(Evidence gained by)Torture Can Be Used to Detain U.S. Enemies (WTF)

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government conceded in court Thursday.




The acknowledgment by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle came during a U.S. District Court hearing on lawsuits brought by some of the 550 foreigners imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The lawsuits challenge their detention without charges for up to three years so far.


Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."


U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon asked if a detention would be illegal if it were based solely on evidence gathered by torture, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."

more:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=6&u=/ap/20041202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees

[Tace]

1. It's Always Telling When Judges Make No Sense

[louis-t]

2. "Oh, but we DON'T torture!"

wink, wink.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. How proud we must be

of this place called Guantanamo, where information is deemed true when obtained by torture.

How many *detanees* are there now?

This is a truley shameful undertaking on the part of the insane people in charge. I hope it goes down as one of George Bush's most famous legacies.

A drowning man will swim toward any shore and a tortured man will say anything to make it stop. Yet, it is deemed, in all the wisdom of the United States military, as true information.

[bobthedrummer]

4. Here is The Guardian's story on this latest fascist horror.

Torture Can Be Used to Detain U.S. Enemies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4650168,00.html

[qs04]

28. Not a Guardian article; AP. Same as in first post actually (nt)

[TahitiNut]

5. "have no constitutional rights"??? GODF*CKINGDAMNIT!!!

There is no such fucking thing as a "Constitutional right"!!

Human beings have rights above, before, and beyond the Constitution!
The Constitution doesn't f*cking 'create' rights!!
It's our human rights that created the Constitution!!!

When the f*ck are these asshole fascist f*cks going to have those words stuffed down their f*cking throats with a f*cking sledge hammer?!?!?!?

There is damned near nothing political that enrages me more than this goddamned embedded falsehood!

The Constitution does one thing and only one thing: it creates a federal government with strictly limited powers - powers that are explicitly, implicitly, and everyfuckingplicitly prohibited from violating human rights, or infringing on those rights in all but the most limited cases subsequent to due process!

Without 'due process' the Federal Government has absolutely no legitimate power to violate human rights of any human being on the whole fucking planet!! When they abdicate 'due process,' they've condemned any actions taken as completely and totally illegitimate! 'Due process' is the only avenue they can take, and when they don't take it, or deny it even exists, they're prohibited from any such action whatsoever!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

9. Kick. F***ing right! Last night I was at a DFA meetup where Lynn Woolsey

(Marin and Sonoma Cty rep.) came for q and a.

I didn't get my raised hand called on so I shouted out
"What are you doing about torture?"

All she did was make a Sunday school teacher face as if someone had just sworn and mumbled "I'm not going to go there..."

Her votes are good but people and their Congress critters don't realize that this is the Torture White House and they fekkin' better deal with it and fast!

[daleo]

19. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Logically, that includes all humans.

[TahitiNut]

20. You bet your bippy, little cowpoke.

The Constitution is what establishes and limits our government, allowing it no more power than we human beings choose to specifically grant it. Thus, those powers can never be greater than our own and never be superior to the inalienable rights by which we even establish it. We grant it powers solely under our authority, by virtue of our rights as human beings; it cannot, under any possible interpretation, ever presume to grant rights to people. The People are superior to the government; not the other way around. Anyone who takes an oath to "protect and defend" that Constitution, which places strict constraints on government powers, and behaves otherwise is violating their oath. It's as plain as that. The mere phrase "Constitutional rights" is, in and of itself, an outright lie.

[kurtyboy]

26. Inalienable means you can't give 'em up

UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. You can't forfiet them because you're an asshole, muderer, or rogue. You can't sign 'em away in a contract. No matter how you beg, nobody can violate 'em. Inalienable.

Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, among others.

[LizW]

46. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Apparently not so self-evident in BushWorld. :scared:

[bhikkhu]

22. Couldn't have said it better.

Nothing can ever justify this. Not even the abundance of ignorance which seems to have allowed a popular "mandate" for such a system. If the majority support torture then democracy has entered hell.

[AP]

6. So fucked up. The whole reason evidence gathered through torture is

inadmissable in a court of law is because it's UNRELIABLE!!!!

People will say ANYTHING to get you to stop torturing them.

[TahitiNut]

8. Cruel and unusual punishment is strictly and plainly prohibited ...

... especially when no guilt of a crime (or even minimal due process) has legitimized any punishment whatsoever!

Even an imbecile can comprehend that torture is cruel. Let's also pray that it remains unusual. These fascist bastards have gone far beyond anything acceptable in a democratic society.

[Just Me]

32. What chaffs my ass is the assertion that a military tribunal

adequately protects these people when the military policies clearly violate US law and the Geneva Convention (e.g. evidence gained from torture is admissible at the tribunal).

These people (from the top down) are just making shit (law) up as they go along. That absolutely amounts to a dictatorship.

[TankLV]

7. But this isn't a "concentration camp" & we're not like the Nazis!

so stop thinking that!

[ReadTomPaine]

10. Still up for compromise, moderates?

It's just a little torture. They promise they won't torture you or anything. No, really.

