 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
From W. Safire (who isn't really a leftie, despite publishing in the NY Times) - and copyright be damned.
Seizing Dictatorial Power
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON -- Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts.
In his infamous emergency order, Bush admits to dismissing "the principles of law and the rules of evidence" that undergird America's system of justice. He seizes the power to circumvent the courts and set up his own drumhead tribunals — panels of officers who will sit in judgment of non-citizens who the president need only claim "reason to believe" are members of terrorist organizations.
Not content with his previous decision to permit police to eavesdrop on a suspect's conversations with an attorney, Bush now strips the alien accused of even the limited rights afforded by a court-martial.
His kangaroo court can conceal evidence by citing national security, make up its own rules, find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officers disagree, and execute the alien with no review by any civilian court.
No longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between the government and the accused. In lieu of those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style abomination "a full and fair trial."
On what legal meat does this our Caesar feed? One precedent the White House cites is a military court after Lincoln's assassination. (During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; does our war on terror require illegal imprisonment next?) Another is a military court's hanging, approved by the Supreme Court, of German saboteurs landed by submarine in World War II.
Proponents of Bush's kangaroo court say: Don't you soft-on-terror, due-process types know there's a war on? Have you forgotten our 5,000 civilian dead? In an emergency like this, aren't extraordinary security measures needed to save citizens' lives? If we step on a few toes, we can apologize to the civil libertarians later.
Those are the arguments of the phony-tough. At a time when even liberals are debating the ethics of torture of suspects — weighing the distaste for barbarism against the need to save innocent lives — it's time for conservative iconoclasts and card-carrying hard-liners to stand up for American values.
To meet a terrorist emergency, of course some rules should be stretched and new laws passed. An ethnic dragnet rounding up visa-skippers or questioning foreign students, if short-term, is borderline tolerable. Congress's new law permitting warranted roving wiretaps is understandable.
But let's get to the target that this blunderbuss order is intended to hit. Here's the big worry in Washington now: What do we do if Osama bin Laden gives himself up? A proper trial like that Israel afforded Adolf Eichmann, it is feared, would give the terrorist a global propaganda platform. Worse, it would be likely to result in widespread hostage-taking by his followers to protect him from the punishment he deserves.
The solution is not to corrupt our judicial tradition by making bin Laden the star of a new Star Chamber. The solution is to turn his cave into his crypt. When fleeing Taliban reveal his whereabouts, our bombers should promptly bid him farewell with 15,000-pound daisy-cutters and 5,000-pound rock-penetrators.
But what if he broadcasts his intent to surrender, and walks toward us under a white flag? It is not in our tradition to shoot prisoners. Rather, President Bush should now set forth a policy of "universal surrender": all of Al Qaeda or none. Selective surrender of one or a dozen leaders — which would leave cells in Afghanistan and elsewhere free to fight on — is unacceptable. We should continue our bombardment of bin Laden's hideouts until he agrees to identify and surrender his entire terrorist force.
If he does, our criminal courts can handle them expeditiously. If, as more likely, the primary terrorist prefers what he thinks of as martyrdom, that suicidal choice would be his — and Americans would have no need of kangaroo courts to betray our principles of justice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drake
|
 |
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Ecthilion, it refers to otherwise good and decent people who stand by and do nothing while their government does evil to others |
Evil? Evil is making women wear shrowds and banning them from working....forcing families into starvation and shooting people in public executions for minor infractions. Evil is committing genocide. Evil is killing thousands of civilians.
Really, your concept of evil is pretty skewed che. As Ive said, no America and its government isn't perfect, but to somehow compare it to nazi germany? (Or even suggesting it could degenerate to that level)
quote:
The implication I get from Che's statement is that your average German in the mid thirties was happy to follow along with the herd when this Hitler guy came to power, their country was getting stronger and more prosperous - the average German on the street never had it so good! |
George Bush doesn't equal Adolf Hitler 
Not even f*cking close......you guys listen too much Rage Against the Machine. Really, the paranoia that Che eludes to is ridiculous.
