crimes that they didn't commit..
There is ample precedence to support the notion of detaining innocent people for PREVENTIVE purposes.
That is real courage. Sticking with your beliefs even when it may cost you politically.
What about sticking with your beliefs even if it costs a hundred lives?? Or a thousand lives?? Or more??
Is that courage??
Or ego??
What if you were imprisoned for no reason?
If my imprisonment meant that a million people would be alive that wouldn't otherwise be, I would hope I would have the (REAL) courage to accept it.
How would you feel if they just shipped you off to Guantanamo for 6 years, said you were a "terrorist," but never charged you with anything or showed you any evidence?
Again, you are confusing punishment with prevention. There would be absolutely no reason to even SUGGEST that I might be conspiring with terrorists. My history, experience and training would offset any Hitchcockian/wrong number "coincidence".
The entire point of the exercise was to have you (or anyone with the courage) to answer one simple question.
How much are your principles worth??
And, is it principle?? Or ego??
Michale....
"What about sticking with your beliefs even if it costs a hundred lives?? Or a thousand lives?? Or more??"
* sigh *
Back to killing millions of people.
Let me ask you something. Suppose we give George Bush all the power he wants to prevent terrorism. If a terrorist attack occurs after we gut our freedoms and rights, is it his fault?
Back to killing millions of people.
No.. I am just trying to ascertain how far you take your principles..
What is wrong with answering a simple question?
Would you stick to your principles, even if it meant the death of thousands of innocent people?
Let me ask you something. Suppose we give George Bush all the power he wants to prevent terrorism. If a terrorist attack occurs after we gut our freedoms and rights, is it his fault?
Of course not. No one can guarantee anything with regards to fighting terrorism.
But the issue is what tools are going to be used and employed in the fight against terrorism.
Are you going to fight terrorism with the goal of saving innocent lives??
Or are you going to fight terrorism with the goal of protecting terrorist's rights??
I am proposing the former.
The Left seems intent on the latter...
Michale.....
By the bi, we didn't get a chance to watch THANK YOU FOR SMOKING last night. Going to try and watch it tonight, if the grandkids cooperate. :D
Let's approach this from a different angle..
Would you agree that one's principles should be guided by common sense and and not be so rigid and inflexible as to completely ignore the circumstances of the moment?
I would also like to explore your misunderstanding that I propose incarcerating innocent people as punishment. As I indicated, there is ample precedence to establish that it is a correct course of action to incarcerate innocent people as a means of prevention.
So, under the conditions of PREVENTION, rather than punishment, can you understand why it might become necessary to incarcerate "innocent" people.
Michale.....
"Of course not. No one can guarantee anything with regards to fighting terrorism."
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. This is why saying millions of people will die is silly. You have no way of knowing. We could make the President king and terrorists could still attack us.
It's like me saying to you, if you get rid of habeus corpus, millions of people will die. Do you want to be responsible for that?
As for punishment, I never said anything about punishment.
And as for prevention, you can't imprison people for something they MIGHT do. You can only imprison people for crimes that they have committed. This is the basis of a free society.
First off you seem to be trying to prove that is ok to hold middle easterners in Guantanamo without trial for preventive purposes mainly by asking this “tough†principal based question. I will probably never answer it, not because as a lefty I fear looking at my principals but because it is a perfect example of a straw man logical fallacy and I’m just going to fall for it. Sorry.
The problem with “common sense†and one of the major flaws of the right thinking that it should be used as the almost sole method of doing things is it has a bad habit of being purely relational to ones own experience and to ignore others experience when it differs.
Classic example: Abu Ghraib. The US military has lots of prisoners, some of them being high risk. It needs a place to hold them. Hey, there is a large modern prison over there lets use it rather than build something. Common sense. Especially to an origination designed to defeat armies and take over countries. Yet it had to be one of the most stupid things the military did if the aim is to fight terrorism. Abu Ghraib was the most notorious prison under Sadam Hussein. Thousands of people were beaten, tortured and in many cases just plain disappeared there. To hold people there was bad enough but to degrade and possibly torture them? We probably handed Al-Qaeda one of the best enlistment devices in their history and did so on a silver platter. All in the name of common sense.
The problem with incarcerating innocent people without due process in the name of prevention is it is singular in it’s relation to the over all problem. What if by the bad press you get by holding innocent people, Al-Qaeda enlists a young brilliant budding scientist who was on the fence as to join a cause or continue his education and helps them build the nuke they were looking for? How does your short term prevention hold up to that?
@akadjian
And as for prevention, you can't imprison people for something they MIGHT do.
And yet, FDR (A Democrat, I might add) did exactly that in 1944..