As much as I despise these freaks, I'm beginning to hate the moderate enablers who suppress serious, bare knuckled confrontation with the right wing even more.

They are just like the 'moderates' from Yugoslavia who sat in cafes and argued that confronting Milosevic wasn't "practical".

RTP

[RedCon1]

14. Moderation doesn't imply all that you ascribe to it.

For example, If the radical liberals would fight as hard for a man's right to keep and bear arms as they fight for a man's right to marry another man, we probably wouldn't be arguing about American's torturing their fellow human beings.

[funnymanpants]

16. What?

How do these two statement follow logically? In essence you are saying that if liberals don't champion your pet cause, they are enabling the torturers?

[RedCon1]

17. Um... yeah,

actually, I'm saying that if we would pick our battles more wisely, we wouldn't keep getting our asses kicked and would be in a stronger position to do something about things like this torture business. We went from being the party of the working class to being the pro-homosexuality, higher-taxation, anti-second-amendment party. This has created a conflict in a lot of potential Democrats who, consequently, vote against their financial interests. My "pet cause", as you called it, happens to be the pet cause of millions of such people BTW.

[AndyTiedye]

24. We Protect Unpopular Minorities Because It's The Right Thing to Do

We aren't fighting hard to protect the right to bear arms because
that right is not in any danger. The rights of gay people are,
because they are passing laws all over the country to deprive gay
people of their rights, even basic rights to enter into contracts
that all other adults enjoy.

Protecting unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the majority
is one of those things that Democrats do, because it is right.
You seem to be arguing that we are too weak to do that anymore.
If that is true, we are lost anyway.

What would you have had us do, join the Repubs in amending the
Constitution to ban gay marriage? Do you really think it would
end there once we start on the path of making people second-class
citizens? Next they'll want to lack them all up for "sodomy" or
perhaps they'll just stone them all to death as some of the most
rabid Fundies have advocated. After that, who will they come for
next?

By the time we got through selling out our consituancies
we would have lost not only our integrity but also most of our voters.

We're "getting our ass kicked" because they own the news and the
voting machinez.

[RedCon1]

31. the problem, actually,

is radicals from both sides steering the agendas of the parties. It never fails, when someone even suggests taking gay rights out of the forefront, radical liberal homosexuals selfishly jump in and push their needs back in front of the needs of the party. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against as bad as they like to think and claim. They have the right to vote; the right to go to any school or college they choose; the right to live in any neighborhood, within their means, that they choose; the right to drink out of the same drinking fountains as heterosexuals; the right to use the same latrines as heterosexuals; the right to sit anywhere on the bus that they choose. They aren't being hanged and simultaneously burned alive. They aren't being bought and sold as slaves. They aren't being tied to the land by wealthy cotton and tobacco planters. They simply aren't being allowed to get married or become ministers. Big fucking deal. Because the full faith and credit clause of the constitution would allow a minority to impose its will upon the majority in this moral issue, I have no problem with the legislation that prevents such an imposition. I would prefer, however, to see the full faith and credit act repealed in this matter (and this matter alone) in order to allow individual states to set their moral compasses because I don't think the government should be imposing its moral values on the states any more than I think minorities should be imposing their moral values on the states.

Furthermore, it isn't that you aren't fighting hard enough to protect the second amendment, it's that you're fighting to get rid of it altogether. Wait and see how badly our asses get kicked when that happens. By all means, feel free to call it a penile compensation thing too. That's sure to spread your winning message. What's more, our losing streak has less to do with media and voting machines and more to do with a tax raising, second amendment destroying, homosexual supporting image.

[Just Me]

34. Seems to me the intolerant, gay-bashing, bullies are just better at

hooking into the weakest elements of people (greed, anger, revenge, FEAR, etc.) and channeling it at (blaming) others.

The results of the radical right-wing influence over the last couple of decades are pretty obvious: a divided people, a more punitive society, a warring nation, tens of millions in poverty, huge debts, increased anti-Americanism, continued domestic and child abuse, a dying middle class, greatest prison population in the world,...and I could go on and on.

If anything, liberals and progressives should whack every right-wing mischaracterization and character assassination (for example "tax raising, second amendment destroying, homosexual supporting") and more accurately characterize the right-wing for the hate-filled and destructive attack machine that it is.

[ReadTomPaine]

35. Gay issues aside - Gun rights should be in the progressive platform.

This might surprise you, but I agree with you regarding the RKBA. And not just for hunting, but for collectors and simple enjoyment of firearm usage as well. To me, it's a simple rights and empowerment issue.

I feel the aversion to gun ownership stems largely from urban progressives and it's an unfortunate turn, tho perhaps understandable given the time devoted to urban crime rates in the media. Most rural and nature oriented progressive and liberals I know are very pro gun ownership. I've been scratching my head over this seemingly odd plank in the platform for many years.