quote:
Oh, and by the way...when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" he was full of ****. That line is nothing more than a load of self-sacrificing patriotic **** - I have no obligation to do jackshit for my country, but my country sure as hell is obligated to ensure that I retain my rights granted by the Constitution - otherwise known as the Supreme Law of the Land. |
What a loser you are david. No one owes you anything. Your rights are a privilege. Know what privilege means?
quote:
No, by going to an all volunteer army. If no one volunteers for the army, tough ****. IE if no one cares, then the government really has no power to force people to fight a war they don't care about, eh? |
Thats right. Let someone else protect you and die for you so you can sleep soundly at night and look for handouts from a government you spit on. And guess what schmuck? The military IS voluntary. 
quote:
-Meaning under the current laws, they could arrest me and lock me up for a good long time if I were near a demonstration against the Bush administration that could be construed to be sympathetic to Bin Laden.
|
You wouldnt go to jail if it was a peaceful demonstration. You might get beat to crap by private citizens however.
quote:
Habeas corpus is the big one, I also lack a right to vote, and other miscellaneous liberties.
|
When have you been illegally detained? Why do you lack the right to vote? And misc. liberties? Pretty convincing. 
quote:
"But it is very frustrating for me to hear someone tell me what I should think. What I should think is America, How I should think the government should work, what is best for me etc."
-That's right, let's not give a damn about others, what have they done for us last second
|
I don't get your point here in reference to the quoted line. I was simply stating that I didn't like other people telling me what is best for me. Do you? Course you don't.
quote:
"I believe although sometimes off the mark and sometimes plain wrong, the government of this country always has the best intentions in mind for its people, which is much more than you can say for many countries across the globe."
-You are so naïve. |
What makes you think I'm naive? I have my eyes wide open. Explain to me why I'm wrong instead of dropping one liners. Its not an appropriate response.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and by the way...when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" he was full of ****. That line is nothing more than a load of self-sacrificing patriotic **** - I have no obligation to do jackshit for my country, but my country sure as hell is obligated to ensure that I retain my rights granted by the Constitution - otherwise known as the Supreme Law of the Land. |
Several people quoted this already, and I will also.
You are dead wrong, you are obligated to support your country, pay taxes, and obey it's laws, whether you think so or not.
In return, you get the provisions of protection provided by the constituion.
As Drake pointed out, rights are privlages of citizenship, not irrevokable mandates to hide behind.
If your unwilling to support the USA, pay taxes and obey laws, your rights are revoked.
If you think otherwise, interview prisoners in correctional facilities about their "rights".
quote:
No, by going to an all volunteer army. If no one volunteers for the army, tough ****. IE if no one cares, then the government really has no power to force people to fight a war they don't care about, eh? |
Most of the draftees in WW II didn't want to be there, good war or not.
The government certainly can force you to fight upopular wars, and if you refuse, they have a remedy, called prison.
Despite what you may believe, the government could prosecute a unpopualr (such as Vietnam) for a considerable amount of time.
All of this is basic citizenship, and you should already know this.
The USA was NOT set up on the concept that it's citizens are owed anything.
You say your a college student, yet you DON'T know this?!!?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
Sprayber,
is a new police state emerging?
Americans are not to be judged by these military commisions. But in 10-20 yrs from now - who knows?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Sorry. I disagree that rights are a privilege - that's a contradiction in terms. Rights are always there whether the government recognizes and protects them or not - they certainly have a responsibility to.
As long as I follow all CONSTITUTIONAL laws (that does not include adhering to a draft, for example), then the government MUST protect and guarantee my Constitutional rights.
And furthermore, the government does indeed have power to prosecute any war it wants - just not using the draft, not in any circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Sorry. I disagree that rights are a privilege - that's a contradiction in terms. |
Your attempting to argue symantics.
The real world is harsh and cruel, as you will find when you leave the ivory towers of acedemia and enter the mainstream world.
It's your privilage to have rights, not the other way around, and you must fight to protect your rights, as history has shown time and again.quote:
Rights are always there whether the government recognizes and protects them or not - they certainly have a responsibility to. |
When you wait for others to fight your battles, you are lost before you begin.
