DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS
It took eleven years, three times a week for me to identify, explore, and work through my tendency to become hysterical especially when I encountered abusive authorities who were untrustworthy.
By hysteria I mean an unjustified emotional over reaction to a person, place or thing, not objective, personalizing, embellishing the facts.
By trust I mean say what you mean, and mean what you say; straight shooting; an agreement between intentions and actions.
So it is with the utmost restraint and constraint I can muster not to explode with rage, and utter contempt and disdain, shouting to anyone who can hear my voice that I hear my President and his associates insisting that in the name of protecting me {and all my fellow citizens} from the evil terrorists, they need for me {through my elected representatives} to authorize an unprecedented change in the Geneva Convention.
In short, the President and his advisors want me to sacrifice basic rights that have made America the show case political system of all time for not even a promise of security.
The Proposed Changes
Basically there are four proposed changes that if adopted having the force of law would have profound implications for every American citizen. These are:
- Define terrorists as outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention
- Legitimize forms of torture
- Preventing terrorists on trial from seeing any information used against them
- Providing life long protection from any legal suits brought at some future time against any officials who detain, control, prosecute, judge and the likes, any terrorists.
This is well along the way to happening despite cries of foul play, perversion of the constitution, fears of incipient facism rasing its ugly head - voiced loud and clear by none other than numerous generals from the combined armed forces; legal bodies, lawyers and judges, legal professors, Colin Powell, leading Republicans: John McCain, Senator John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins.
I won't even bother to list the Democrats as they would be expected to dissent and be written off as juyst being "political."
But when leading Republican's openly defy the President and his associates, and do so on principle risking a great deal of censure sticking their necks out - this demands we all stand up and take notice.
And the one huge, most glaringly obvious objection to this dictatorial redefinition of who is and who is not covered by the Geneva Convention is that what we do to others and and most likely will be done to us. In is note worthy that in the four days of the President making impassioned arguments to bolster his point of view to my knowledge he has failed {purposefully?} to address this crucial issue.
And perhaps the most far reaching and potentially terrorizing implication for each citizen is that if one citizen is abstracted out of the protection of the Geneva Convention - then any and all may be subject to the same treatment - at the arbitrary whim of those authorities who wield the power to enforce their draconian decrees.
The President and his associates has us to put away our doubts, keep the faith, just trust - like good parents - that they are acting in our collective best interests and in their infinite wisdom they know what is best for us.
The trouble is that on grounds of reason, logic, and experience there is little evidence that the president and his associates indeed do know what is either in my own or any people I know best interest.
In short I don't trust him or them.
I was taught and I firmly believe that while we as a country are far from perfect we are still great and widely admired even though muted because we are still a nation of laws. We work because of our checks and balances. Subvert this foundation, arbitraily change words to mean whatever you wish them to mean and you begin the inevitable slippery slope descent into barbarism which is the usual and the conventional "easy way" that most of humanity confronts the ongoing problem of living the good life in a complex diverse reality.
It should also be readily apparent that the war against the terrorists is likely not to be won by force of arms but by force of good ideas. In my perspective, there is no more potent idea that should resonate with any half way sensitive human being any where in the world than the thinking that went into our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, and the Geneva Convention.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
Pretty damned convenient way of eliminating those who dissent and terrorizing a population into submission.
But, NO, it couldn't possibly happen HERE. You just gotta trust...
Thank you for publshing to The Renewed Activist.
I truly hope this posts. A very comprehensive and articulate article. May I comment?
I understad and believe what the President is trying to achieve is clarification. He stated that in his Press Conference. He wishes not to change the conventions of the Geneva COnference, but to clarify them. The conference reads somewhat as follows: ..."to not bring undue and disproportionate humiliation to the person..." I'm no lawyer, or scientist, but Gibbs, how can you compare the treatment of our enemy combatant captives to their treatment of our soldiers and contractors? Has anyone died in our custody? They love to decapitate our soldiers, and unceremoniously dump their mutilated bodies on the streets and alleyways of Baghdad, like just so much weekly trash. Please be specific , and explain to me how our treatment of them can be compared to their treatment of us? He is looking for clarification, in order that they understand the lawful way to proceed. would you like to be an American soldier who, under hostile enemy fire, are court-martialed and shackled and incarcerated at Camp Pendleton just for pulling the trigger??? I, as your friend, would dearly hope that my government would allow you to defend yourself. Please respond specifically.
