Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 126
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?Page 6 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
I don't know what evidence there is, if any, that the guiding lights behind the 14th Amendment meant persons to include corporations.

I agree that the foundation is weak for that precedence, if that is what you are saying. If that is the case, why do you ask this? \/\/

But a whole century's worth of decisions applying various parts of the Bill of Rights to the states--when they had applied only to the federal government--is probably based on a wrong interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Should we, then, undo all that now, and let a state once again have the right to establish its own official religion, for example?

Are you saying that you do NOT think we should seek to correct ANYTHING that, in your educated legal opinion, was done in error?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 127
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 1:24:36 PM

Are you saying that you do NOT think we should seek to correct ANYTHING that, in your educated legal opinion, was done in error?


I can answer this one...he's convinced that Roe V Wade needs to be reversed...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 3:03:04 PM
I agree that the foundation is weak for that precedence, if that is what you are saying.


It's not. I don't know what the evidence for that is, offhand. I know what the legislative history of the 14th Amendment suggests about what other features of it mean, but not whether it suggests anything about whether "persons" were meant to include corporations.


Are you saying that you do NOT think we should seek to correct ANYTHING that, in your educated legal opinion, was done in error?


No. Some things are flat wrong and should be corrected. Illegal enemy combatants (in other words, Muslim jihadist war criminals) who have never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction should not have ANY constitutional rights, including a right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention.

The only thing these curs have a right to, just like their German and Japanese counterparts in the late 1940's, is a noose. In the case of a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we shouldn't even waste time with a trial of any kind. Trials are to determine guilt. If Congress had power to reverse Supreme Court decisions, which I think we should give it by constitutional amendment, that would be a great place to start.

You're asking how the judge-made doctrine of stare decisis should apply in any given case. That is a very difficult question, and even the justices of the Supreme Court often disagree, legitimately, about the answer. But there are some rules of thumb most of them have agreed on.

The Supreme Court hesitates to reverse a decision in which it interpreted a statute that still exists and hasn't been changed in any significant way. When an earlier decision involves a constitutional issue more generally, it's less hesitant to overrule it. Even then, if only 10 or 15 years separate a decision from one that overrules it, it raises eyebrows--is the Court just making things up as it goes?

The more politically charged the decision, the less likely it will be overruled--even if it's common knowledge among lawyers that it's a real turkey. Miranda (1966) and Roe (1973) are examples. There's probably never been a more divisive decision than 1857's Dred Scott v. Sandford. Most people think it was a terrible mistake, and it certainly helped bring about the Civil War.

One purpose of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the holding in Dred Scott that blacks born in the U.S. were not citizens of the states they lived in. The last part of the first sentence of section 1 does that. The first part of the next sentence, the Privileges and Immunities Clause in section 1--there was already another Pr&I Clause in Article IV, sec. 2--was also meant specifically to overrule language in Dred Scott.

The Pr&I Clause was probably meant to be the centerpiece of the 14th Am., but after only 7 years the Court killed it off in the Slaughter-House Cases. That led to a huge mistake involving the application of the Bill of Rights to the states--but that's a story in itself.

The older the decision, the less likely it will be overruled. Part of the reason is that through the years, countless personal and legal decisions have relied on it as the law. That's why no one is holding his breath waiting for the Court to correct mistakes it made in interpreting the 14th Amendment in the decades after the Civil War. Probably not much of the Bill of Rights should restrict what state legislatures can do, but it's a little late to fix things now.

One good discussion of stare decisis that comes to mind is in Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that struck down that state's sodomy law. He reviews the rules of stare decisis the majority had stated in Casey, a 1992 abortion decision, to explain why it was declining to overrule Roe outright. He then mocks the Lawrence majority for disregarding those same rules to justify overruling Bowers, a 1986 decision upholding a Georgia sodomy law.


he's convinced that Roe V Wade needs to be reversed


I'd put it like this: I do not believe any constitutional right to abortion exists. The Court never bothered to explain the basis for one in Roe. And I've never seen any other explanation for any such right that passes the laugh test. Whether the Court should overrule Roe almost 40 years on, or we should nullify it some other way, is another question.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 129
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 4:39:53 PM

Illegal enemy combatants (in other words, Muslim jihadist war criminals) who have never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction should not have ANY constitutional rights, including a right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention.