The Government is made up of people, not ideals, and people have their own ideas on things.
quote:
As long as I follow all CONSTITUTIONAL laws (that does not include adhering to a draft, for example), then the government MUST protect and guarantee my Constitutional rights. |
As we have seen throughout US history, the Constituiton is not set in stone, and can be changed and ammended anytime.
Placing your faith this way is quite dangerous, and certainly foolhardy.
Afterall, women don't vote, do they? yes they do, the Constituition was amended.
quote:
And furthermore, the government does indeed have power to prosecute any war it wants - just not using the draft, not in any circumstances. |
The Draft is tried and true, since the early days of america, and despite all your protestations against it, it will continue, as a leagal and neccesary evil at times.
The real world bites, doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
 |
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
rights are privlages of citizenship, not irrevokable mandates to hide behind. |
Er, whatever happened to the Declaration of Independence's "all men have inalienable rights"?
quote:
Most of the draftees in WW II didn't want to be there |
I wasn't aware that there was a draft during World War II.
quote:
The government certainly can force you to fight upopular wars, and if you refuse, they have a remedy, called prison. |
Isn't it a little sad that your government might turn to you and say, "prison or war?" without you being able to do anything else about it? I'd probably have to chose the former, mainly because I'm scared to die -- unless, of course, I were passionate about the war, though that my livelihood and freedoms were really at risk, et cetera.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drake
|
|
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Er, whatever happened to the Declaration of Independence's "all men have inalienable rights"? |
Yeah, they do, but sometimes, things must be bent a bit. And besides the 50 people they're going to arrest on suspicion of terrorism they will continue to do so. Better 50 people lose their inalienable rights then seeing another 5000 people become roasted like marshmallows in a fire. As in the line from the constititution I quoted above, public safety may sometimes take precedence. I'd rather be alive and have a little discomfort, than have my body parts strewn all over the building in which I used to work.
quote:
Isn't it a little sad that your government might turn to you and say, "prison or war?" without you being able to do anything else about it? I'd probably have to chose the former, mainly because I'm scared to die -- unless, of course, I were passionate about the war, though that my livelihood and freedoms were really at risk, et cetera. |
Little hint rev...no one wants to die
But dying for the greater good of ones country is a thing that sometimes has to be done.
This current war, a war against terrorism is about each and everyones livelihoods and freedoms. And yes, if such things were tolerated and allowed to continue (as they certainly would if nothing was done to stop it), your livelihood and freedom would be greatly at risk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Transcend
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Apr 1999
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rev
I honestly didn't know that, Transcend. And, after a little research, I've learned that the draft has been around since the Civil War. Damn my high school history classes. 
Anyway, I fundamentally disagree with the basis for a draft, though it's at least prison for a few years and not the death penalty. |
US only drafts during extraordinary times, such as Civil War, WW1, and WW2. But drafts are standard in most European countries. Even today, Germany still drafts its soldiers.
I think draft should only be applied in situations in which the national existence is threatened. That means the drafts for Civil War and WW2 were justified, but not for WW1 and Vietnam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
--"And hell yes it could be better, but for once I think people need to stop and say, it could also be a hell of a lot worse!"
Well, see, that's the thing. Yes, it could be worse. Only problem is, if we aren't trying to make it better, then it will get worse.
Change does take time, but that includes changes for the worse. A lot of rights and liberties have been gradually eroded, some of them starting almost right after the nation's founding. I seem to recall a number of quotes posted in this thread (pretty sure it was this one) about the gradual encroachment of tyranny. I find these statements perfectly apropos. Many of the restrictions we suffer under right now are worse than those imposed under old King George. The Founders would be truly astonished at many of the things we currently tolerate and, in many cases, accept as "normal". I don't like that, and I want to change it.
--"If it violates my rights a few times for the better of the whole, so be it."
I do not now and never have accepted that argument. In the first place, I think you're arguing from false assumptions. I do not think it is possible for the government to violate anyone's right and that action truly be for the "better of the whole" (or the "greater good"). That may well be, and probably often is, the intention, but I don't think that's ever the reality.
--"Of course such an idea is absurd to some people around here...."
Yup. I prefer the "Ask not what you can do for your country, Ask what you can do for you, And how your country can stop preventing you from doing that" sentiment.