Thanks.
Mark-John K
May I also add that terrorists SHOULD be defined as outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions? In order to fall into that jurisdiction, you MUST wear a uniform. Which explains why their heinous tactics, such as using women and children as human shields, are used so effectively.
Don't you agree with this reasoning?
Mark-John K
The Geneva Convention applied to lawful combatants fighting for legitmate nations. When it was conceived they didn't have terrorists in mind. They were talking about people who actually had the guts to put on a uniform and fight actual soldiers instead of blowing up women and children. Do you really think these people give a rats ass about your rights? They would slit your throat in a split second and then celebrate how brave they were. Do you think they care if the world community is upset about it? Not on your life.
"Legitimize forms of torture"
Lets see....we keep them awake and play loud music (and only after we've made sure they have plenty of their favorite food to eat and a comfy cell). They burn out eyes with a hot poker, cut off hands and feet, starve and beat our guys to death. And even if we play by the rules and never interrogate at all they will continue to torture their captives. The idea that we are somehow protecting our soldiers from torture by not doing it ourselves is extremely nieve. Name one war where anyone BUT the U.S. has obeyed the Geneva Convention. You can't because we are the ONLY ones who have obeyed the "rules of war". Japanese and Germans tortured and shot our guys, Korea tortured and shot our guys, Viet Namese tortured and shot our guys. And all while we were playing by the rules.
"Preventing terrorists on trial from seeing any information used against them"
So you would rather make sure that terrorists have all the rights of American Citizens even if it means assisting them to kill more American Citizens. Makes sense to me. Our rights are for OUR citizens, not every citizen of the world. They are ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, not citizens of the US. They have either killed or tried to kill Americans. Why do you care more for them than you do for your own countrymen?
"Providing life long protection from any legal suits brought at some future time against any officials who detain, control, prosecute, judge and the likes, any terrorists."
And your point is? Again, why do you care more about them than about your own countrymen?
Now tell me EXACTLY WHAT rights of yours have been violated lately. Have the US secret police knocked down your door and taken you away in the middle of the night? Have they been listening to your boring conversations with your friends? How has the policies that our government is implementing DIRECTLY affected your life? Because I'm sure it hasn't unless you are in the habit of talking to terrorists on the phone. And if you are I certainly hope they are listening.
You get angry because you still don't believe we are at war. You think these are just nice people and we are picking on them. Take a look at these websites and tell me these are peaceful people who will go away as soon as Bush is out of office.
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/
mbhood_en.html#part1
These people don't play by the rules. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!!
If we continue to bicker over this stupid bullshit we will cease to even exist. And when they take over somewhere, they wipe out all history. In 100 years no one will even know the United States of America existed. Don't you get it? Do you really think we are immune? Stop fighting for their rights! These people want you dead! What part of that don't you get? Our president and other americans aren't the enemy! And while you're busy fighting for their rights, they are planning and plotting how to kill you.
This wonderful free country that you enjoy living in (where you can call your president nasty names if you want to because you have free speach) could all go away unless you realize that this enemy means to destroy us.
Time will tell. The idea that we have to give up our humanity and our rights to privacy and our checks and balances in order to be safe means the terrorists have won on that level.
How this administration thinks they should be trusted after all their inept handling of EVERYTHING is beyond me.
We haven't been attacked since 9/11, they say. Yea, well how many years between the first attack on the World Trade Center and 9/11? Does that mean we were safer then? Must be by that moronic reasoning.
I love your non-combative attitude
Thanks for sharing, please keep posting! :)
1 "Define terrorists as outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention" - If I am not mistaken members of the CIA don't wear unifroms either and have been known to take conduct activities that by any reasonable standards are co equal with terroist acitivites. For example it is common knowledge that the CIA has actively participated in over throwing many countries that the US deemed to be against our best interests. They have used such techniques as explosives, and poison.
