Sending a letter to Congress
[quote="Blaze"]I'm utterly ashamed of the lack of response to this. I see lots of people bitch about what's happening in this country, but when it comes to something as simple as saying "add my name to the list", nobody's willing to stand up and be counted.[/quote]
Being goaded and patronized doesn't particularly make me want to help.
Blaze, if somebody can read the whole constitution, soon or later will discover the contraddictions contained into it which will bring to a dictatorship.
Kurt Gödel noticed them back in 1948: http://www.ias.edu/SpFeatures/kurt_godel/godel-2.php
Oh, BTW, I'm glad to be back... in the last months I was quite busy and without a decent line.
Cryusthevirus:
That's an interesting link you posted, though I was disappointed that it didn't go into details about Godel's thoughts about the constitution.
Never-the-less, I can see how this great nation could evolve in that direction.
Blaze: PM sent.
[quote]Being goaded and patronized doesn't particularly make me want to help.[/quote]
Then don't help.
But for the record, I wasn't being patronizing, I was being honest. I am ashamed of the lack of response. Myself and 2 others are doing all the work, the only effort I asked for was and old-school AOL "Me Too!". The fact that this is apparently too much to ask truly bothers me.
And if it takes a little goading to get people to react, then I have no problem whatsoever doing the metaphorical equivalent of walking down the street with a cattle prod.
For 20 years I've had to listen to people denigrate me because I haven't found someone I could stomach voting for. And I'm tired of their patronizing tones when they say "I'm better than you" because they've pulled a lever once every 4 years or stuck a cheap clip-on flag on their car.
In here and elsewhere I've listened to a whole lot of people bitch about what's going on. They say they're disgusted by the state of affairs, and they wish someone would do something about it.
Well.... I'm doing something: I'm speaking up. It's tiny voice, and it's almost assuredly going to be drowned out by the clamor of money, power, and bureaucracy, but I'm saying it. And I'm signing my name to it in big letters. I'm putting my return address on the letter.
I'd say I'm terribly sorry if you feel "patronized and goaded"... but I'd be lying. However, if simply hearing about this bill wasn't enough to push you to add your voice to the message, then I guess the "goading" is pointless.
Add your voice or stay quiet--whatever your conscience dictates. But don't get pissy because I'm following mine.
Blaze, I understand and applaud your motivation. But I'm not sure that the bill bothers me so much. Yes, I love the Constitution, and I believe in it. But from what I can tell, the bill is aimed at people engaged in terrorism against the US, regardless of whether those people are US citizens or not. And anyone who plans or commits a terrorist act has, in my opinion, voluntarily forfeited their Constitutional rights.
Now, I didn't vote for Bush, and I can't say that I trust him to run the country. But I do trust him to fight world terrorism, and I believe that fight needs to continue in full force. I agree that the bill provides great power. Any president who's faced with a challenge will ask for tools to overcome it. And if we can't trust him with those tools, we shouldn't trust him to be president at all.
Maybe I'm being naive here (I've been accused of that many times before) but I'm only saying that the reason why I'm not protesting this bill, the Bush administration, or the occupation of Iraq is because I don't have enough information that they are wrong.
To me, this is more about the long term effects. Sure, one can argue that Bush or someone else wouldn't abuse the powers, but what about a future president with more selfish goals in mind? Laws like these set up a dangerous precedence for our future (and possibly abusive) leaders to build on.
Overall, I have a hard time supporting the concept that the only way to expand the government's ability to do something is by removing the safeguards put in place to prevent the government from abusing it's power.
The thing that has made this country so great is 1) The rules put in place to make the government accountable for it's actions, and 2) the mindset that the beliefs and practices of those in the minority should respected and their rights protected - that there are things the majority aren't allowed to take away from the minority simply because they don't agree with them.
True, Bush wasn't the first president to bend the rules. He's used the actions of past presidents to support is own actions. But now he's opening doorways that can lead to worse abuses of power in the future, and a future abusive leader will use Bush's actions as justification for his or her own.
The people are the final guardians of what we hold dear about this country. If were not willing to stand up and be heard, how can we expect the government to recognize our voice in the future?