The only thing these curs have a right to, just like their German and Japanese counterparts in the late 1940's, is a noose. In the case of a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we shouldn't even waste time with a trial of any kind. Trials are to determine guilt. If Congress had power to reverse Supreme Court decisions, which I think we should give it by constitutional amendment, that would be a great place to start.

Detention with no mechanism to challenge? Guilty until proven innocent? Execution without trial?

I think the question about which political philosophy is morally superior has just been definitively answered.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 5:01:34 PM

If Congress had power to reverse Supreme Court decisions, which I think we should give it by constitutional amendment, that would be a great place to start.


I do believe this is about the craziest thing I've read someone claiming to believe here. I've never seen ANYONE who advocated such a HUGE shift in power structure, who actually thought it through even a little, and this appears, quite surprisingly, to be the case here as well.

You KNOW a number of things that various Congress' have pushed through, which you have said you want changed. Can you not remember that before suggesting this?

You have strongly opposed parts of what are included in so-called "Obamacare," on the grounds that you think they are unconstitutional. CONGRESS put those things into law. Do you SERIOUSLY want that SAME Congress to have the power to overrule the highest court on EVERYTHING?

Besides, Congress DOES have the power to overrule the Supreme Court already. All they have to do is, amend the Constitution, and then get the requisite number of States to sign on, just as you yourself described.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 5:38:58 PM

Illegal enemy combatants (in other words, Muslim jihadist war criminals) who have never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction should not have ANY constitutional rights, including a right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention.


What would stop this from applying to a Canadian? A Mexican? A Russian? This is not liberty. That's pretty much up there with nationalist and all the bad things that go in that direction. I believe the Constitution covered this by saying, "People." Nothing about 'citizens' and due process.

Doesn't this language make it about as safe to travel to the US as it is to Iran?
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 132
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 6:05:34 PM
And some of you maintain that liberals are demented! matchlight, you are one scary dude, you are not a constitutionalist or a conservative...you sir are an anarchist!!
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 133
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 7:06:15 PM
There are some that claim to be defenders of the Constitution, but they mean the Constitution of the Dred Scott decision. Not really relevant, nor worth reading much less discussing.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 134
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 9:47:35 PM
Detention with no mechanism to challenge? Guilty until proven innocent? Execution without trial?


Yes, that's right. What of it? Much as it frustrates the pipe dreams of transnationalists, the U.S. Constitution applies almost exclusively to Americans--not to the rest of the world. The Constitution doesn't grant the privilege of the writ of habeas. It only states the conditions under which it can be suspended. That's why there has to be a federal law to authorize habeas petitions.

But until a few years ago, neither that law nor any implied right to habeas that predated the Constitution had ever applied to unlawful enemy combatants--i.e. enemies being held for war crimes. They are dealt with under the laws of war, which do not protect them. In fact one of the main purposes of the Hague and Geneva Conventions was to create a very strong disincentive for committing war crimes, by excluding war criminals from the protections ordinary POW's enjoy. The U.S.--unwisely, I think--chose to give the Guantanamo detainees all the privileges it would give legitimate POW's. Which they most certainly are not.

One of the Nazi saboteurs in Ex Parte Quirin, a 1942 decision, was a U.S. citizen. And that mean old FDR just didn't care about his rights. After a military trial, he was convicted and quickly electrocuted right along with his pals. Just imagine! Didn't Roosevelt have any sense of decency at all? Once you've committed a war crime, said the Court, your citizenship doesn't earn you a break.

Quirin was the main authority for that mean old Mr. Bush to hold the Muslim jihadist Jose Padilla, another U.S. citizen, without trial. All Mr. Padilla planned to do was spread radioactive waste all over the place, if possible, and if not, to blow up apartment buildings full of people. He'd gone to Afghanistan to receive his assignment from Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed themselves. He finally had his day before the Supreme Court.Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, very briefly and politely rejected his claims. What a pity.

It's not clear how strong a presumption of innocence an enemy combatant charged with war crimes enjoys. The U.S. Navy hanged almost 1,000 Japanese for war crimes after they were convicted in the Far East Military Tribunals at the end of WWII, and most of their trials were pretty sketchy. The U.S. Army captured a number of German saboteurs during the Battle of the Bulge. They got a couple minutes to try to explain things to an officer before they were shot. The Army filmed these executions, which complied with the laws of war.

