"And Bert, well I just guess that Bert is typical of the kind who complain about "Big Brother" while asking the same big brother to fix all of their problems."
The above comment was posted in a thread that I was participating in recently. My first response was to reject it. And then, I thought some more and decided that the commenter was correct.
But the problem is, Big Brother is a schizophrenic, a clear case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I love the good things that government does, and loathe the bad.
I believe that government can do worthwhile things for its citizenry. In the early days of our nation, this may not have been as important or essential as it is now. The land was huge, and mostly uninhabited. People could do pretty much whatever they pleased with it and their neighbors were so far distant that it didn't matter. But as the population grew, what one person did…clear-cut his forest, dig mines, build a factory that spewed toxic fumes…affected his neighbors, polluting the air that they breathed and the water that they drank, poisoning their land with toxic runoff. Regulation of business became necessary to protect the many from the actions of a few. This was part of the same system of laws that protects the populace from criminals. Few would argue that such restraints are unnecessary.
This benevolent Big Brother protects us from all kinds of harm, both from criminals in our midst, and from attacks from foreign powers…or terrorists. It also protects us from individuals who value the profitability of their business above any harm done to neighbors…or to the environment as a whole. These are indeed problems that I expect our government to "fix," and I am guilty as charged.
On the other hand, when government attempts to sidestep the law, invading the personal privacy of citizens, or ignoring the Constitutional rights of people they have imprisoned, even engaging in medieval torture, I deplore these actions of a tyrannical Big Brother. Once again, I am guilty as charged.
But unlike the tortured character in Robert Louis Stevenson's story, government is not all good or all evil, and the definition of good and evil are often in the eye of the beholder. Regulation of business is often seen as arbitrary and meddlesome by the captains of industry, and in some cases it has clearly been heavy-handed. On the other side, social welfare systems that provide no incentive for individuals to work and provide for themselves are destructive of the social fabric and ultimately unaffordable by those who must pay the bill.
If you asked every citizen in our nation what government should do and what it should not do you would have as many opinions as there are citizens. There would be some commonality, but everybody has their own "ax to grind." Personal biases, political philosophies: Conservative Republicans and Libertarians would mostly agree that smaller and less intrusive government is better. Liberals like me favor government intervention to provide "safety nets" for people…unemployment and disability insurance, affordable healthcare, education incentives, etc.
But there are a whole range of issues that are not as obvious…subsidies for things ranging from agricultural products to oil wells to ethanol to renewable energy and hybrid cars. How about the regulation of the crashworthiness of cars, or worker safety, or the minimum wage, or worker's rights to organize and strike, especially in "essential" industries?
Things get murky in a hurry when you start examining the details and assigning some to Dr. Jekyll and some to Mr. Hyde.
But I think every one of us is guilty of demanding services from our government that we want or need, and of complaining about paying for those that we don't need but other people do.
Each of us is guilty of loving and loathing our government.
And each of us has our own reasons for both.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
Yes, Bert, as Jim G. said, great article, as usual.
As far as the tyrannical side of the government...we often ask for governmental tyranny. We ask to be babied, bottle feed and over protected. We get from the government what we ask. It is too easy to forget that WE are in charge. WE do the hiring and WE do the firing and right now, we need to do a whole bunch of firing. When one group of government employees operates in a lawless manner and another group of government employees allows this lawless behavior....both of these two groups needs to be replaced AND I'm not really sure who's actions are the most despicable, those of the lawless or those of their enablers....or us, the voters who stand by and accept the tyranny and lawless actions.
I remember a (weak) civic effort of the seventies, I believe, in which the plan was to not re-elect any incumbent member of Congress. Fire 'em all and hire new congressmen. Sounds like an effort that needs to be reconsidered.
I have a few things to share in response to your article. I'm pretty much pasting from a couple of comments I posted, one just minutes ago in response to one of David K.'s Lincoln quotes:
If this is tedious speech I want more of it. They don't make Republicans like Lincoln anymore. If they did, I would probably cross party lines.
Such wisdom from a man with the most humble of beginnings leads me to wish for the simpler times when such diamonds-in-the-rough could be brought to the surface to shine.
What a stark contrast to Mr. Bush who can barely speak in sentences, and when managed offers little in the way of wisdom. The anti-intellectual Decider.
Sometimes I think the country would best be served by a consortium of grandmothers, all sitting in a circle in the Oval Office talking about the issues of the day while they sew squares of each state for the national quilt.
"Sally, dear, will you please pass the potato salad and that there Omnibus Spending Bill?"