EDIT:
And where did this attitude that human rights are only for the privileged come from? What parent (other than a bad one) teaches their child that they should, "treat Billy, Jamie, and Stacey with kindness and respect. But you can be mean to Roger if you want to - he doesn't live in our community."
Nothing good can come from making monsters out of another group as it only works to prolong a conflict. Look at the conflict between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and the conflict between Isreal and the Palestinians. These conflicts have lasted as long as they have because each side believes the other to be a monster - and monsters do not need to be treated respectfully or afforded rights.
Bush has worked hard to put in the mind-set of the American people that he is chasing after monsters. In reality, he is chasing after human beings. Not all of those he has captured are guilty, but he's already branded them all as monsters. So he has no reason to be concerned about the innocent lives he destroys.
[quote="mcavic"]Blaze, I understand and applaud your motivation. But I'm not sure that the bill bothers me so much. Yes, I love the Constitution, and I believe in it. But from what I can tell, the bill is aimed at people engaged in terrorism against the US, regardless of whether those people are US citizens or not. And anyone who plans or commits a terrorist act has, in my opinion, voluntarily forfeited their Constitutional rights.[/quote]
And this, right here, is the very heart of the issue. This law, should it be enforced, treats an accusation as a decree of guilt.
There is a concept which is both built upon and enshrined within not only our Constitution, but the totality of our legal system: "Innocent unless proven guilty".
You say you're okay with this becuase it's "aimed at people engaged in terrorism". But how do we know they've been engaged in terrorism if it hasn't been proven in a court of law? Why is it that only the President and Attorney General get to decide who gets placed in the category of "Unlawful Combatant" (and, before the lawyers even get to it, there have been several interpretations of the wording of the bill which say that it can apply to US Citizens).
Do you realized that hundreds of people who have been detained for years have never even been charged with a crime of any kind? Do you understand that this law would allow courts to convict (and execute) persons without letting them even see the evidence against them?
Do you realize that this law would blatantly and directly ignore 2 sections of the Constitution--not even Amendments, but rules laid forth in Article 1:
[quote="Article 1, Section 9"]"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."[/quote]
[quote="Article III, Section 2"]The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.[/quote]
[quote="s3930 Sec 6 e"](1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/quote]
Translation: Habeus corpus is suspended at the will of the President.
[quote="Article 1, Section 9"]"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."[/quote]
[quote="s3930"] Sec 4, Subchapter I, 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter, sections 904 and 906 of this title (articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
Sec 6.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.[/quote]
Translation: This law covers everything we've done for the last 5 years and retroactively makes it legal.
If you truly believe in the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the balance of powers of the 3 branches of the US Government as laid out by that Constitution, then you can not support this law. It is both arrogant and egregious in its defiance of the Constitution--in its letter and its spirit. It is a violation of the principles upon which this nation was founded, and it sets both a precedent and a structure which are terrifying to anyone who understands the temptations of power and the corruptibility inherent in its nature.
Our Constitution was written not by those sitting in comfortable offices as an exercise in political discourse, but by men who understood war in a very personal way; men who had taken up arms against their oppressors; men who incited sedition; men who perpetrated treason. These were men who risked not only their names, but their honor and their very lives.
Even so, united as they were against the tyranny and injustice from which they had so recently freed themselves, they still argued vehemently amongst themselves as to the course which would hold best to the Path of justice and freedom. That Path has guided us, and remained True, for 220 years. It has survived 2 World Wars; 40 years of the "Balance of Terror", countless declared wars, "police actions" and "military operations"; and even the armed rebellion and attempted secession of half of its member states. It has become the template upon which the industrialized nations have built their reforms, and towards which the growing nations strive.
The bill which has stood before Congress, and which now lays upon the desk of the President, is an unforgivable insult to every man and woman who has taken up arms--literal or figurative--in the defense of the Constitution and the principles upon which it was written. It is an insult to those who have sworn to uphold its ideals. And it is an insult to the 39 men who put ink to parchment in the autumn of 1787.
If we, as a nation and as a people, are willing to cast aside its instructions and its intent when presented with a challenge... if we are willing to make exceptions for those we fear... if we are willing to sacrifice justice for expediency... then we no longer have any right to those protections for ourselves.