I know - we call them patriots. However if they used their tactics against you or me I think we might think of them as "terroists."
"Legitimize forms of torture" - You say we shouldn't be naive as all countries do it. You say "we are the ONLY ones who have obeyed the "rules of war". I fear you may have a memory problem of which you are unaware. Might you recall the atrocities committed by some US armed forces at an infamous prison camp in Iraq called Abu Ghraib? Remember in the Vietnamese war an event referred to as the Mylai Massacre? We are not immune from conducting torture despite regulations that say it is illegal.
Preventing terrorists on trial from seeing any information used against them" - I want them to have the rights that every American citizen has because (a) they are human beings; (b) we have as our highest value a belief in JUSTICE - and arriving at justice means giving every one a fair shake to prove their innocence. It also means that those who prosecute must be responsible for gathering factual evidence to make certain that the crime that is being prosecuted from the alleged criminal actually was carried out by them and not others. There are plentiful accounts of innocent people arrested, imprisoned, tried, and convicted and put to death or forced to languish in jail cells for the rest of their life. HOw do you know you might not ever be one of them if there are no rules to protect you from false imprionment? All one has to do is to arbitrarily accuse you of being a non combatant terrorist.
Why do you care more for them than you do for your own countrymen? You are deriving a false conclusion by starting with a flase assumption. I am no bleeding heart liberal - I am a liberal who has a sensitive heart and a keen analytical mind. I care about justice equally applied to every single person in the world. And if it is uncomfortable and expensive and tedious to sit through boring hours of testimony to arrive at a just consclusion for those accused of being terrorists then so be it. It is better than making the world safe for hypocrisy. The President who is so moral and lofty has denied for years that there were secret prisons scattered throughout the world where torture was carried out to extract vital information from those defined as terrorists. Isn't it interesting when caught like adeer in the headlights he causaually fesses up and treats his lying as if it is equivalent to saying the sky is blue and the grass is green. And this is just one small representiative example of the deceit, lying, covering up, untransparent, dangerous equivocating revealed to be the standard operating procedures of this corrupt and, in my opionion, a moral administration. So it is because I very much care about what happens to each and every american citizen that I am so adamant about protecting the rights of others.
Perhaps I am exceedingly sensitive to my personal rights being violated due to a life defining experience I had as a budding psychotherapist working at an innovative therapeutic community treating heroin addicts in the sixties called Odyssey House. For the first four months I thought it was an idealistic, imaginative, progressive, and highly moral treatment center in which I was grateful to be able to participate on the front lines of the battle of substance abuse. However as the head psychiatrist/lawyer initiated a series of highly inappropriate interventions in the name of imaginative psychotherapy it became clear that there was a major discrepancy between her lofty principles and her often unprofessional {sadistic} actions. It is interesting to note that her top level principle was an allegiance to trust. She was insistent that any conflict be dealt with openly and honestly by open communication to "clear the lines" to reach a point of mutual understanding. What became evident was the fact that in confronting her it had better be done in a way that didn't didn'y personally offend her or she would instantly retaliate by calling the confronter disloyal, disrespectful, a manipulator, often resulting in the person being isolated, demoted, or thrown out of the program. Some trust!
During the 17 months I worked there I came to appreciate Jefferson's important warning about the vulnerability of democracy: Etrernal Vigilance."
The law must protect every one equally. Justice cannot be an unequal opportunity set of principles. It is too easy for an untrustworthy President, and or administration to use the inequality for their own opportunistic needs for power over not shared power with.
I would be more willing to trust President Lincoln if he were the present leader but Mr. Bush is no Abe Lincoln. And the truth is that if President Lincoln were advocating the same policies about terrorists as is President Bush I would write the same commentary about him and his administration as I am about President Bush and his current administration.
I would be most interested Debbie if you would return the favor and show me how I am misguided point by point.