RTP

[RedCon1]

42. I agree, it is discombobulating

this gun control plank of the platform. I think it's a throwback to the eighties when inner city violence was SOOOO rampant. Do you know why switchblades were made illegal? Because of the movie "West-Side Story." People's misguided and exaggerated fears of these knives, fostered by the scenes of gang fights in this movie caused an uproar and the next thing you know, the federal government makes switchblades illegal. The same thing happened with marijuana thanks to "Reefer madness" (and Dow Chemical manufacturing). Now we have CNN to make us afraid of assault weapon toting adolescents in our schools. Now that the assault weapon ban is dead, we should not attempt to resurrect it. I think this "shadowy agenda" is all about wealthy elitists who resent the equality that the Democratic revolution ushered in a few hundred years ago. They long for the good old days of feudalism. Both parties are infected with this disease to some extent. That's why I look for balance. Anyways, I have finals to study for RTP. It has been nice talking to you.
RedCon

[Book Lover]

41. Radical homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan?

Recognizing the reality of gay marriage injures no one; denying the reality of gay marriage injures those who do not receive the rights they are entitled to as human beings.

I am surprised that you ignore the full spectrum of opinion in the party regarding recognition of the right to bear arms. Perhaps you should hie yourself to the gun forum here at DU.

[AndyTiedye]

43. You are advocating that we cave in to bigotry.

We do not choose what is in the "forefront". They do.
You are advocating that we cave in to bigotry.

You "don't have a problem with" the GMA, so you think the Dems
should support it to appease the bigots. You are beginning to
sound rather like a bigot yourself.

Nobody is fighting to get rid of the 2nd amendment,
certainly not the Democrats anyway,
(I wouldn't be too sure about those "Homeland Security" folks though).

[RedCon1]

44. You're mistaken

I think your bias has caused you to misinterpret my statements. I'm not talking about caving in to anybody, I'm talking about our image among moderates who make up the majority of this country and who, amazingly, find the idea of gay marriages, increased taxes, and disarmament as being unattractive and "too progressive." You claim that we don't choose what's in the forefront but there you sit at your computer, spinning your web, keeping the issue alive, selfishly placing your needs above the needs of the party. I've got news for you, when the party goes down in flames, so does your cause and every other decent Democratic cause that is ten times more important than the rights of homosexuals to marry one another. Don't try to tell me that the Democratic party is pro-second amendment anymore either because the record speaks for itself and it speaks volumes.

[AndyTiedye]

45. I Hope I Minunderstood You, and I'm Sure You Misunderstood Me

> I think your bias has caused you to misinterpret my statements.

You are biased, I am biased. Everybody is biased. I hope I have
misinterpreted your statements, because they sounded pretty bad to me.

> I'm not talking about caving in to anybody,

How DO you want the party to respond to the issue? Your last post
appeared to suggest that you wanted us to support the GMA and any
state measures to restrict the rights of gays to marry or form any
other sort of contracts.

> I'm talking about our image among moderates who make up the majority
> of this country and who, amazingly, find the idea of gay marriages,
> increased taxes, and disarmament as being unattractive and "too
> progressive."

I know a lot of people hate gay people. To what extent should we
pander to hate?

Increased taxes may be unattractive, but have you looked at the
deficit lately?

Disarmament, particularly the process of reducing the number of
nuclear weapons in the world and preventing their proliferation,
seems *very* attractive right about now. It was the rationale
under which Bush* started the Iraq war, fraudulent though it was,
and it continues to be a great concern to everyone. Bush*'s
aggressive policies have had the opposite of the desired effect
though. Complying with international demands didn't save Iraq
from being invaded, so other countries are not so eager to disarm
now.

> You claim that we don't choose what's in the forefront but there you
> sit at your computer, spinning your web, keeping the issue alive,
> selfishly placing your needs above the needs of the party.

They aren't actually my needs, insofar as I am not gay. But after
they have carried off the gays, who will they come for next?
Can you really not see where this is going?

> I've got news for you, when the party goes down in flames, so does
> your cause and every other decent Democratic cause that is ten times
> more important than the rights of homosexuals to marry one another.

You would have us throw our least popular constituancies to the lions
in the hope that we can save the rest. That never works. Really.

"We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately."

> Don't try to tell me that the Democratic party is pro-second
> amendment anymore either because the record speaks for itself and it > speaks volumes.

Of course it does. That's why I said we caved in on the issue,
I did not say that we have always opposed gun control. Your response here
is an example of why caving in doesn't work. We don't get any credit
for having done so, and we alienate the people who have been trying
to get the guns off the strets of our inner cities.

[RedCon1]

47. It's all good dude

<You are biased, I am biased. Everybody is biased.>

Perhaps, but I don't think my bias has caused me to misinterpret your statements. You, on the other hand, seem to think that I'm advocating throwing people to the wolves when, in reality, all I'm saying is that we need to reach out to the middle, not push them away. You seem to think I'm talking about death camps or something.


<How DO you want the party to respond to the issue? Your last post
appeared to suggest that you wanted us to support the GMA and any
state measures to restrict the rights of gays to marry or form any
other sort of contracts.>

The individual states are granted, via the U.S. Constitution, the right to police themselves in matters of safety, public welfare, and morality. This is the way it was meant to be and this is the way it should be. There is no reason for the Federal government to have an opinion on this matter in way shape or form. It is a state issue. At the same time, the individual states should not be able to use the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution to impose their moral will on other states. Therefore, I would consider an amendment to the FF and C clause an acceptable compromise. In this way, individual states have the right to allow homosexuals to get married but, they can not force other states to recognize that contract, thereby imposing their moral will on the majority. It seems fair enough to me and a much more sound position than the "all or nothing" that you are proposing.