And yet, Lincoln did EXACTLY that during the civil war.
You can only imprison people for crimes that they have committed. This is the basis of a free society.
Yet history has proven that, in certain circumstances, people CAN be incarcerated as a preventive measure..
And lo and behold, the US **AND** the Constitution has survived..
Imagine that...
@BashiBazouk
What if by the bad press you get by holding innocent people, Al-Qaeda enlists a young brilliant budding scientist who was on the fence as to join a cause or continue his education and helps them build the nuke they were looking for? How does your short term prevention hold up to that?
Tell you what.. You answer my "what if" and then I'll answer yours...
Fair enough??
I will probably never answer it, not because as a lefty I fear looking at my principals but because it is a perfect example of a straw man logical fallacy and I’m just going to fall for it. Sorry.
If it's such a "straw man" argument, as you claim, it should be easy to refute, no??
The simple fact is, the scenario explicitly and completely negates the "principles" argument and THAT is the reason you refuse to answer it.
Which is fine. Your refusal to answer is an answer in itself.
It tells me that, while you are all high and mighty judgmental in theory, when it comes time to substantially put your "principles" to the test, you balk. You choose to put your head in the sand, ostrich-style and hope it all just goes away.
Michale.....
I am somewhat at a loss to understand why ya'all are so afraid to state your principles and stand by them?
Surely, if you believe in them so strongly, it would be easy to say, "Yes, Dammit!! The principles of the US Constitution are paramount, even if it means the death of hundreds, thousands or even MILLIONS of innocent people!!!"
If that is what you believe, then why not simply state so??
Michale.....
What if by the bad press you get by holding innocent people, Al-Qaeda enlists a young brilliant budding scientist who was on the fence as to join a cause or continue his education and helps them build the nuke they were looking for? How does your short term prevention hold up to that?
You know what??
I am not afraid of taking a stance, so I'll be happy to address your "what if", even if you are incapable of doing the same.
The simple fact is, Al Qaeda doesn't really NEED any excuse to hate the United States.
Your theory pre-supposes that, if we treat terrorists with love and respect, they will reciprocate.
There is absolutely NOTHING to support such a wild assertion. You can ask Daniel Pearl or Nicholas Berg if you don't believe me. Oh wait. You can't. They were brutally murdered by the group of people you want to show compassion for.
So, in answer to your question, any actions taken by the US have little to do with whether or not Al Qaeda can or cannot recruit members that may be detrimental to the security of the US.
If Al Qaeda can recruit a "brilliant budding young scientist" they will be able to do so with or without incidents like Abu Ghraib..
It's really THAT simple...
Michale.....
Oh, and for the record.
The AbuGhraib incident is hardly indicative of US policy..
Using your reasoning, one could paint the entire Democratic Party as a racist and sexist organization, based on the incidents during the recent primary.
If you really want to paint the entire US as one Abu Ghraib after another..... Well, I just would have to ask...
Whose side are you on??
Michale.....
"If it's such a "straw man" argument, as you claim, it should be easy to refute, no??"
No. Thus is the nature of a straw man. One can question the question but it's a dead end to answer it as it's designed as a trap. Hence why it is a standard fallacy of logic. I could just as easily come up with my own straw man scenario that would make the liberal view seem the only common sense way to go but it would be just as useless. Thus the budding young scientist had more to do with showing that it could be turned around than actually wanting an answer.
The basic problem I have with the question is beyond your nudge, nudge, wink, wink moments, 24 and a few popcorn summer blockbusters I have seen ZERO creditable evidence that current terrorist organizations are anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon. Therefore the extreme nature of the question takes it to realm of fantasy. Drop the question down to realistic levels and it becomes interesting. Might even be answerable. Switch out nuclear weapon for a suicide bomber and I have to really think about it.
“Your theory pre-supposes that, if we treat terrorists with love and respect, they will reciprocate.
There is absolutely NOTHING to support such a wild assertion. You can ask Daniel Pearl or Nicholas Berg if you don't believe me. Oh wait. You can't. They were brutally murdered by the group of people you want to show compassion for.â€
Wrong. I’m saying if we treat MUSLIMS with respect and compassion in a consistent manner there is a good chance THEY won’t support terrorists. Until they stop supporting supporting terrorists, the problem will not go away no matter how many we kill.
The basic problem I have with the question is beyond your nudge, nudge, wink, wink moments, 24 and a few popcorn summer blockbusters I have seen ZERO creditable evidence that current terrorist organizations are anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon.
Then you are obviously not up on current events.
I would be happy to show you the evidence, but you would simply poo-poo it away as fear-mongering, just as you poo-poo the scenario away.. You only believe what you WANT to believe and you certainly won't let facts stand in your way...