As for execution without *any* trial, that's what Winston Churchill advocated for the Nazis, and I agree with him. The purpose of criminal trials is to determine guilt. There was no reasonable doubt that Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, Ribbentrop, et al. were guilty as sin of all sorts of war crimes. All war crimes may be punished by death, and the most serious ones always have been.


I think the question about which political philosophy is morally superior has just been definitively answered.


Think whatever you like. If you understood any of this, you would know the issue whether the the issue of what constitutional rights alien war criminals have--if any--goes back to the beginning of this country. You would also know that the law on this was well settled, and that it had nothing to do with whether a justice was "liberal" or "conservative."

The Supreme Court discussed all this in detail in a number of decisions during and after WWII involving Germans and Japanese held for war crimes. Eisentrager, from 1950 is another important one, and the Bush administration relied on it in deciding to hold jihadists at Guantanamo. A majority of the Court used a ruse to get around Eisentrager in Boumediene v. Bush, one of the sorriest decisions, on all counts, the Court has ever made.


I do believe this is about the craziest thing I've read someone claiming to believe here. I've never seen ANYONE who advocated such a HUGE shift in power structure, who actually thought it through even a little, and this appears, quite surprisingly, to be the case here as well.


Calm yourself. Ever hear of Robert Bork? The longtime professor on constitutional law at Yale, former solicitor general, federal appeals court judge, etc.? He's one of a number of constitutional law experts who have proposed an amendment like that. The usual suggestion is to require some supermajority vote--2/3 or 3/4--of both Houses of Congress.


Not really relevant, nor worth reading much less discussing.


Yes, you showed us that trick before. You're wearing it out. Someone's liable to start thinking your sniffing condescension and feigned ennui about the irrelevance of my points is just a cover for not having the game to rebut them.
 SweetLilGTP
Joined: 10/22/2010
Msg: 135
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 10:03:30 PM
And some of you maintain that liberals are demented! matchlight, you are one scary dude, you are not a constitutionalist or a conservative...you sir are an anarchist!!


No; he is just the consumate lapdog of a political and legal stance.

Think Goebel; same thing. (no offence intended; but it's where yer at sir)

He is amazingly bright, and stoutfast. He will also only accept that his 427000 books are wrong; once his side loses decisively. Even then; he will never give up. (ever)

He can not be swayed legally; on POF anyways. (Probably lose his job/role if he even weakens noticeably to your arguments)

The training and indocrination that must have went into that,.....

(Without, and even despite, sources even)

Grass is orange; and he will prove it with conversation if it serves his books. (and do it well)

And I actually LIKE you; but....

Laws are not infallible. (And you do see this; I think)

No. Some things are flat wrong and should be corrected. Illegal enemy combatants (in other words, Muslim jihadist war criminals) who have never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction should not have ANY constitutional rights, including a right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention.


Even when your country is invaded; like say.....Poland. (or Iraq)

Know what you are reading folks.

It's real.

P.s, Baghdad was rated worst city in the world to live in, by all newspapers; with all things taken into consideration.

Most of our laws are based on morality


Of the masses

So, to continue on the path towards massively large and unstable government bent on dumbing down society and maintaining useful idiots... vote newt?


It's easier to rape and use stupid people. Smart people may end up eating you, calling in reserves, and killin yer run

and it intentionally pits each one against the others.


In order to try and stop you from doing something stupid (to yourselves and others) with your unfathomable power as a country. However; it also does hogtie you domestically. (BUT ONLY LEGALLY!)

Sorry; it's a bitch of a fact to face


you're likely to look to the law first when contemplating the morality of any particular issue.


I don't know how you get that out of anything I said


Because you are so respectful of the law. It is your "rock".

I agree that you would look at the law to tell you whether or not, and how you are permitted to change laws and bring morality in, or out, of any given statute or doctrine.

I respect this heavily.

I am not sure I have ever heard, or read, better legalize anywhere, ever.
 SweetLilGTP
Joined: 10/22/2010
Msg: 136
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/3/2011 10:39:35 PM
If you want efficiency, nothing beats a dictatorship. Just a word from on high, and it's done. No need for all that delay and debate.But there's a deeper moral question. What about the consent of the governed? How legitimate is a government that imposes the will of an elite few on the many? In this country, of course, that elite consists of people who call themselves liberals. For the moment, they have their emblem occupying the White House.These anointed ones are not only morally but also intellectually superior. And it's their duty to keep us backward, nativist yahoos


If you would change a few lines here; I would give a HUGE thank GOD.