<I know a lot of people hate gay people. To what extent should we pander to hate?>

I don't think we should pander to hate anymore than we should to pander to homosexuals. It doesn't have to be one or the other. As I stated previously, it is not within the scope of the Federal governments rights to dictate the moral standards of the states. A Presidential candidate should not have a position on this issue unless the Constitution is am mended to allow it.

<Increased taxes may be unattractive, but have you looked at the
deficit lately?>

Increasing taxes is not a winning solution to the deficit problem. Increasing the number of tax payers sounds like a better solution to me.

<But after they have carried off the gays, who will they come for next? Can you really not see where this is going?>

Yes, it's going to a paranoid delusion. I know plenty of gay people and they're some of the more successful people that I know. LOL! I suspect it is, among other things, because they have no children to tie them down. Regardless, I'm not seeing ANYBODY carried off and fed to the lions (except for those who freaked out a little too much maybe). Please feel free to elaborate on this idea of oppression of yours.

<"We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately.">

We should just get a candidate that gets a better rating from the NRA than the Republican counterpart. Assault weapons are a wonderfully balancing thing. When everybody is equally armed, everybody is equal. Our forefathers knew this too well.


BTW, I'm curious about your moniker. Do you actually Tie Dye? Is it possible that I'm communicating with the Dead here? :hippie:
Peace.

[AndyTiedye]

49. We Seem to be Headed That Way

> You seem to think I'm talking about death camps or something.

The Dominionists are not calling for death camps, they want to have
public stonings. These are the people who have taken over the
country by means of electoral fraud. They own the voting machinez
and everybody in Washington knows what that means.
That is why nobody is standing up to them.

> <How DO you want the party to respond to the issue?...

> The individual states are granted, via the U.S. Constitution, the
> right to police themselves in matters of safety, public welfare, and > morality.

Exactly the same arguments were used to ban interracial marriages a
few decades ago. Fighting that battle cost us some votes too.
Should we not have done it?

> it is not within the scope of the Federal governments rights to
> dictate the moral standards of the states.

That would seem to be a good argument against the FMA.

> A Presidential candidate should not have a position on this issue
> unless the Constitution is am mended to allow it.

The RW wants to amend the Constitution to forbid it. To "not have
a position" is to allow that to happen.

> <Increased taxes may be unattractive, but have you looked at the
> deficit lately?>

> Increasing taxes is not a winning solution to the deficit
> problem. Increasing the number of tax payers sounds like a better
> solution to me.

Nobody did that like Bill Clinton. Bring back the Clinton economy
if you want more taxpayers. And bring the troops home from Iraq.
They are paying little or no taxes when they're over there.
Better education and health care will also increase the number of
people paying taxes instead of receiving public assistance.
There are many who stay on welfare because they lose access to health
care if they work (and the jobs available often do not provide it).
Better education will help people find good jobs, as long as the jobs
are not all outsourced overseas. We must provide incentives to create
jobs in the USA, not in India or China.

All of this is vintage Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

> <But after they have carried off the gays, who will they come
> for next? Can you really not see where this is going?>

> Yes, it's going to a paranoid delusion. I know plenty of gay
> people and they're some of the more successful people that I know.

and they are all scared to death of the Talibornagains.

> LOL! I suspect it is, among other things, because they have no
> children to tie them down.

Neither do a lot of us hetero's either. These past four years I've
been really glad I don't. But my sister does, and they could well
end up becoming cannon fodder for the Crusade. I fear for them too.

> Regardless, I'm not seeing ANYBODY
> carried off and fed to the lions (except for those who freaked out a
> little too much maybe). Please feel free to elaborate on this idea
> of oppression of yours.

They seem to prefer stoning, actually.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/chrisre1.html

> <"We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately.">

> We should just get a candidate that gets a better rating from the > NRA than the Republican counterpart.

I do not think we should let the NRA choose our candidate.
They seem to only support Republicans and a few DINOs, and they'll
always prefer the Republican to the DINO anyway.

I would have stumped as hard for Howard Dean as I did for Kerry.
Unfortunately, the media was able to destroy him almost overnight
(as soon as he threatened to break them up!). He had high NRA ratings, but
I didn't see the NRA coming to his aid in the primaries. Perhaps
I missed it.
A career of supporting the second amendment meant nothing to
the NRA when Dean needed their help.

But of course! The NRA is not the lobbyist for gun owners
so much as it is the lobbyist for the gun industry,
which has an even bigger vested interest in Four More Wars
than they do in stopping gun control. To gain NRA support
you have to not only support gun control, you have to support war.
Right wars, wrong wars, even losing wars, any war, anywhere,
because nothing is as good for the arms business as war.
Republicans start more wars. Do we need to out-warmonger them too?

> Assault weapons are a wonderfully balancing thing.