While the Bush Administration may not be looking to do any of these things, remember, in 2008, Hillary Clinton could be Elected President (God Help Our Souls if she Does). Hillary and her band of misfits could use these changes to do all kinds of political retribution to people, just as Jimmy Carter used DEA to silence a local physician about a political appointee of his. (another story for another time).
Gibbs,
Well thought out article. And I think it is more about the precident that it sets for future Presidents than even President Bush.
The President was told by the Supreme Court that the terrorists in our hands have to be treated per the Geneva conventions. He disagrees, lost in court, but has no choice but to go to Congress. Also that the war criminals cannot be tried in tribunals without approval of Congress, or in a manner set by Congress that meets those accords. The President is now pushing for that approval and clarification from Congress what the military can do, and not do. He has told them what he wants, they have to approve or modify what the rules will be. We do not want to have to provide secret intelligence to them, we do not want to allow them to lawyer-up and sue everybody. That would be ridiculous, and a circus, making a mockery of our systems. Congress has to make a decision on this.
Frankly, Congress is getting what they asked for, and the ball is in their court. There is no precedent on what to do with armed enemies of no particular country and no uniforms. They used to be called saboteurs and spies and hung. War criminals in the past were not tried in our civil courts, with all the rights as a citizen. They were handled in military tribunals.
I've said it many times, but the Geneva Accords need to be updated to include this new kind of warfare, and the prisoners that it ultimately leads to. It would not be an issue if this was clear, and updated from the 1940s(?)
An awful lot of members of Congress don't want this hot potato before any elections. They may have to show us where they really stand. It's time they earned their pay, and quit bitching.
Personally, I don't care if the war criminals rot in Gitmo, until at least the end of hostilities. That's the norm for prisoners of war anyway. War crimes for some, the rest released back to nation of origin. Problem is, when will it end? What do we do with the ones that their country won't take back? (that's the case already with many)
Thanks for the article.
If we don't let them defend themselves properly then it is an even greater circus with our pretense that they are receiving justice. If so we might as well be honest: blow them up, put them on an ice flow towards the artic, poison them en masse and save the taxpayers the time, money, and effort to have a predictable verdict from a farcial kangaroo court system. I think the answer is simple: define terrorists as non combatants that like all other enemies receive the same rights as all the other enemies do under the Geneva accords. Justice is either justice for all or it is injustice for potentiall all to come, including you and me.
If it is different strokes for different folks then it is mass confusion for all.
There are additional arguments against changing the rules. (l) When many US Army Generals oppose changes you absolutely must pause and listen carefully. For example:
US generals criticize Bush plan on terrorism trials
By Kristin Roberts
Reuters
Thursday, September 7, 2006; 2:50 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military's top legal officers on Thursday criticized a White House plan for military tribunals to try foreign terrorism suspects because it would allow convictions based on evidence never seen by the defendants.
The right to a full and fair hearing requires the accused have access to the evidence used to convict them, even if it is classified information, the military advisors told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.
"I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people where an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him," said Brig. Gen. James Walker, U.S. Marine Corps staff judge advocate.
"I don't think the United States needs to become the first in that scenario," he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarkable comments from our military, no?
This IS a very important issue on two fronts. You must understand that without clarificaton on the accepted use of the Conventions, our Intelligence FAILS, because nobody will do any kind of interrogation through fear of litigation, or WORSE!! Can't you see Chesty Pelosi screaming "FOUL" and trying to sue and convict every Intelligence officer and soldier who waves a pair of white panties??? Even though it's okay for those sub-humans to mutilate genitals, gouge out eyes, and THEN saw off their heads? Aren't you horrified by this prospect?
Secondly, don't you understand and agree that when an enemy wears no uniform, he forfeits his "Rights," as is currently stated in the Geneva Conventions?
Please, specifically target these two questions, and answer them for me. Don't throw in any superfluous side-info...just answer those two questions, please.
Thank you.
Mark-John K
The problem is that Bush has decided to treat a metaphor, as if it were a reality. If you are going to treat the war on terror as if it were a real war, then you have to accept the Geneva Conventions. If you are not going to treat it as a real war, then you have to accept criminal due process restraints. The problem the Bush administration is that they really don't want to have it be either -- they just want to put the thumbscrews to anyone they think might have information.