-Party pin doesnt matter [eliminate even thinking about that; cause its' sheeps clothing]
-The annointed ones are only CREATING the thought they are morally and intellectually superior, and doing a SUPER job of it too....through fear and anger.

Create the problem, that makes sense to NOONE that doesnt know the real truth, and then call them stupid and punish them because they dont get it. (because they cant believe their own would do something so henious to them} Then, you start to shape them with your loving ways.

Yawwwwwwwwwn

Think it'll work THIS time around?

(no)

How legitimate is a government that imposes the will of an elite few on the many?




I'd love to hear the answers to this question.

Colleges and Universities dedicate whole course STREAMS on this exact question alone. (I know; I've taken some of them)

I apologize for the Goebels comment btw; uncalled for.

I find the concept of moral superiority to be distasteful


I love it; it brings a sense of satisfaction and strength to ones own convictions and actions. It's when it starts to crusade to try and share unsolicited with others that it becomes a mess. The elites in Rome sure did it well though!! (not so much.....the rest of Rome) If you wanna Crusade; you BETTER be the top 1%, and the REAL top 1% (cause even the Knights Templar who owned HUGE castles and HUGE power........were destroyed during this period, with the 1% eating them too)

I've never been in the presence of higher intelligence btw; you folks are amazing
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 12:33:23 AM
Our cafeteria constitutionalists were mysteriously silent during the Constitution trash fest during the Bush error/era. Likewise they nitpick when a half white guy gets into the WHITE house, and become silent again when congress proposes suspension of habeas corpus. Selective moral superiority is a scarey thing. The claim of "Muslim jihadists" suspension of rights did not even include the "alleged" caveat. Guilty until proven innocent. This sort of suspension of basic rights under the guise of moral superiority is coming back to bite us in the azz. Because we are so chickensh*t in the face of global backlash to our empire and the impending political chaos we have sown domestically, the Con-gress is pushing a major erosion of human rights, seemingly without even a wimper from the far right.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-02/politics/30466471_1_guantanamo-bay-google-news-military-prisons

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/11/30/us-congress-enacts-laws-hold-civilians-under-indefinite-military-detention-without-t
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 12:21:01 PM

I apologize for the Goebels comment btw; uncalled for.


No apology needed. I'm glad you said it.


and become silent again when congress proposes suspension of habeas corpus


Why don't you say what you mean--specifically?


The claim of "Muslim jihadists" suspension of rights did not even include the "alleged" caveat.


Again--what are you talking about, in plain English? Congress has defined war crimes and provided for military commissions to try them. The President has authority to designate persons as unlawful enemy combatants and to detain those persons indefinitely.

Enemies who committed war crimes against the U.S. and its citizens had never had constitutional rights, throughout our history. But in the years after 9/11, the Supreme Court decided several cases involving captured Muslim jihadists. In doing this the Court stuck its nose into the conduct of war as it never had in the history of this country, manufacturing limited due process and habeas rights for these persons out of thin air.

The upshot of these decisions and Congress's reactions to them is that persons the U.S. detains as unlawful enemy combatants can challenge both that designation and their detention. They do this through Combatant Status Review Tribunals held at Guantanamo. The transcripts of some of these proceedings have been made public and are available online.




This sort of suspension of basic rights under the guise of moral superiority is coming back to bite us in the azz.


Whose "basic rights"? What's their source? Who suspended them? What guise? You don't say, because you don't know. This country has bowed and scraped to give murdering Islamist savages rights far beyond what it had ever given any unlawful enemy combatants before.

These persons should have gotten the same treatment the U.S. gave enemy war criminals in WWII. Or did FDR, that king of all liberals, by making very sure six German saboteurs, one of them a U.S. citizen, were electrocuted within two months after they landed here by U-boat in the summer of 1942, show he was really just an immoral, flinty-hearted conservative in disguise?