"Esther, look at the budget for this Star Wars thingy, it's outrageous. Let's give it to the little ones in school instead. The military can have their own damn bake sale!"
"Emma says her boy Ray can't get medical insurance because of something called a pre-existing condition. How can it be good for the country if people can't be taken care of? By the way, Sally, you have a little potato salad on your chin."
Michael H...You are certainly right about waste in government...and corruption, especially with the current bunch. It takes continued vigilance to root it out, and We the People have a very short attention span.
Regarding WE the People being in charge, that is true in theory, but the oligarchy that runs things has established a political process that pretty much ignores the needs of most people. It responds to MONEY from ORGANIZED GROUPS, and most people don't belong to politically active groups, nor do they contribute much, if any, money to political causes...apathy and poverty are the barriers to political power for We the People.
Mike W...I love your consortium of grandmothers. We would certainly have a kinder and gentler nation if grandmothers ran it.
Stephanie...as Michael says, We the People can clean it up...as soon as we start paying attention.
Sandy...yeah, 'government policy' has a nice official ring, but that government is supposed to represent US, and in the case of the 'policies' of the current bunch running things in Washington, it's clear that they are not. Just look at the approval ratings, and look at the smug face of our leader. What do his 'policies' have to do with We the People?
They keep me from needing medication for my low blood pressure. Other than that, nothing good.
The Democrats have allowed the Republican administration to run wild, with no accountability and flagrant disregard for the law. The fate of this country now lies on the shoulders of the people....the voters who can vote every offending elected official OUT of office with the notice that ineffectiveness will not be tolerated. Lying will not be tolerated, breaking our laws will not be tolerated and the silence of those who enable the actions of the liars and law breakers will not be tolerated.
Pie in the sky? Have I oversimplified this situation? Maybe...but the point is valid. Power is only taken...it is never given. We will never be given our ability to impose our will on our government...we must take the authority.
1. You are thinking and questioning.
2. You recognize the dichotomy in your thoughts and take responsibility for them.
3. You show a high degree of self-awareness.
4. To live is to encounter the paradoxes of life, including life vs death, past vs future, more vs less, and appropriately and effectively dealing with them.
5. I wish others could grow in self-awareness to see life's paradoxes and to realize that none of us has a corner on Being Right all the time.
You are why I still come to Gather. Thank you.
Yes, Bert, we want the government to protect us from criminals, terrorists and unscrupulous corporations, but there's a fine line between protecting the law-abiding citizens and infringing on the rights of the criminals, terrorists and corporations.
It's why we complain about government but also why, in the end, it is working for all of us.
I think a more accurate statement would be "but there's a fine line between protecting the law-abiding citizens and infringing on the rights of the ALLEGED or ACCUSED criminals or terrorists or a corporation that has ALLEGEDLY engaged in unlawful acts. Once guilt has been proved...the guilty give up most of their rights...although not willfully.
That's what I mean about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
What I was saying is that the government has taken on the task of protecting its citizenry from "the bad guys" (for lack of more eloquent terminology). Doing a proficient job of protecting us from the bad guys and protecting the rights of law-abiding population is a tough balancing act that cannot avoid criticism from the civil rights and security perspective.
We all know this quote...I think it is one of the most meaningful things that Benjamin Franklin ever said...and he said a lot of meaningful things.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As I said before, about the baby and the bathwater.
The result of this, in a free and open society, is that some innocent people may end up injured or killed. If instead, we destroy our free and open society in order to catch every single bad guy...who has won?
Not We the People.
And your quote there works both ways. If you give up security for freedom, you stand to lose both as well.
As I said before, it's a tough balancing act that will always be critized from both sides. That pretty much tells me that, for the most part, it's working.
You KNOW I'm not saying that.
"And your quote there works both ways. If you give up security for freedom, you stand to lose both as well."
It IS a balancing act but you may not lose both...one may be secure without being free. This would not be acceptable to me.
Our country was founded upon the principals of freedom...as much freedom as possible without harming or causing danger to another. How much freedom are YOU willing to give up Dan...to secure your safety and security? What is your tipping point? Is the government, as you say, "working for all of us." ? Hardly. My perspective is subjective to my personal definition of risk...my personal requirement for freedom and liberty.
I don't agree that for the most part, the "tough balancing act" is working. I believe we have had our civil liberties violated beyond what is necessary and certainly beyond the bounds our Constitution describes.