The best way to gather vital information from any enemy is the old fashioned way: by expert intelligence - personal penetration of the enemies leadership.
Are you suggesting that in point 2 that if a member of the CIA is caught attempting to poison a head of state (le's say} it would be perfectly understandable for him to be tortured by some other government because as a non combatant he would enjoy no rights because he would be excluded from the Geneva convention?
I didn't think so...
Mark-John K
It is, for me, no loss to bid you farewell. You are fools. There is no greater insult or truth that I can utter than that.
I have been censored, ridiculed, demeaned. I'm very glad that because of our leadership and our great American ideals, we will never lose. I'm very glad that the fools I speak of will not have the experience of decapitation, regardless of how much they deserve it.
I'm sorry, Gibbs, that your self-percieved intelligence has rendered you foolish. I've done my best to befriend you; I've shown you respect, asked fair questions, and waited patiently for answers.
John McCain had his shoulders dislocated, his legs broken, and his face beaten to a pulp, by a country who had RATIFIED the conventions. Terrorists have no such ratification.
You are all but fools.
Mark-John K
"You must understand..."
"don't you understand..."
PLEASE listen up Mark; Many, many people do NOT trust Mr. Bush. We have very good reasons for this, and asking us to hand over more authority, to someone we believe is destroying our future, is a no go.
That's what the problem is, that's why we don't want to do away with the presumption of innocence, or any recourse for those abused in the name of fighting an ill defined and open ended "War on Terror". We are terrified of our government, and it's ceaseless use of scare tactics and divisive issues.
History teaches us that such people are more likely than not despots.
You may cut out and leave but know that you are whimping out, not that you have achieved a major victory. I understand that you are passionate about your position but it is not simply a slam dunk black and white easily answered dilemma as you insist it is or should be.
And how we go about answering it is crucial to our very existence.
Cut and run if you so choose to do so, but it would be better if you would stay and answer my last arguments point by point. You do yourself no great honor by declaring victory and running away but in fact, I think you are being disrespectful to yourself.
One side wants to have some kind of civil values in the world and the other wants to make their warfare completely rule free.
I would suspect that an awful lot of nasty things went on prior to the Geneva conventions. I suspect that without those 'rules' there would be no pretense whatsoever towards restraints of any kind.
All would be fair in War, there would then be no love in the world to apply that rule of fairness to. Never really knew what it meant anyway. Because there would be so much vengeance and hatred, acting out human to human with like begetting like, that there would be no boundaries as to who and why and when you or I could be victimized.
Yet those that think they support such 'leniency' (is that a perverted 'liberalism' of some kind ?), must feel that their leadership will always exempt them, after all, they would never do anything illegal to get into trouble with their government, it is always the 'other' guy that will be victimized because they deserve it naturally.
We are approaching becoming a Fascist country. It is not as far fetched as some might think. To let this administration make these law changes is to take one giant step closer to that. Soon the average citizen (as has been mentioned already) can be suspect under the same standards ... but of course that seems to be OK with the conservative voices expressed here, because they see themselves as good patriotic people on the side of such law and order, they feel exempted and safer because there would then be more order in a scary world they are now in fear of.
A step or two closer to that Fascism and those same neo-con supporters will gladly, yea, demand, their 'brown shirt' uniforms, so they can clean up the streets of us progressives and liberals that are such a threat to their idea of national security. We are already being called haters of America, that we should just leave it all for them because we do not appreciate what they claim 'their kind' has done for it through previous wars and all.
Anyway, the real reason for the desired changes, is to make the laws such that this administration can cover their tracks for violations already done to the detainees that they now want to 'disappear', with no legal tracks available.
This will be especially important come the pending war crime investigations that will take place at some future date, where they will be tried for all that they are doing, and convicted of whatever laws they leave on the books.
Of course there is this little matter of impeachment just around the corner also. I think they are attempting to do two things, one is set us all up for their desired form of fascist control, and two, is to make the law changes so that if one fails, their penalties might be less harsh on them.