Savages who sneak around in nightshirts committing every atrocity and war crime in the book do not rate the same treatment as a uniformed soldier who is only doing his duty. The Geneva Conventions recognize that by excluding war criminals from their protections. That was meant to discourage war crimes. And yet it's considered moral, apparently, to do just the opposite by giving captured enemies the same privileges, regardless of what they've done. Some morality!
 whiskeypapa
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 139
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 12:35:33 PM
So the savages who invade a sovereign country and kill millions of civilians as in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Libya are NOT??? war criminals because they did it while in uniform. How about the savages who kill people at wedding parties and flocks of sheep, are they not war criminals because they are wearing uniforms?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 12:36:11 PM

In doing this the Court stuck its nose into the conduct of war as it never had in the history of this country


Isn't this the sticking point? The official declaration of war? The defintion of war changed with 911 also. Regan declared war on terror, Bush declared war on terror, obama decalared war on al-Qaeda. Is there even a declaration of war from congress? It does get quite muddled over time.



Enemies who committed war crimes against the U.S. and its citizens had never had constitutional rights


Without a declaration of war wouldn't they be technically "by law" still considered just criminals?
 whiskeypapa
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 141
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 1:09:04 PM
Some "basic rights" the US has signed on to are: The Geneva Conventions, Conventions Against Torture, Conventions Against Enforced Disapearence. The neocons have susspended or ignored all conventions that have the guise of conventional humanity in favour of the National Defense Authorization act. Section 1031 says that Americans can be arrested without trial and they can be murdered abroad. A cautionary note: section1031 does not exclude pencil-necked geeks who have served the cause.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 142
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 2:43:30 PM
The fact that the United States released more than 70% of the detainees brought to Guantanamo shows clearly that there was something definitely wrong in the process of rounding up "jihadists," "unlawful enemy combatants," "war criminals," and just simple "terrorists."

Their release is proof positive that whatever charges there may have been leveled against them could not have been proven even in a military court.

Advocating for their indefinite detention without any recourse to a legal defense against unspecified charges and asking for the execution of those people without a trial is just like unleashing the unlimited power of the military by a fascist state.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 3:36:09 PM
Is there even a declaration of war from congress?


There certainly is. It's called the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), and Congress passed it overwhelmingly soon after 9/11. The Constitution says the Congress shall have Power . . . to declare War. (Article I, sec. 8, cl.11). It doesn't say Congress may exercise that power only by passing a measure entitled "Declaration of War".

The Korean War, for example, isn't usually considered illegitimate just because it didn't follow a formal declaration of war. Instead, President Truman justified it as a "police action" carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. The last formal declarations of war, with a speech by the President to a joint session of Congress, etc. were in December, 1941.

What the Supreme Court did a couple of its Guantanamo decisions was outrageous. Inserting itself into the conduct of war, which the Constitution very clearly puts the elected branches in charge of, was as unusual as it was arrogant. The furthest the Court had intruded on a President's wartime powers before that, at least since the Civil War, was during the Korean War. President Truman had nationalized steel mills as an emergency measure to prevent a strike from leaving the troops out in the cold, but the Court held in the "Steel Seizure Case" that he'd exceeded his authority.


Without a declaration of war wouldn't they be technically "by law" still considered just criminals?


God save us from going back to the irresponsible pre-9/11 policy of treating jihadists who had openly declared war on the U.S. as bank robbers, rather than a foreign enemy. Many innocent people paid for that willful blindness with their lives. There are very good reasons to believe the policy of doing very little to respond to jihadist attacks, which characterized the Clinton administration, encouraged even more of them--the bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the bombing of the Cole in Aden, and finally 9/11 itself.

It encouraged them not only by convincing Bin Laden and his circle that the U.S. wouldn't fight back, but also by preventing extremely valuable information the FBI had from ever reaching the national intelligence agencies and the military. It's not a coincidence that some of the conspirators in the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center--which might easily have brought both towers down--were also at the center of the 9/11 plot. The national security agencies which might have prevented 9/11 were largely kept in the dark during the years between the two WTC attacks, because in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary, the government treated jihadists as common criminals.


The fact that the United States released more than 70% of the detainees brought to Guantanamo shows clearly that there was something definitely wrong in the process of rounding up "jihadists," "unlawful enemy combatants," "war criminals," and just simple "terrorists."


Baloney. It shows mostly that this country lacked the will to try them. Many of them went back to terrorism and killed quite a few innocent people.


Their release is proof positive that whatever charges there may have been leveled against them could not have been proven even in a military court.


If that's what you consider proof, I'd hate to see you on a jury. What could be proven in a military tribunal depends mostly on the rules set up to govern it. President Roosevelt had his Attorney General draw up those rules in SIX DAYS. They were straightforward but fair. But most Americans in 1942 did not feel guilty about dealing with this country's enemies.