I don't propose that we tear down the Constitution or that we trample on people's rights. What is my tripping point? I'm not sure because I haven't been unfortunate enough to feel like my rights have ever been invaded.
So, Michael, what is your answer? How do you propose to protect everybody without infringing on anybody's rights. That's the ultimate goal, but until something better comes along, I think what we're doing is insufficient, but better than any alternatives I know of.
Specifically, in terms of recent Constitutional violations...AND with reference to violations of decent human behavior...I'll give the the passage of the most recent FISA legislation...modifications of the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the subsequent USA Patriot Act of 2001, the TSA ACT of 2006 and the Protect America Act of 2007. I won't go into the specifics of my objects here...but let's just distill my objections to the warrantless wiretaps and surveillance.
Also I object to the policy of arrest (they call it detention) without charges and without council or even communication to plead for legal aid...or even to argue a wrong identity arrest.
Or how about this? (Copied from an ACLU e-mail letter)..."With no suspicion and no explanation, the U.S. government can seize your laptop, cell phone, or PDA as you enter the United States and download all your private information -- including your personal and business documents, emails, phone calls, and web history. The Department of Homeland Security confirms that this is the official policy."
I'm not going to go on with this Dan. If you don't feel YOUR rights have been violated, then you consider yourself to be individual and separate from the rest of our population and nothing which happens to other Americans affects you. If you approve of torture...as policy of our government...because YOU have not been tortured, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
If you're OK being unsafe, that's OK by me.
If you think that these tactics haven't been used in past, you're gravely mistaken. Wrong as it may have been, I'm sure that the U.S. took many extreme steps that led to victory in WW-I & WW-II. In today's up-to-the-second and in-your-face-all-the-time media, these actions are easily exposed and presented to the populsation -- including to those who wish to harm us.
Maybe this is why the war in the Middle East is lingering -- because all of the tactics that we didn't want to know or hear about (and didn't have to in the past) are now shown to us on a daily basis.
Do you think we are COMPLETELY safe today, Dan? If not, then you must favor even more infringement of our civil rights and personal privacy. And even then, we will not be COMLETELY safe, so even further oppression would be justified, right?
If you feel that NONE of your rights have been trampled at this point, then, as Michael says, either you don't care about anyone but yourself, (because others clearly have been oppressed) or you don't HAVE a tipping point.
Your argument that "these tactics" are justified because they have been used in the past would suggest that we should also go back to slavery, or to internment of innocent people as we did during WWII to the our loyal Japanese citizens...oh, excuse me, that is EXACTLY what we are doing today to the people in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and who knows what other secret CIA prisons around the world.
The war in the Middle East is lingering because we are there, unwelcome, unwanted by the Iraqis (except the puppet government we have set up) and condemned by the rest of the world. Are you suggesting that it would be over if we had created a news blackout and then commited whatever atrocities we needed to win?
Secondly, Bert, this is one of the best pieces I have ever read on Gather. I thank you for it. I heard an author speaking the other day about the present Republicans wanting everything to be privatized, based on the belief that when a profit is the motive, then things will get done more efficiently with higher quality. That is a gross misconception. I think everybody who has been a client of a large corporation, or has worked for a large corporation knows that that is not the case.
And even if that was the case, the author points out that when government controls something, the people have a say. They are accountable to the people of this country. When business controls something, they are only accountable to their stockholders, and even then only the stockholders who control the majority of the voting shares. This is the critical difference. I would rather have the final say on things which are critical to our survival and sustinance, such as education, support programs, health, infrastructure and security. And I would also like to have a say in the regulation of things I do not control, such as food sources and commerce.
There is no reason why government cannot run efficiently. That is an excuse for taking responsibilities away from people. If I give my child a chore, and they do not do it, or do not do it well, it is my responsibility to make sure they DO get it done, and get it done well. This is the fundamental responsibility that we are ignoring in this country.
I have some faint hope that if Obama is elected, we might see some tentative steps in that direction.
If I give my child a chore, and they do not do it, or do not do it well, it is my responsibility to make sure they DO get it done, and get it done well. This is the fundamental responsibility that we are ignoring in this country. This perfect analogy (in my opinion) is another example of how divided this country is. As perfect as I think this is, there are just as many people who think we are damaging the child's self-esteem by pointing out that the chore was not done well.
Sheryl was talking about the current Republican dogma being "privatisation of everything." Here in Britain we have the same type of policy from our current Government but our government is of The Labour Party, a nominally social democratic movement.