Well, I suppose the fire rate would make up for being a lousy shot,
but at what cost to innocent bystanders if people are settling scores
that way in the city?

> When everybody is equally armed, everybody is equal.

Not really. It places a really big premium on fast reflexes (possibly good)
and a willingness to kill without hesitation (not good).

> Our forefathers knew this too well.

I seem to recall some reference in there to a "well-regulated militia". Why was the 2nd Amendment worded that way? The phrasing
is strange even for that time, and it is not clear which militia
they refer to or how it is to be well-regulated. One presumes
that those who settle disputes with AK47s in the middle of town,
or roving gangs of armed thugs in white sheets (or not) would
not be examples of a well-regulated militia (though each would
surely claim otherwise, right before they shoot you).

Or is it that we have the right to bear arms so we can try to
protect ourselves FROM the "well-regulated militia"?


> BTW, I'm curious about your moniker. Do you actually Tie Dye?

Yes. Mostly my own clothes (all of them).

It's obviously time for me to bring back my old avatar.
(photo courtesy of the wingnuts at protestwarrior.com,
as is the one below)


> Is it possible that I'm communicating with the Dead here? :hippie:

Very much a deadhead. Since 1972. :smoke::hippie:
Into the psytrance scene too now. Dance all weekend.


> Peace.

Ride the Music

[RedCon1]

52. I knew it

I knew you were a dead head. i followed for a while but didn't commit to the lifestyle fully. I do miss those days something awful though. Those were good times.I used to tie dye too. I still could but the market isn't what it used to be. Black seems to be the color of choice these days. My trip was long and strange and similar to yours I suspect but it seems to have led me down different paths than yours.
Regarding your reply:

<Exactly the same arguments were used to ban interracial marriages a
few decades ago>
There hasn't been a ban on interracial marriage other than the unwritten law imposed by southern racist elements (Democrats I might add). It's not quite the same IMHO anyways. My real issue is the second amendment. It seems as if to vote for a Democrat these days means to vote for homosexual rights and against second amendment rights, a right enjoyed primarily by the heterosexual crowd. With an image such as this, is it any reason that we lose votes to a Republican with a solid NRA record?



Me: it is not within the scope of the Federal governments rights to dictate the moral standards of the states.

You: That would seem to be a good argument against the FMA.

Me: What's the FMA?



<The RW wants to amend the Constitution to forbid it. To "not have
a position" is to allow that to happen.>

Any amendment to the constitution prohibiting gay marriage at the federal level is in violation of the constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional. the RW is wrong but that doesn't make the LW right for playing their game. Edwards had the right position on this issue. He didn't get that message across well enough to the viewers in his debate with Cheney. The Fed has no business enforcing a moral code on the states in any capacity.


<Bring back the Clinton economy
if you want more taxpayers. And bring the troops home from Iraq.
They are paying little or no taxes when they're over there.
Better education and health care will also increase the number of
people paying taxes instead of receiving public assistance.
There are many who stay on welfare because they lose access to health
care if they work (and the jobs available often do not provide it).
Better education will help people find good jobs, as long as the jobs
are not all outsourced overseas. We must provide incentives to create
jobs in the USA, not in India or China.

All of this is vintage Bill Clinton and John Kerry.>

It's vintage Bill Clinton for sure but "Kerry ain't no Bill Clinton." Either way, I think we're in agreement here, deficits are bad, increasing taxes are also bad, increasing tax payers is good, regardless of how it is accomplished.

<They seem to prefer stoning, actually.>

Relax, nobody is being stoned (to death that is) in America. I think if Gays were being oppressed to the extent that you feel they are being oppressed, we would have seen a much more militant gay rights movement evolve than we have seen, something along the lines of the "Purple Panthers" if you get my meaning. People in Iran get stoned to death though; however, what happens in Iran falls under my favorite category: NMFP, "not my fucking problem." The gay rights thing conveniently falls into this category as does the Roe V. Wade issue.

<I do not think we should let the NRA choose our candidate.
They seem to only support Republicans and a few DINOs, and they'll
always prefer the Republican to the DINO anyway.>

The NRA rating is based on objective criteria, namely voting records and such. They assign a point value to each candidate based on the positions that the candidate has held on second amendment related issues. it's a standard system used by many lobbyist type organizations to communicate to their supporters who the most favorable candidate on their particular single issue. It has nothing to do with political affiliation or support for wars.


<Not really. It places a really big premium on fast reflexes (possibly good)
and a willingness to kill without hesitation (not good).>

It's all good. Actually, a well armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to this reality that you describe. In nature, the strong oppress the weak. that is the law. In our reality, this weakness is best manifested as a power distance created by a poorly armed citizenry. The inability of the citizenry to resist the oppression of a tyrannical government can only lead to a tyrannical government that oppresses its citizenry.


<I seem to recall some reference in there to a "well-regulated militia". Why was the 2nd Amendment worded that way?>
Thomas Jefferson was the radical liberal that ensured the second amendment made its way into our constitution based on his reasoning that it was the only thing that would ensure the validity and the longevity of the rest of the document. Once it goes, the rest is history. He is quoted as saying something to the effect of, they can not do anything without removing this first. Also, regardless of the phrase "well regulated militia" there is another part that says " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon." That seems straight forward enough.