In contrast, the present-day dithering and revising went on for years; the final rules were so elaborate the jihadists might have well have been in a federal court; and even now, no one has been tried and convicted. Not even the yellow son of a b**** who masterminded the murder of almost 3,000 civilians and bragged about it. I do not accept for a moment that that means the persons being held--or any but a few of those released--are innocent of war crimes.


Advocating for their indefinite detention without any recourse to a legal defense against unspecified charges and asking for the execution of those people without a trial is just like unleashing the unlimited power of the military by a fascist state.


Your statement is false. You make it sound as if unlawful enemy combatants are just normal U.S. citizens charged with burglary or DUI. They are not. They can be detained indefinitely without being charged. It shows you haven't the vaguest notion of the law on this subject.

I repeat--many of them should have been tried for war crimes, convicted, and executed. They could rightfully have been killed on the spot in Afghanistan or Iraq--and probably would have been, if no one had thought they had any information which might be valuable. As for your opinion about unlimited military power and fascist states, it's too bad the Daily Worker's no longer around. They could have used you.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 5:29:24 PM
Matchlight...
Your posts are predictable and often boringly trite and selective in your current cafeteria Constitutionalist outrage.

Can you provide some links or correlation of equal outrage when Bush/Cheney trashed the Constitution, when the Tea Party threatened armed insurrection and shouted down public discourse, and when you think detaining, trying, and convicting citizens accused of thought crimes, might go a bit too far when your party is not in control.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/4/2011 9:29:45 PM

No. Some things are flat wrong and should be corrected. Illegal enemy combatants (in other words, Muslim jihadist war criminals) who have never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction should not have ANY constitutional rights, including a right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention.


I couldn't let this pass.

If someone has never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction what gives us the right to pass judgment on them, much less execute them?

I know we've made quite the habit of imposing our will on the rest of the world, but to assert that somehow we've got the right to barge into any country we want to and then couple that with the lack of any rights of anyone we find elsewhere we don't approve of seems ridiculously pretentious.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/5/2011 2:56:12 PM
The neocons have susspended or ignored all conventions that have the guise of conventional humanity in favour of the National Defense Authorization act.


I don't know what "neocon" is to you, except a slur against people whose respect for the Constitution you don't share. And in English at least, conventions, aka treaties, are not "basic rights."

After the Senate has ratified a treaty, whatever provisions of it the U.S. agreed to are usually codified. The terms of the Convention Against Torture the U.S. agreed to in the mid-1990's, for example, appear in sections 2340 and 2341 of the U.S. Code.

I don't know what ignoring "all conventions that have the guise of conventional humanity" means, but it sounds like a sanctimonious assertion that the U.S. tortures captives. That cheap shot against this country is false, however much Mr. Obama wishes it were true.

All the relevant documents have been made public, and I've read them very carefully. Have you? They show that the U.S. went to elaborate lengths to make sure the enhanced interrogation techniques used on three captured jihadists in 2002-3 not only did not violate the federal law, but stayed well within it.

I guess you're talking about the McCain-Levin amendment to the current defense authorization bill. Did you get your nonsense from Rand Paul? From Judge Napolitano? If you dreamed it up yourself, here's a cautionary note for *you*: Spare yourself the embarrassment of admitting it, and blame them instead.

Your "the sky-is-falling" cry about what the amendment supposedly says is flat not true. It says no such thing, and I could prove it, in detail. I don't want to follow you any further off topic here, though, and it's obvious you're way out of your depth. But if you'd like to debate the issue, I will be happy to oblige you, any time. It's a matter of morality.


If someone has never set foot on any territory within U.S. jurisdiction what gives us the right to pass judgment on them, much less execute them?


As far as I know, Hermann Goering hadn't been within U.S. territory during WWII. And I'm sure few if any of those hundreds of sadistic Japanese prison camp guards had, either. What gave us the right to judge them and execute them as war criminals?

In general, aliens acquire more constitutional rights as their association with the U.S. increases. Even aliens who entered the U.S. illegally can't be held for deportation until they've had a chance to plead their case to a U.S. Magistrate, because they enjoy a limited 5th Amendment right to due process.

But unlawful enemy combatants--spies, saboteurs, combatants who fake surrender, shoot from schools or hospitals, use human shields, purposely kill non-combatants--especially if they do these things out of uniform, i.e. without some "fixed and distinguishable insignia"--are NOT P.O.W.'s. They have almost no rights under the laws of war, as codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, in federal law, etc.