So how can a party whose right wing should be well to the left of the most left wing U.S. Democrats be the most enthusiastic supporter of privatisation and market forces in Europe.
I think the answer is that in the English speaking democracies we have lost sight of the fact that the elected representitives we send into The House of Representatives or Parliament are elected to serve the people. Wh have been tricked into voting for a party rather than an individual and the politicians have taken the route of least resistance and serve their party not their constituency.
We need to demand that our representatives start acting in the interests of the consituency that elected them and not according to the whim of the Party managers.
I know how to cure your low blood pressure without medication dear ;-)
(I could use a hug right now.)
ps - just got back from a Rotary meeting where our District Gov spoke - he said that one of the perceptions of Rotary that he would like to dispel is of a group which is "Pale, Male and Stale"...I think that would make an excellent campaign slogan for John McCain, would it not?
Whenever a dispute would come up in my family, my mother would always say, "Let's get to the bottom of this." I've been thinking of writing about that concept in relation to campaign finance. Another good line would be "Follow the money." One issue is the quality of the representative, Ian, but another is to whom the representative feels they have to answer......their constituents? Or, the people who financed their bid for and election to office. Too often, it's the latter who wins.
One very important place to start, which would kill the folks like George Will who screams about campaign finance reform squashing his Constitutional Rights, would be to limit finance donations to only those politicians in the state in which you live, or where your main office is located.
Ian, I refuse to listen to Rush. Reading Gather and eating salty snacks is working well for my bp.
Not if this grandmother had a say. I'd be taking names, kicking ass and putting my knitting needles to much better use than making baby booties. And I'm very good at creating punishments to fit crimes...ask Sandy.
That total safety doesn't exist in Islam, Capitalism, Marxism, Fascism, totalitarianism or any place but as a theoretical construct.
Absolutely excellent article Bert!
Oh Sheryl . . . A slogan is born!!
Problem is that government is amoral and its one mission is to expand and grow. I think few would argue (except a Bush hater on reflex) that most bureaucrats/politicians are actually evil. But the end effect is often just that, the government most liberals want has to be strong enough to take from others to give away or have funding to operate. This means power that is increasingly over the last 80 years nibbled away from many's basic liberities. Advances for some groups to bring them the same rights as the majority have also seen the entire political body entrapped in more regulation and law.
This government monster is out of control and has been for decades. The last politician popular and slick enough to control it failed as he was fatally focused on the foreign threat. That was over 20 years ago and the country is so divided now presidents are elected/reelected by tiny percentage points. Incumbent politicos are reelected over 90% of the time.
Beware wishing for a government strong enough to do all you want because as the saying goes, it is also strong enough to take all it wants.
I totally disagree, Charles. "Government" is simply a collection of people who we elect to represent us and who are hired to do our work. There is no mandate to "expand and grow". There are simply bad representatives who place a value on personal power over service. And those are the people, on both sides of the aisle, who try to get control over more and more money for their own gain. It is the people who are amoral and unethical sometimes...and we can vote them out, but have no control over the leaders of a large corporation.
Anyway, the Truth of our universe is (+=-) where the agent of God is the (=) that connects every dichotomy, polar opposition there is or could ever be ... thus there is nothing that doesn't have a spiritual interconnected relationship that makes all opposites even equals in the spiritual sense ... if we only knew this we could all quit lying to each other thinking we can fool and deceive our way into a better condition at the expense of the fool who believed us ...
If we once knew that God was involved in the Trinity of what we are all a part of, the (+=-) where each part is necessary to complete the whole, then we would not be ashamed for not being like "the" standard model of "perfection as (+) ... because "that" is a false ideal because the real truth (+=-) and those that deal in truth can be themselves (perfect as the whole person they could be) without shame and/or guilt which "seems" to always call for a lie of some magnitude to cover it up, even if only to the self ... the worst kind because when the self believes a lie it begins to act like it were the actual truth and everyone becomes confused.
We have a world with no decent direction because there is so much lying and deceit that it is taken as the norm anymore.
The truth is the ONLY thing that will ever set us free from our problems ... but guilt, fear, and shame always seem to demand a lie to cover them up. Seek, demand, and use truth only !!!
Great article by the way Bert.
I also realize that there are those on Gather that want to only read and write what they want also ... most of which seldom has anything to do with serious issues around world problems ... please express yourself more distinctly here so we can get down to specifics ...
As for those "others", all they have to do is ignore it all ... I assume that most everyone does that already.