<Or is it that we have the right to bear arms so we can try to
protect ourselves FROM the "well-regulated militia"?>

It was to provide balance between the classes in order to prevent our return to feudalism, the path we are currently on.


Have a great weekend.

[ReadTomPaine]

27. You have no clue who the truly “radical” left are.

You claim to understand the ‘radical left’ but you have no clue who they really are. Not a single person here is a radical leftist, and that’s something the right wing doesn’t understand.

Our culture has been falsely cast so far to the right that people who tout universal health care, gay rights and alternative energy are considered “radical” when in reality we are just mainsteam liberals. You in fact seem to be a moderate conservative, not a progressive or a liberal of any flavor. The fact that you vote Democratic just underlines how far the GOP has shifted itself. Just because everyone is drinking scotch doesn’t make the liquor any less hardcore.

Truly “radical” leftists are violent anarchists with the mentality of the mobs. They are created by the spark of revolution, and they flare up like the flames of an inferno. Have you ever seen the chaos of a crowd driven mad? They don’t discuss politics with the opposition. They kill them in their beds. They beat them to death like skinheads. They are a distorted, mirror image of the worst of the far right. We haven’t seen them yet, but they are coming.

The right wing in their hubris and imperial majesty think they can control these violent radicals that are forming as a result of this far right embrace of fascism but the forces of chaos are always stronger than the forces of law, and they always will be especially now that we live in the nuclear age. It is much easier to destroy than to create. The same flawed judgment that brought us the war plans for Iraq and its current miserable state of affair and security will bring that recipe here when the storms begins.

The tighter the grip, the stronger the blow will be. This country will burn itself into radioactive glass before the right wing reaches the police state they want. Progressive liberals like myself will be the first to fall either trying to stop the mobs or gunned down by the police when the roundups begin. Caught in the middle trying to stop the fight as we have often been throughout history.

But conservatives like yourself will fall shortly afterwards, their walled communities overrun. Doors kicked in. Men shot to death defending their homes after the ammunition has run out. Wives and daughters raped and killed. Then on to the next house. Mobs don’t reason either. When chaos reaches a critical mass, it takes on a life of its own. Like Pandora’s Box, once opened, it will consume all that stands before it.

Me and you, us and them.

But, by all means, please keep pushing the country farther right. Just don’t be surprised when the door comes crashing in on you. I won’t be able to help you then. As they drag you outside in your final moments, please don’t be surprised. You had ample warning.

RTP

[Just Me]

36. Standing ovation!!!! Great post!!!!

[RedCon1]

37. We're not as different as you might think

judging from your expressed fears. In truth, my conservatism is limited to fiscal restraint and the second amendment. Beyond that, I don't care about much. It isn't that I am without compassion, it's just a matter of priorities right now. The mechanism of our eventual bondage will come through control of our financial institutions and the disarming of our citizenry.
Furthermore, I don't actually lean left or right, I lean whichever way that brings balance on most all issues. Currently, there is a distinct lack of balance in our government (and beyond) which can only be counteracted by supporting the Democratic agenda or, rather opposing the neo-con agenda. They are best opposed from within the Democratic party it seems. At the same time, there are issues within the Democratic party that are unbalancing as well so I can't be fully on board here either. I superpose I might go third party but, unfortunately, that seems like a waste of energy at this point.

[ReadTomPaine]

38. See post # 35 n/t

[gottaB]

29. Absolutely

If compromise means being empowered to govern. The sad fact is that the Dems have lost control of the Senate. Their only defense is the fillibuster, and their power to exercize that will be more limited in this session. Thune will vote for the confirmation of Gonzales. At least with Daschle there was a possibility of him casting the right vote. Do you think more bare knuckled confrontation would have aided Daschle? I seriously doubt that.

I am as angry about the Bush torture policy as you are, I believe, but I recognize that the solution will be to empower the Democratic Party. As far as I can tell, alienating moderates and conservatives will not serve that goal. There are too few self-identified liberals, and far too few genuine leftists to form an effective opposition to the Republican Party. We need to reach out.

[ReadTomPaine]

33. Your arguments are well received, but it's too late for that.

Your constructive plan is well considered but the time for compromise governance ended with the Clinton impeachment. Fascism cannot be combated institutionally; it must be approached like a criminal organization in the way it is dismantled, with both law enforcement and a 'take back the streets' style movement that extends from the bottom to the top of progressive left.

Dealing with the GOP now is like dealing with the Mafia – they are devil's deals. The DLC should in actuality be the RLC, fighting the far right of the party they truly represent, but it was easier for them to take over the Democratic Party and since they will always avoid a fight that is the way they went. Rather than reform the party that really represents their largely conservative, pro-business agenda, they took over the weaker party – the Democratic one, as they are essentially opportunists. This explains why so many of them eventually turncoat on us and become actual GOP members when pushed against the wall careerwise.

Democrats will not follow or be inspired to change their minds when weak figures like Daschle spend his time lauding Bush as much as opposing him. Conservatives largely abhor the ‘me too’ politics currently espoused by Democratic leadership as well. They will, instead, vote for Bush and his associates out of strength, conviction and loyalty.