In particular, never in any war in U.S. history, before this one, had enemy combatants--even legitimate ones, let alone war criminals--held outside U.S. territory had any rights whatever under the U.S. Constitution. Only the laws of war applied to them. Being on U.S. territory and/or being a U.S. citizen *may* give an unlawful enemy combatant some constitutional rights. But Hermann Haupt, the Nazi saboteur who was a U.S. citizen, got only a military tribunal and was executed.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 147
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/5/2011 11:14:06 PM
The notion that the Bush-type Neocons have ANY respect for the Constitution at all, belongs in the Humor forum.

They even ignored the Constitutionally passed and signed laws of the land when they DID support their actions, simply because they didn't WANT to follow them.

So far, every self-proclaimed strict Constitutionalist has inevitably insisted (just like their "strict biblical" cousins) that the correct interpretation of that document is ENTIRELY up to THEM, and that the Supreme court, and 200 years of jurisprudence and precedent has nothing to do with anything. Either that, or they simply start from the notion that if THEIR side did it, it must be okay, and then leap over any chasm of missing reasoning required to declare that it's all a smooth, solid road.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/6/2011 4:44:18 AM
As Cheney warned us during the Iran-Contra hearings, "To the extent that the Constitution and laws are read narrowly, as Jefferson wished, the Chief Executive will on occasion feel duty bound to assert monarchical notions of prerogative that will permit him to exceed the law."

Just as he defended Reagan, Cheney and his uber-Cons would go on to exceed the Constitution with their lil Bushtator. Didn't hear a peep during that Constitutional trashing. Match refuses to answer about what level of outrage he had during that Constitutional crisis other than to stand by torture and call anyone opposed to torture, "unAmerican".
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 149
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/6/2011 6:04:53 AM
Amazing the references to the Constitution by some of the lib-progs suddenly.

Something they suddenly have respect for, except for free speech, right to bear arms, states rights and probably a dozen other problematic things.

Just as GWB sheared the Constitution, Obama has used it for toilet paper. The Obama administration is the biggest spy agency in the world focused on US Citizens. Makes GWB's wiretaps look like a glass up against the wall.

Oh, I just know I've missed the outrage of the many Obamabots here and in the media. I've just somehow...missed it.

Maybe it's because there is a man of compassion and truth and enlightenment doing the listening? When he's not golfing or on vacation or stuffing a hot dog down his throat. Must be the reason. Must be.

It's a higher moral road when a progressive man of the people (gag) is listening and when there is love in the eyes for him. Love being blind.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 150
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 12/6/2011 7:48:27 AM

As far as I know, Hermann Goering hadn't been within U.S. territory during WWII. And I'm sure few if any of those hundreds of sadistic Japanese prison camp guards had, either. What gave us the right to judge them and execute them as war criminals?


Winning a war usually gives lot of rights to the occupiers because they can impose them over the population of the occupied territories by force, not by their high moral values. The people living in an occupied territory have the right to resist a foreign invasion, even if they aren't part of an organized military force.

That doesn't mean that Goering et al. shouldn't have been tried, convicted and executed. It means that the people who actively participated in the Resistance in France, Poland, Italy, and other countries, who weren't part of a military force when they were fighting against the occupiers, had every right to do so, even though their countries were under the control of the nazis.


But unlawful enemy combatants-- spies, saboteurs, combatants who fake surrender, shoot from schools or hospitals, use human shields, purposely kill non-combatants--especially if they do these things out of uniform, i.e. without some "fixed and distinguishable insignia"--are NOT P.O.W.'s. They have almost no rights under the laws of war, as codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, in federal law, etc.


A mother in Iraq, defending her son from being seized by some heavily armed guys wearing uniform with insignias, would be guilty of being an "unlawful enemy combatant" for attacking those soldiers with a hot frying pan. Her crimes would mainly be that the forgot that she belongs to the occupied people that have no rights, and that she also forgot to put on her uniform and insignia before grabbing the hot frying pan to attack the soldiers.

[
Advocating for the unlimited powers of the occupiers is not only inmoral is also an idiotic and stupid idea. The defeat of the Third Reich is a clear proof of that. Just imagine what would happen with all the rights that we hold dear if the U.S. were to lose a war against an invading superior force.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?