"I think few would argue (except a Bush hater on reflex) that most bureaucrats/politicians are actually evil. "
You couldn't be more wrong on this. Typical cynical GOP thinking that government cannot be good, helpful or efficient, followed by people who believe this running for office with an agenda to prove how inefficient it is. Perhaps the inherent belief in the evil of politicians explains why criminal Republican politicians become heroes and hop about like one-legged midgets on fire whenever they see a Democrat caught involved in some crime. Charles, you talk about the government as if it were some "other" entity. WE are the government. It does what WE allow it to do.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Person to person there are very few that could understand and fewer yet that are at all interested because their life priorities are "normal" and normal people are not at all interested in the esoteric metaphysical and spiritual things that are not related to their 5 sensory objective physical experience of life ... they put no stock whatsoever into there being an a-priori spiritual "energy" that actually "empowers" that which we are and do ...
So I talk to very few people about it all, almost none, though I used to try at first, but I learned my lessons ... thus I wrote a book and write here on Gather with the outside chance that some rare individual takes an interest and reads my book (free downloads) to help himself and thus the world ...
I explain in the book that the "message" is more for the male and not the female, for two reasons ... one, that the female, in being far more intuitive than men, already knows this message deep within their soul and use it (unaware) in the way they already think. But the male who naturally breaks everything down into pieces of rationality and logic, just because of the way we are "wired," could, if willing, make much more sense of the "equation" .... but it is NOT rational on the surface to anyone, because "ego" perceptions are "non-spiritual" and thus deal in dualism only, never naturally allowing the triad symbolism of the trinity that is actually involved at the spiritual level.
It being men that predominately "run" this world "patriarchally", it is men that NEED this message, and thus the symbolisms are designed for men ...
If the computer allowed, or if I were in person discussing this with an interested party, I would draw some pictures also that would make it all come together so much better and save many thousands of words in the process ... here on Gather I have to do with what I have ...
I realize that I appear absolutely crazy to many people if not most ... but I know also those perceptions would be that of the ego view and there is no way around that other than my suggesting that people try to set that view aside for a while because my message is all about just that ... thus, only those who are ready, will attempt to understand, and it is only those few I seek ... all the rest can ignore or complain with criticisms ... whatever they feel like ... my ego is no longer exactly like everyone else's, so I can usually put up with more negativity aimed at me than most would ... had I a normal ego, I would not dare to appear so un-normal and subject myself to peer criticism ... but I do employ my ego in the service of my higher Self to "speak the language" of "opposing" egos on occasion ... quite often really.
To keep this comment "somewhat" on thread, my "condition" has been seen by some as also "schizophrenic" to some extent ... but only those who do not understand would make that claim. :-)
Those who actually WORK FOR the secret folks are the ones that make up the ADVISORS and CABINET MEMBERS that we are "supposed" to believe that our "president" picks ... think about that for a moment folks ... can you really see GWB being smart enough to pick those kind of folks ... ??? Common sense would dictate that those selections are done on another level above our familiarity.
IMnsHO.
1. "Do you think we are COMPLETELY safe today, Dan? If not, then you must favor even more infringement of our civil rights and personal privacy. And even then, we will not be COMLETELY safe, so even further oppression would be justified, right?"
==> Of course I don't believe that were completely safe. It's a nice goal, but I don't know that it can ever be realized. And I'm not in favor of more infringement on our rights. As I've said before, balancing civil rights with protection is a tedious balancing act.
2. "If you feel that NONE of your rights have been trampled at this point, then, as Michael says, either you don't care about anyone but yourself, (because others clearly have been oppressed) or you don't HAVE a tipping point."
===> Trampled? No. Compromised, possibly. Most of those who's rights have been oppressed are more the result of government officials abusing their position or because of actions they have committed than because of any laws. As an example, I'd much prefer government agents using Internet sniffers to identify, then use decoys to entrap pedophiles intending to harm children -- as long as they discard any "out of scope" information collected.
3. "Your argument that "these tactics" are justified because they have been used in the past would suggest that we should also go back to slavery, or to internment of innocent people as we did during WWII to the our loyal Japanese citizens...oh, excuse me, that is EXACTLY what we are doing today to the people in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and who knows what other secret CIA prisons around the world."