Drop the question down to realistic levels and it becomes interesting. Might even be answerable. Switch out nuclear weapon for a suicide bomber and I have to really think about it.
That's a pretty lame dodge..
What does it matter whether or not the weapon of choice is a single suicide bomber that will kill dozens or a nuclear device that will kill thousands??
The CONCEPT is the same. The ISSUE is the same.
Wrong. I’m saying if we treat MUSLIMS with respect and compassion in a consistent manner there is a good chance THEY won’t support terrorists.
And I am saying that we DO treat Muslims with respect and compassion, when it is deserved.
Your problem is that you want to treat ALL Muslims with respect and compassion, regardless of whether they have earned it or not...
That's where we disagree..
Terrorists do not deserve respect. They do not deserve compassion. And they sure as hell do not deserve rights..
This is where you and I differ..
Michale.....
To add a little levity to a wholly depressing thread...
The Top Ten Reasons To Watch The Season Finale Of Battlestar Galactica
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YatjlSJNRHM
I watched it, by the bi... It was fracking awesome!!! :D
Michale...
...or you could just hop on over to another one...thread, that is...
"Surely, if you believe in them so strongly, it would be easy to say, 'Yes, Dammit!! The principles of the US Constitution are paramount, even if it means the death of hundreds, thousands or even MILLIONS of innocent people!!!' "
In this argument, you present only two choices
a) support the Constitution and kill millions of people
or, b) save the millions of people by throwing away our rights
I have answered your argument. Neither of your two choices. Protecting the Constitution and our freedoms doesn't mean we're killing anyone.
We can support our Constitution and work to prevent criminal acts. Are you saying we can have only one or the other?
In this argument, you present only two choices
a) support the Constitution and kill millions of people
or, b) save the millions of people by throwing away our rights
A no-win scenario is something that our soldiers and our intelligence professionals and your president faces every day. Maybe you will now be less inclined to judge them so harshly.
I have answered your argument. Neither of your two choices.
In real life, that kind of indecision is what gets people killed unnecessarily.
Protecting the Constitution and our freedoms doesn't mean we're killing anyone.
Really???
Do you REALLY want to stick with that assertion? Because I can give you historical example upon historical example that proves that assertion wrong.
Are you saying we can have only one or the other?
I am saying that people in CT ops face these kinds of choices.
I am saying that the President sometimes face these kinds of choices.
They don't have the luxury of ignoring the choice, or poo-poo'ing it away as a "straw man" or "24" argument.
I am saying that I have given you two scenarios ripped right out of the headlines, real life scenarios and you STILL refused to answer the question.
When faced with the no-win scenario one has to choose the lesser of two evils.
And, *I* believe that one of the biggest evils one can allow is the death of hundreds, thousands or even millions of innocent men, women and children is one the biggest "evils" out there.
Maybe it's just me, but if there is even a chance that having the government read my email or listen in on my phone calls will prevent the death of hundreds or thousands of innocent people, then I will gladly accept that. I don't take the view that my personal privacy is worth the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people.
If authorities need to detain me for a week or two in order to prevent the detonation of a nuclear device in a populated city or even stop a suicide bomber that will kill a dozen, I am all for it. I don't feel that my personal convenience is worth the lives of thousands of people.. Or a dozen people. Or even ONE PERSON.
I guess I am in the minority in that opinion, but there it is...
As I have pointed out in this thread, the high and mighty principles we all aspire to are all fine and dandy, in theory. But when faced with the real and possible consequences of those principles, no one wants to step up to the plate...
Michale.....
Didn't someone post on here something like there is "ZERO" evidence to support the claim that terrorists could have nuclear weapons??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/14/AR2008061402032.html?hpid=topnews
And while we're on the subject
http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/030602-kellytestimony.htm
The danger is not only from nuclear bombs, but all sorts of possible radiological attacks with readily available materials..
Just because one can't face the possibility of such an attack doesn't mean that such an attack is impossible..
Michale.....
For all of you who don't believe the threat is real, here is some protection for you.
http://xboxman.us/temp/protection1.jpg
Michale.....
Sorry if the above post came across as insulting..
I wasn't going for "insulting"...
I was going for "condescending"... :D
Michale.....
Hahahah. Got a kick out of the aluminum foil heads. Now those guys really scare me. Them I would detain indefinitely :).
“Chuck Norris does not believe in the periodic table because he only recognizes the element of surprise.â€
“Chuck Norris does not believe in the periodic table because he only recognizes the element of surprise.â€
"When the bogeyman goes to bed at night, he checks under his bed and in his closet for Chuck Norris."
:D
Michale.....