I can’t tell you how many people I know voted for Bush, despite being anti-war, simply because they felt that Democrats were gaming the issues and ‘didn’t stand for much’. The main problem here isn’t selection of the “Magic Candidate” (i.e. just the right southern conservative Democrat) or picking a more rightward platform, it’s having a progressive leadership that believes what it says and acts with strength and conviction on those beliefs. Don’t back down. People want confidence and strength and both are rare in leading Democrats today.

Republican didn’t get where they are today by being friendly with Bill Clinton. They opposed him at every step, attacked him at every turn, and as Democrats gave an inch at a time they lost two votes for every vote gained by the GOP – one lost from moderate conservatives who voted for strength, and one from the progressives who felt abandoned. People instinctively react to the sort of energized leadership the GOP displays. We need it back, too. Bush must be obstructed every step of the way, in everything he does, and the reasons for our opposition need to be trumpeted loud and clear.

If news outlets won’t carry the message, create new ones. If newspapers are shy about it, have wealthy progressives buy them out and change their editorial lines. Sue GOP owned electronic voting machine companies continually and drive them out of business. Bus as many people as needed to protests in key areas and at key times, and have Congressional Democrats join the protests and shout out loud with the people. Fund progressive voices and give them a career in bashing the far right, just as the far right gives to their own vocal proponents. Make the movement active, vital and alive. Let the money flow so that people who get involved actually profit by their activities instead of having to sacrifice to support liberalism. And for goodness sake, stop lunching with Karl Rove.

Liberal policies are by their very nature more agreeable than conservative ones – but they can’t be supported half heartedly. Fight as hard as the right wing does, use their own tools against them, but in support of a progressive agenda, and you’ll see the country turn blue overnight. Just as many have already voted against their interests and beliefs to support the image of Bush, we will draw conservatives who might otherwise vote GOP by returning to our progressive principles and being strong *and* fair, the latter trait being absent in the GOP.

Modern America, at least the America we were before 2000, looks the way that it does because of bare-knuckled liberalism. Blue collar union members, civil rights leaders, families with draft age sons, long haired protesters, gay men and women, feminists- they were the ones who made the 20th century great. They didn’t do it by rolling over. They fought and they fought hard. You need to have the stomach for a fight to win these battles, or they are over before they begin no matter how strong your position.

When the Soviet Union started to dissolve, people didn’t rally around the political platform of Boris Yeltsin. They responded to his courage and his leadership – those are essentially non-existent qualities among leading Democrats today.

As people have been responsive to strength in the GOP over issues that would otherwise be questionable (i.e. erosion of rights, massive bureaucratic expansion, unending war) they will be doubly responsive to progressives who are equally strong but promoting a platform that truly resonates with the better side of human nature. Strong hope trumps strong fear.

I know it’s never easy to prepare for a fight. It’s always easier to try and make friends across the aisle in Washington and the GOP knows this and is counting on it. But compromise with the GOP is not going to work this time.

RTP

[Just Me]

40. Wow!!! Again, I applaud you!!!

"Strong hope trumps strong fear"

:yourock:

[gottaB]

48. Critics on the left say Daschle was too appeasing.

Critics on the right say he was too obstructionist. Who won that argument?

Yeah, it seems that the days are long gone when anything good could be accomplished by reaching out across the ailse. Reaching out to the voters is another matter.

I will have to take your word for why people you know voted for Bush. People I know voted for Kerry. Your insight about people's response to confidence and strength rings true. However, if the projection of strength comes at the expense of badmouthing other Democrats, or simply dismissing them, then it won't ammount to much.

One advantage of incumbency is that it makes it easier to project strength and confidence. The loss of that advantage is not something to gloat over.

[ReadTomPaine]

50. The problem is not with the tactics, but with the times we live in.

The current style of compromise leadership is designed to combat the GOP of the 1980's by taking away their strengths - the GOP at that time was much more institutionally respectful and prepared to give and take.

Against Bush I, it would have been quite effective. The problem is that it isn't 1988 anymore. While that might not seem long ago in the overall scheme of things, it's a lifetime in terms of the accelerated politics of the 90's and 00's. The problem is that the old guard refuses to change their tune - or simply can't play any other music. They cling to the tactics that won Clinton's elections (right down the tired, 12 year old "It's the XXXX stupid" slogan) even tho the GOP have learned how to beat that hand comfortably and have gone on to rig the table & buy the casino. In a way, you can't blame the Democratic leadership, however. They get paid the same whether they win or not, and they obviously enjoy playing the game even when they lose. It's a living.

I don't know how much more complete their defeat could be at this point, but it's long past time for these people to step aside or we will have no choice but to dismiss them or take the long road around them. It's a matter of survival now - they simply don't win anymore. The current situation is what we call 'the worst case scenario' given all the viable outcomes we had before us. Why give them another chance or break? How many more will they get?