===> I don't believe that slavery helped us win a war. I don't believe I ever implied that. Let's keep our eye on the ball, shall we? I also believe that the internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese (or any other) descent was wrong. I think that's since been addressed. As far as those in Gitmo and Abu Graib, I feel the same way. I think that U.S. citizens should not be there, but should be in U.S. cells, awaiting trial in our courts. (However, if SUFFICIENT evidence can show that the person was fighting for the enemy, then they go to one of the camps.) The vast majority of the alleged abuse of the prisoners is performed outside the law and the perpetrators need to be punished -- again an abuse of the law, not caused by the law -- except for waterboarding, which I think is wrong and should be discontinued. Again it's a tough call. As long as these prisoners are in the camps we MIGHT get information (however useful it may or may not be), but as long as they're in the camps their not fighting our soldiers or attacking our civilians. Is that right? Maybe not, but give me a better answer.
4. "The war in the Middle East is lingering because we are there, unwelcome, unwanted by the Iraqis (except the puppet government we have set up) and condemned by the rest of the world. Are you suggesting that it would be over if we had created a news blackout and then commited whatever atrocities we needed to win?"
===> The first part of this statement is opinion, unless you've been there. I've heard interviews of people who've been their who completely agree with what you say as well as from people who observed the exact opposite. I'm sure that they all have agendas, so it's hard to tell, from my perspective, whom to believe. As for the tactics? I've heard that all is fair in love and war. I hate that these things happen, but I also hate the thought of what the world would be like today had the Axis won WW-II.
In conclusion, I'll say what I've said all along. Changes are needed. Things aren't perfect and probably never will be. Protecting civil rights along with personal and national security is a tough balancing act, that we're doing a pretty good job with (and need to do better).
The problem is that most of what I hear are complaints about the current approach without real alternative solutions.
Maybe we should ...
- stop the Internet sniffing,
- stop the wiretapping,
- free everyone in Gitmo, Abu Graib & other camps,
- stop profiling
... and hope for the best. Believe it or not, I can actually live with that. If it works, we all live happily ever after. If not, and chaos reigns, we'll take the necessary steps to end the chaos. Unfortunately, if that happens, you'll see a whole new definition of "trampling our civil rights".
Can you live with that, Bert?
We appear to disagree in degrees and details and agree on principles.
But the devil is in the details.
From your comment above:
1. You agree that we need to balance civil rights and protection, and I agree with that. But in your earlier comment to Michael, you said, "If you're okay being unsafe, that's okay by me." From this, I conclude that you are "okay" with erosion of our civil rights to achieve security, and yet you concede that we can never be completely safe. So...I guess I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here.
2. You quibble about "trampled" vs. "compromised." I won't bother with the word games, but you go on to say that the only problem is "government officials abusing their position..." Like our President, and his warrantless wiretapping, when a legal process was in place and he refused to use it? Ignored it? I can't just dismiss that as you seem to be able to do. It is a CONCERTED and DELIBERATE campaign to undermine our civil rights, and the impetus for it goes right to the very top of our government.
3. Hoo boy, where to start. We are holding these people outside of US territory...in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and who-knows-how-many other places SPECIFICALLY to avoid having to treat them according to the Constitution, which clearly states that ANYBODY in the US, citizen or not, is subject to US laws and HAS A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. So holding them in military prisons off US soil is a deplorable tactic designed specifically to subvert their human rights. If you don't have a problem with that, please tell me why. Then you go on to say, well, torture and waterboarding are bad, and the perpetrators should be punished. Hahahaha! We will never know about all the stuff that goes on there, so who is going to punish them? Get real! And finally, you seem to condone the violation of their human rights, because since they are "detained" they can't attack us. But you forget one thing. They have never been accused, never been tried and found guilty, so you do not KNOW if they are even a threat to us. You are assuming their guilt...and that is a very UnAmerican thing to do, because our system of laws ASSUMES innocence, not guilt. Your thinking on this belongs in the Middle Ages, Dan.
4. "All's fair in love and war." What a great rationalization for whatever atrocities you would like to commit. I can't believe that you really said that seriously.
And finally...nobody said we should "free all the people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. There are definitely some bad people there. But would it be such a great threat and burden to the United States of America to treat these people as we would treat any other accused criminal, and apply our judicial process to determine their guilt? Doesn't that seem like a reasonable thing to do?
The only reason it is opposed, I suspect, is that the government does not have sufficient evidence in many cases to get a conviction. And so, instead, we hold them indefinitely in jail, unable to contact their families or legal counsel. I am ashamed, and you should be too.
I agree with all Doyle said in response to this and would like to add that I wonder how the person who made this original comment would function without government and ask if he thinks every person is evil. If not, why doesn't he encourage people who are not evil to run for political offices.
I think it's a great idea. But I wonder if Congress and the President would agree.