--"Someone, somewhere has to belly up to the bar to do that job."
Don't forget that the founders were against a standing army, not to mention any kind of conscription. They figured that if the cause was just, such as defending ourselves against unprovoked attacks (such as going after Bin Laden) then plenty of people would be willing to fight. They also figured that if the cause was unjust there wouldn't be enough manpower to carry it through. Of course, there's Selective Service now...
--"As Drake pointed out, rights are privlages of citizenship, not irrevokable mandates to hide behind."
This is exactly the attitude the Founders disagreed with. Look at the wording of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They considered rights to be fundamental, not given by government, but only to be acknowledged by governments. A governemnt that acknowledged and protected its citizens rights was a just government, one that ignored or violated those rights was unjust. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to codify that there are simply some rights that no group of people can take from another, no matter their relative sizes. This gets right back into the Representative Democracy vs. Pure Democracy and the Founders distaste for "mob rule".
--"If you think otherwise, interview prisoners in correctional facilities about their "rights"."
Prisoners should be in jail only for violating someone else's rights, not for not agreeing with the government. The latter are more commonly known as "political crimes", something the Founders would not be very pleased to see happening in the US.
--"The USA was NOT set up on the concept that it's citizens are owed anything."
It was founded on the concept that its citizens had basic rights the goverment must acknowledge. In that sense, they are owed a basic respect from their government, and many areas of their lives they should be allowed to do as they please in. This has, obviously, not gotten across nearly as much lately, part of which I blame on Progessive Education, which seems to take the view you've been espousing here.
--"The people that wrote the constitution, of which you continue to talk of, would be rolling in their grave hearing the way you talk."
I hate to say this, but I was thinking the same thing about much of what I've heard coming from your side of the argument (especially the late entries from Chris 62).
--"and can be changed and ammended anytime."
Yes. Too bad they aren't following the amendment process to set up these courts.
--"public safety may sometimes take precedence."
That applies specifically to the Writ of Habeus Corpus in times of war. Nothing more.
Wraith
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything seems seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness"
-- Justice William O. Douglas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drake
|
|
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
The Founders would be truly astonished at many of the things we currently tolerate and, in many cases, accept as "normal". I don't like that, and I want to change it. |
Such as?
quote:
Yup. I prefer the "Ask not what you can do for your country, Ask what you can do for you, And how your country can stop preventing you from doing that" sentiment. |
I guess I'm not quite so selfish to think this way. Yes, I think selfish is the appropriate word. Since I think your fundamental problem is a monetary one. Tell me if I'm wrong.
quote:
Don't forget that the founders were against a standing army, not to mention any kind of conscription. They figured that if the cause was just, such as defending ourselves against unprovoked attacks (such as going after Bin Laden) then plenty of people would be willing to fight. They also figured that if the cause was unjust there wouldn't be enough manpower to carry it through. Of course, there's Selective Service now...
|
Yes, but it was a different time. A time when men were men. When freedom wasn't taken for granted and it was appreciated. Now, all we have is a bunch of people who don't even have a conception just how good they have it. These men of the past were honoured to fight for their country and their freedom......now people just expect it. Its taken for granted.
I'd love to respond to more, but its time to go home
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
This is exactly the attitude the Founders disagreed with. |
An over-generization on your part, and a not very accurate one at that. The approved constituition was a compromise, not a unilateral declaration.
Please refrain from sweeping generalization of what people "meant".quote:
Look at the wording of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. |
"Blacks are worth one fifths of whites"...Thomas Jefferson.quote:
They considered rights to be fundamental, not given by government, but only to be acknowledged by governments. |
In your opinion.quote:
A governemnt that acknowledged and protected its citizens rights was a just government, one that ignored or violated those rights was unjust. |
This does NOT contridict what i said in any way, and if you looked at the whole thread, I'm against this patriot act, so realize whom your arguing with and why.quote:
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to codify that there are simply some rights that no group of people can take from another, no matter their relative sizes. This gets right back into the Representative Democracy vs. Pure Democracy and the Founders distaste for "mob rule". |
Bill of rights was a rider, not integral, of Constitution.