When the law decides to whom it applies, it loses its authority. When the definition of a "person" depends upon the nation in which they were born, we cease to be people.
When Justice is reserved only for “those who deserve it”, then it ceases to exist.
America isn’t about “us” and “them”. It isn’t about “beating the bad guys at any cost”. It’s about Truth, and Justice, and Freedom. And when we sacrifice any of those, we sacrifice them all. When we forget that they require struggle and blood and sacrifice, we renounce any claim of moral superiority.
If a few hundred men with hatred in their hearts can cause us to throw away the very soul of our righteousness, then we have already lost. We deserve neither our powers nor our freedoms--for we have already surrendered ourselves over to avarice and evil, and given tyranny the power it desires.
Just because he has a large ego doesn't mean he's wrong.
Yes, it's arrogant to take the stance he has, however, I have to agree with him on this one. If you've read this bill and understood its intent, and can *still* support it, you're wrong. There is no discussion here. Anything as broad sweeping that would allow our government to declare me an enemy combatant simply for expressing my displeasure at the current state of affairs is FUCKED. If you can't tell, I feel somewhat passionate about this, not so much because of the rights that are being stripped away, but because most fucking people I talk to seem to think this is ok.
This is NOT ok.
This is NOT acceptable.
This. Is. WRONG.
And they fucking know it.
According to this, I no longer have the right to see the evidence against me if I'm charged with a crime under this bill? What the FUCK? Explain that to me. If you can make a rational explanation for that, I'll eat my goddam shoe.
And now they're making things retroactively legal and illegal? What the hell happened to ex post facto laws? Oh, that's right - they were inconvenient, so they've decided to get rid of them. Don't worry though - as long as we're safe, right?
The whole fucking thing makes me sick, and the level of apathy and ignorance I'm seeing here* is astonishing.
* - "here" does not mean "on this board" nor is it directed at any one person. I'm referring to the US as a whole.
[quote="scoops"]heh... man, that's some ego...[/quote]
Despotism has never been defeated by humility. And this bill is a long stride down the path of despotism.
[quote]he's ashamed of everyone that doesn't jump on his bandwagon.[/quote]
Actually, I'm ashamed that there aren't thousand bandwagons saying the same thing. I'm sorely dissapointed that I had to create a "bandwagon".
But most of all, I find it appallingly shameful that people aren't standing up and saying "This is wrong!"; that they aren't shouting it in clear and strident tones to those they've chosen to represent them.
I'm disgusted that the American peole are apathetically handing over powers that Augusto Pinochet had to take and retain by force of arms.
Am I arrogant? Damn straight I am!
I am also passionate, angry, scared, loud, agressive, and justly righteous.
You don't like the messenger? I really don't care. But if you ignore the message, it's not only your neck that will be feeling the rope.
hey, you're preaching to the choir... i've been writing letters to my congressman for years concerning the homeland security debacle..
but... this falls in line with a number of other rights that we've given up along the way. Where were you guys screaming when the Brady Bill was passed?
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller
"Kings will be tyrants from policy when subjects are rebels from principle." Edmund Burke
"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them …" George Mason
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
Let's just forget for a second that he's an extremely strong-willed, stubborn and aggressive person.
I think the whole thing sounds really scary and I'm glad I'm Canadian. Lets hope we can stay our own country at least until Bush is out of power. By then, hopefully, the next guy will ammend the mess your current president is making. Because he is most definitely making a mess and trying to take away all your rights for your own "protection"... which is wrong. If you have no rights, you can't protect yourself from your outside enemies, let alone your government, should they decide to do something you disagree with. It's like trying to fight off a schoolyard bully as a quadraplegic. Hell, Canada could walk in and take you over if Bush turned a blind eye. And we all know what that means: igloos and dogsleds for everyone.
Marg
I know, I know, haha, look at the cute little Canadians with their water guns.
All jokes aside, the Canadian army is actually quite the world-class affair... I live next door to CFB Petawawa, and let me tell you, they really are a force to be reckoned with. I think we'd kick your gun-toting westerners asses any day ;)
Marg
Joined: 2006-05-20