What they really hope to do, is to have their cake and eat it to.
IMO of course. I know, this is just a rant, but just as valuable as the 'other' sides rants. Just getting it off my chest for now.
Well put, as usual. I doubt that many who fail to see the possibility of a fascist state here will think through what you say, but perhaps they will begin to see that "blind faith" in our leaders is not necessary in order to be good citizens. And that we are not all simply "Bush haters" or "terrorist sympathizers", but rather, have a well reasoned, even if erroneous, rationale for the resistance we offer to further encroachment on our legal protections.
Of course this must be a powerful motivation for the President and his associates. Have we forgotten Abu Ghraib so quickly? And apparently there is a wide spread pattern before and after this travesty of justice? Are we really so much in denial that we would think that every single act in prison goes unrecorded and un noticed by the superiors? That is sheer stupidity and or cover up.
Of course they know.
War crimes for atrocities already exposed - of course that is a brilliant insight.
The major lesson I learned at Odyssey House was that power in the hands of those who abuse it will flourish unless there is accountability. When the President and his associates put secrecy, a lack of transparency, and an appeal to blind faith and trust on demand as a virtue in the war on terror - they are completely by passing and overriding the need for accountability.
Let me restate in the most firm and serious way I can- I would trust President Lincoln - but George Bush is no President Lincoln. The President and his associates need to watched very carefully and not allowed to set themselves up as more supreme than the supreme court. If we don't adhere to the principle of checks and balances strictly we are doomed as the great nation we still are but at a major crossroads.
I would encourage the 'opposition' to stick around and learn something. They really do need to come out of that box of fear that they are in (surely in denial of such) and appreciate just what wisdom is available from those they prefer to see as their 'enemy' (falsely).
The bulk of the gather voices on these subjects are not the far left as the right might prefer to think, but just somewhat different than theirs, we do not HAVE TO have such a gap between us if more intuitive insight could be trusted. In the final analysis, we want the same things, we just have different views on how to obtain them.
Peace, j.
Great article and also spend much of my time reading the debate and though I'm not debating myself, (think I got here after the fact) I agree with many points made by both sides. That said, wonderful article and debate, I truly enjoyed it, but am also staying out of it.
I pride myself in consciously trying to be as objective as possible understanding that any position on anything is necessarily processed through each of our own individual filter systems that includes conscious and unconscious associations. But we have little choice than to take a stand particularly on this crucial issue. No?
Here's why you, or I, or so many other people who strongly oppose this administration and its really bad policies will never actually reach those who strongly support it (this, from one of your responses):
"I am no bleeding heart liberal - I am a liberal who has a sensitive heart and a keen analytical mind."
From this perspective, we will never be able to speak to the anger that drives these people on the far-right. We want to lift the entire human race up to the highest standard possible - to always be 'raising the bar', as it were - while they are willing to sink to the lowest standard necessary to make sure they WIN every time.
We wish to set an EXAMPLE of how the human race should strive to take care of itself, while they live by the philosophy of 'an eye for an eye' wanting to make sure they get at least two eyes for every one that's taken from us.
In a way, it comes down to two totally disparate definitions of the concepts of strength, dignity and wisdom. We believe we are stronger (and thus, send a stronger message) if we back up our words with legitimate action, while they believe the ends justify the means... We believe that dignity comes from treating all humans with equality and respect, while they believe that dignity comes from being able to weild power over others, particularly those who disagree with you... We believe that wisdom comes from shared human experience, across the face of the entire planet, while they believe that their technological and economic strength somehow qualifies their relatively limited point of view as wisdom...
I say we'll never 'reach' them, because our reaching them would require a complete redefinition of those very basic concepts. These kinds of redefinitions rarely happen through disembodied debate. It usually takes some type of extreme, highly personal experience to bring about change like that.
Keep writing, though. I certainly plan to. Our audience is neither the extreme right, nor the extreme left. Our audience is the open-minded middle because, despite their wanton hurling of the term "LIBERAL", that is the platform FROM WHICH we are speaking as well.