Founding fathers also believed average man incapable of governing himself, so they set up electoral college, to "regulate" voting to more "proper" choices.
In other words, "mod rule" in their minds meant the average man.
The founding fathers were men, not gods, you would do well not to idolize them so much.
quote:
Prisoners should be in jail only for violating someone else's rights, not for not agreeing with the government. |
This statement is at cross-purposes with your whole post.
On the one hand, you say the rights are gaurteed, and here you say people should not be punished for violating the laws that protect said rights.
Which side of the fence are you on?
You can't have it both ways.quote:
The latter are more commonly known as "political crimes", something the Founders would not be very pleased to see happening in the US. |
Name people who are jailed in the USA for views.
Not a one.
They commited crimes in support of said views, not for the views themselves.
quote:
It was founded on the concept that its citizens had basic rights the goverment must acknowledge. |
No, it was founded on the concept that each man should be equal to control his destiny in a fair manor.quote:
In that sense, they are owed a basic respect from their government, and many areas of their lives they should be allowed to do as they please in. |
As is the case in the USA quote:
This has, obviously, not gotten across nearly as much lately, part of which I blame on Progessive Education, which seems to take the view you've been espousing here. |
Non-sense, young man.
Do not attempt to subscribe your views on history are superior to mine based on your or my education, because I promise you, in this, you will lose heavily.
quote:
I hate to say this, but I was thinking the same thing about much of what I've heard coming from your side of the argument (especially the late entries from Chris 62). |
More non-sense, see my earlier referneces to the true manor of the FF that you to quickly idolize, and I repeat, I'm against these laws, not for them, my confused young Texan.
quote:
Yes. Too bad they aren't following the amendment process to set up these courts. |
I repeat, you wern't paying attention, I'm against this also.
When you have a debate, please try to understand who is on the side of what, your wild assumptions here placed you squarely in the wrong in this instance, I'm totally against these "patriot" laws and military tribunals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
--"Such as?"
Well, there's the income tax for starters. Just about everything that's been done in the name of the War on Drugs. The entire social spending budget. About 95% of the functions of the Federal government, really.
--"Yes, I think selfish is the appropriate word. Since I think your fundamental problem is a monetary one."
The money's a part of it, but hardly the fundamental. I'm not happy with any violations of rights, especially my own. Whether or not they involve cash is a secondary issue, just one readily understood and accepted by others.
--""Blacks are worth one fifths of whites"...Thomas Jefferson."
Interesting you should choose to quote Jefferson on this, considering he tried and almost suceeded in freeing the slaves very early on. Too bad the Rhode Island delegate was sick that day, otherwise he probably would have done so.
--"I'm against this patriot act, so realize whom your arguing with and why."
If you're against this act, that's fine. My problem with you is your "there are no rights, only privledges" attitude.
--"Bill of rights was a rider, not integral, of Constitution."
The Bill of Rights is fundamental in understanding how the Constitution came about. Without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would not have passed.
The entire Constitution is nothing more than a listing of powers granted to the Federal government. That is very important. It shows that the initial assumption is that all powers and rights rest with the people, not with government. The Bill of Rights was added because most of the delegates thought that simply listing the powers of government was not enough. They wanted explicit protections of rights. And I have to say, that obviously still was not enough.
--"Founding fathers also believed average man incapable of governing himself,"
Not exactly. They did not trust the common man enough to give them full control, yes, but that was fundamentally because of the whole inaleniable rights issue.
--"On the one hand, you say the rights are gaurteed, and here you say people should not be punished for violating the laws that protect said rights."
People should be punished for violating the rights of others. There are a ton of laws these days that have nothing to do with the rights of anyone whatsoever. You can quite easily be jailed today without actually violating someone's rights. Smoking pot, for instance, is certainly a jailable offense these days, and yet there is nothing inherent to smoking pot that violates anyones rights.
--"Name people who are jailed in the USA for views."
The tens (or, more likely hundreds) of thousands who are in jail because they believe that, since it's their body they should be allowed to do whatever they please to it, even if that means smoking marijuana.