And you're right, the loss of incumbency is nothing to gloat over, no matter how inevitable it was, and it's not easy to deal with and that may be the problem. They would rather not deal with it. It is something worth fighting over though, and it won't be pretty. The weak stomachs of the current leadership don't seem up to the task, frankly.

As an example, just look at Al From's comments over the last day or so regarding popular progressive messenger Michael Moore. From seems more concerned about what their GOP & corporate friends think about them then they do about utilizing the excellent resource of a popular celebrity who has a group of strong supporters and who stood behind their candidate since his nomination. Surely there was a better way to direct the Democratic party's energy than this. If you are looking for an example of Democrats badmouthing other Democrats to the party's detriment, that's an example that's hard to top.

RTP

[gottaB]

51. Al From et al

In prior posts I've critized Al From for his badmouthing of fellow Democrats, so I'm not about to reverse myself in order to defend Tom Daschle or the idea that liberal Democrats need to reach out to moderates and conservatives.

Yes, the DLC has failed. But their defeat is not theirs alone. How much more complete could our defeat be? We could lose the fillibuster altogether. The loss of even one more Senate seat would weaken the Democrats' ability to oppose the Republican agenda to take over the judiciary. Whether you or I or an objective Martian feels that the Democratic Senator was actually obstructionist won't matter if the Republicans use the argument of obstructionism and get more votes. That's how these arguments are decided.

Well, it seems I have a bee in my bonnet about Daschle, and you have a bee in yours about the DLC. I can't say as I haven't been stung by your bees from time to time, so I'll leave it at that.

Bye for now.

[Straight Shooter]

11. It will only get worse and worse with Gonzalez as Attorney General

The White House has become an asylum for the geopolitically insane.

[Rose Siding]

12. Coupled with the low standards for detention revealed yesterday...

and this doesn't look ANYTHING like the country it was a few years back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1037445&mesg_id=1037445

WASHINGTON -- Under detailed questioning by a federal judge, government lawyers asserted Wednesday the U.S. military can hold foreigners indefinitely as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, even if they aided terrorists unintentionally and never fought the United States.

Could a "little old lady in Switzerland" who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.

"She could," replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. "Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention." It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her.

Boyle said the military can pick any foreigner who provides support to terrorists or might know of their plans. And the foreigners held on the U.S. naval base in Cuba "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court," Boyle told the judge.

[TahitiNut]

21. Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle should be ...

... immediately removed from office for violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. :grr:

[Rose Siding]

23. I know

I went back and read it THREE times! He said it *out loud, in front of a judge* ROFL

Put it together with today's proceeding, and if I'm reading it correctly, theoretically they can torture the old lady and use the information extracted to detain more old ladies.

[neohippie]

13. I can see it now

A commercial comes on and it has the Dept of Homeland Security torturing and interrogating a prisoner to get him to give up two friends... who are arrested soley on the evidence gained by torture and then they give up two friends and so on...

[proudbluestater]

15. A column in my paper today by Nat Hentoff...

ADMINISTRATION QUIETLY SNUBS SUPREME COURT

"Recently, Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer, returned from observing the other proceeding -- the Combat Status Review Tribunals. They are to determine whether detainees are being lawfuly held in the first place. Jeffer concluded, as have some of the military defense lawyers, that they DEFY a June decison by the US Supreme Court requiring due process.

As Jafer notes, these Combat Status Review Tribunals do not "provide anything like due process. Reversing the presumption of innocence, the tribunal starts by presuming that the prisoner is an enemy combatant, and it's up the the prisoner to prove he's not."

Moreover, the prisoners are denied access to most of the alleged evidence against them because it is classified! Most crucially, the prisoners are denied a lawyer. Instead, they are given a "personal representatives": a military officer without legal training.

As Human Rights Watch reports from Guantanamo Bay, "two of the three members" of the tribunal "have no legal training or experience" -- although their job is "to rule on matters of law."
********************************************************************

WE must rid ourselves of the most lawless administration in history and the criminals that are now running the show in Washington. No regard for the law, even when handed down by the Supreme Court which ruled these folks can not be kept indefinitely without legal representation.

(Nat Henhoff is a nationally renowned authority on the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Write to him at United Media Syndicate, 200 Madison Ave., NY, NY, 10016.

[maddezmom]

18. kick

[daleo]

25. I knew someone who was tortured once

He was dating a colleague at work, so I met him at Christmas parties and suchlike. He had been an Allende supporter (a bodyguard at one time, I was told) and was imprisoned and tortured under Pinochet. He came to Canada as a refugee, and later dated my friend for several years. She said he would wake up at night with nightmares, have panic attacks, etc.

People never forget torture - victims, family, friends, etc.. It is a great way to create long lasting, bitter hatred in a population.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. This makes me want to bang my head against the wall repeatedly.

And if anyone is even CONSIDERING writing a retort like "Castro did worse" or something of the sort (you know who you are), consider yourself given the one-finger salute in advance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. I hate what the Busheviks are doing to America--and so shamelessly

:cry:

[Barrett808]

39. This is so cool: on the one hand we condemn the insurgent torture chambers

in Fallujah...bloody handprints, fingernails on the ground...and on the other hand we say that evidence gained through torture is permissible.

The irony is delicious.