Also, without clarification by Congress regarding humiliating treatment, a terrorist could simply sue because he was interrogated by a women, or appointed female defense council, or female jurors, judges etc. Today if you are arrested, you could have the "good cop-bad cop" played on you as well. You see it on TV all the time, now even that is in question for an interrogation. What may be degrading to you, is entirely different for someone else. How is a person to know unless this stuff is clarified? Again, Congress must define what those paragraphs in the Accords are to mean to us, and how the military will enforce them.
Remember also that a person doesn't have to be right to sue, or have a case, they can just do it. Since we would be paying for both ends of every case filed, why wouldn't a terrorist want to turn our courts into a traffic jam by ambulance chasing attorneys testing the waters of vague provisions? What if all our laws were written like that, we wouldn't stand for it.
Also for the record, can you name one instance that American troops were ever treated in accordance with those provisions since they were written? Or even before? Japan-NO, Nazi Germany-NO, etc.-NO
Korea-NO, Vietnam-NO, Iraq-NO (1991), Iraq-NO (insurgents/terrorists 2003-), who else?
Can you name one country that ever got in any trouble for violating them?
I think not.
On ABC I heard an interesting remark that Republicans are wrong but appear strong whereas democrats are right but appear weak.
I understand your pessimism but it is hopeful that the country is rather evenly split, and at least some key Republicans seem to be creating some significant problems for the arrogant and self righteous top leadership of the administration.
There apparentoy was a great deal of contentious in fighting in the atmosphere out of which the Constitution of the United States was derived. My conclusion is nothing times nothing equals nothing. Nature abhors a vacuum. No action is experienced as a green light to continue whatever is being done. Therefore the loyal opposition has no other reponsible choice than to speak loud and clear and hope that the middle of a given issue can be pursuaded to side with them. No?
EVIDENCE OF A WOEFUL LACK OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP - DE JA VUE
THE PRESIDENT IS LIKE A DEER CAUGHT IN THE LIGHTS
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976795298
Their 'arguments' are usually simplistic, but they dwell on the finest details that will make 'their' case, arguing those finer (usually irrelevant) points to death, always suggesting that their opponent stay on those topics they provide, where if the can discredit the other for anything, they want to feel that they 'won' on it all.
The most glaring fault though, is that of their narrow-mindedness, a rather selfish view around their 'circle' of what matters to them. They are really very 'short-sighted', on a personal level as well as a societal level. You are either one of them and for them ... or you are against them, in their limited view of misunderstanding the world, where what they cannot control they seek to destroy. Very much fear around protection of the self (ego) involved in all of this.
The more liberal person then is more allowing of grey areas, of the opinions of others. They stay flexible and can change their minds as new information dictates a higher truth (of course the 'other' side calls that flip-flopping as a put-down)(no appreciation of). Actually the liberals are just more about the love of their fellow humans believing all things are related to some degree deserving more compassion and respect.
Many conservatives are not extremely so, but value their view as opposed to those they believe are extremely liberal. Of course the 'voice' of conservatism has been FOX (the tool of the Neo-Con) who claims incessantly that all to their left are liberal, a blatant lie, but it seems to serve their purpose of 'divide and conquer'... I'm ranting again, but all true IMO.
I hear what you're saying, and agree there are aspects of the current legislative proposals that need careful consideration, in the matter of security.
It is the way the lines have been drawn by the administrations proposal that cause my concern, not the overall need to draw them. One obvious problem is hinted at in your language;
"Why should a terrorist?"
I think you meant to say; Someone accused of terrorism...No?
These matters must be dealt with very carefully, when the same accuser gets to decide who falls into a category, and what information is secret...and is then, if we went with the admin. concept, totally free of meaningful consequences if they abuse these powers.
Many simply do not have enough confidence in any government to allow so many arrows to be pointed at someone accused of something.
And many are rather suspicious of the current leadership in particular in such matters. Harsh rhetoric about "terrorist sympathisers" and "loyal Americans" will do that to the minority voices in a society.