--"to the true manor of the FF that you to quickly idolize"
They deserve a little idolization. They sat down and tried to figure out how to make a government that works. Amazing how they did that, considering what had come before them. They had their faults, yes, and there are things that should have been done that weren't, but that doesn't mean they weren't great men.
Wraith
"It's a republic if you can keep it"
-- Benjamin Franklin, asked what sort of government the constitutional convention had chosen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Taking what one has for granted is the worst thing someone can do david. It IS a priviledge living in this country because of the rights one is afforded. |
I don't take anything for granted. I'm more than willing to fight to protect my civil liberties. If that means fighting some foreign invader (not that one is around), fine (although I refuse to be drafted in any case for whatever reason), and if it means fighting the US federal government, that's just fine with me too.
I am NOT willing to limit civil liberties, though, in the name of something ambiguous like "the War on Terrorism", or the War on Drugs, or anything else. Granted, habeas corpus might be suspended in certain circumstances - but the only time in American history that the existence of the US was conceivably threatened was during the War of 1812, although I seriously doubt the British would have tried to retake the entire nation, they DID invade.
The Civil War, though, is a different case. At no time was the existence of the US in jeopardy. The Southern States that seceeded (and there might have been more, such as Maryland, if Mr. Lincoln had followed the Constitution) did so legally, and never meant to threaten the United States except in such a way as to gain independence - the few invasions of Northern territory were simply attempts to relieve pressure from, say, farmlands in Virginia, and attempts to throw off the tempo of the Union Army...it was still a defensive war and I think many people will back me up on that notion.
Moving on...
quote:
Your attempting to argue symantics.
The real world is harsh and cruel, as you will find when you leave the ivory towers of acedemia and enter the mainstream world.
It's your privilage to have rights, not the other way around, and you must fight to protect your rights, as history has shown time and again. |
I'm not arguing semantics, I'm simply pointing out that "inalienable rights" cannot also be "privileges". And when has history shown that Americans had to fight to protect their rights? Again, possibly the War of 1812 (although Great Britain granted the necessary concessions on impressment and such before the outbreak of hostilities), but no other time, not even WW2 - the US was never, not once under any threat of invasion.
quote:
As we have seen throughout US history, the Constituiton is not set in stone, and can be changed and ammended anytime.
Placing your faith this way is quite dangerous, and certainly foolhardy.
Afterall, women don't vote, do they? yes they do, the Constituition was amended. |
Actually if the Constitution could be amended "any time" then we would have a lot more amendments, eh? Obviously the Constitution can only be amended in certain circumstances - and some of the amendments "passed" were actually not legally ratified, such as the 13th-15th Amendments, and possibly the Income Tax, but that's a different debate.
quote:
The Draft is tried and true, since the early days of america, and despite all your protestations against it, it will continue, as a leagal and neccesary evil at times. |
Legal? Nope. Nowhere in the Constitution is a draft allowed, therefore it can't be legal without a Constitutional amendment, which, in the case of a draft, would probably NOT get passed. Actually, the Constitution DOES limit the appropriation of funding towards a standing army to a maximum, upper limit of two years, but obviously that part isn't followed either, is it?
quote:
Better 50 people lose their inalienable rights then seeing another 5000 people become roasted like marshmallows in a fire. |
So what's the magic number? Obviously, to you, a 1:100 ratio is OK...what about 1:50, or 1:10, or 1:5 for that matter? Where does it stop? Pretty soon, we'll be stripping the rights of 49% of the population in order to "save" the other 51%, if we continue down your path. That is pure utilitarianism, which I simply cannot agree with as a Constitutional OR a moral solution.
quote:
I think draft should only be applied in situations in which the national existence is threatened. That means the drafts for Civil War and WW2 were justified, but not for WW1 and Vietnam. |
The national existence was no more threatened during WW2 or the Civil War (well, the national existence of the US, anyway - they certainly had no problem conquering and running roughshod over the CSA in a war of aggression), than it was during Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, or for that matter the September 11th attacks.
Wraith covered much of the rest adequately, so I will end here and leave it to you people to respond.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2001 10:46
I kinda liked it, but there were always more important things to spend money on.
|