As to the expression of the will of The People. Through our franchise as citizens to vote, also our right to redress our grievances to the government through the first amendment. Basically by throwing the bums out at election time, and putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience.
You want the army to be loyal to The Will of the People as expressed by "putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience?"
I want our representatives to actually represent us. The system is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. The people aren't Federal property and the Military isn't supposed to be a club that the Executive office can use where ever, when ever, how every they please.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
As to the expression of the will of The People. Through our franchise as citizens to vote, also our right to redress our grievances to the government through the first amendment. Basically by throwing the bums out at election time, and putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience.
You want the army to be loyal to The Will of the People as expressed by "putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience?"
I want our representatives to actually represent us.
So . . . you want them to take public opinion polls and vote accordingly? Or, in the president's case, command accordingly?
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
A lot of conservatives have this strange idea that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens. I have no idea where the fuck it came from (certainly not the actual text), but its there.
EDIT: Of course that doesn't apply to this case because, you know, US Citizens being tortured.
It really does break my brain. How does the supposed "law and order" party end up being OK with detaining a US citizen without a warrant, without charge, for YEARS, while torturing him?
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
A lot of conservatives have this strange idea that the Constitution doesn't apply.
Fixed.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
Perhaps, but there are enough along that bend to blot out the sky.
moniker on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
As to the expression of the will of The People. Through our franchise as citizens to vote, also our right to redress our grievances to the government through the first amendment. Basically by throwing the bums out at election time, and putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience.
You want the army to be loyal to The Will of the People as expressed by "putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience?"
I want our representatives to actually represent us.
So . . . you want them to take public opinion polls and vote accordingly? Or, in the president's case, command accordingly?
I would like it if more people took their citizen-ship seriously, and accept the responsibilities that come with it. We have a participatory form of government. There are more ways to participate than going to the voting booth as well. So no, I don't want the government to run polls, I want Americans to do what we used to value highly as a nation, and get involved. We used to be a nation of activists, for the most part. With the communication potential that the information age has brought us, I don't see why we shouldn't exercise our rights to bring the government to task when they step outside the very clear boundaries laid out in our founding documents.
Instead, for the most part, we allow Olbermann and Hannity to do our speaking for us (and at us), and we sit on the couch like bobble heads.
When exactly was this mythical time you're referring to?
There are periods where people have organized and changed our society, many times for the better. The labor movement is one example that immediately comes to mind.
edit: And more recently there was the Vietnam war era, where public protest and civil disobedience changed much in our society rapidly.
edit two: Matter of fact we've had leaders rise out of these movements. John Kerry for example.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
I'm not really certain I want to convince people of a conservative bent. I want to prosecute people who break laws designed to protect citizenry from oppressive governments.
I can deal with yet another straw on the "Obama secretly selling us to France" pile.
When exactly was this mythical time you're referring to?
There are periods where people have organized and changed our society, many times for the better. The labor movement is one example that immediately comes to mind.
Those people did not constitute a majority of the populace, and we are not left wanting for more activists. DC is full of them, arguing their case.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
Perhaps, but there are enough along that bend to blot out the sky.
Maybe, but we are depending on a popular government to bend the bow.
So I'd say that if our aim is closing a historical and legal precedent, torture is the top priority and domestic law is the way to get it done.
As to the expression of the will of The People. Through our franchise as citizens to vote, also our right to redress our grievances to the government through the first amendment. Basically by throwing the bums out at election time, and putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience.
You want the army to be loyal to The Will of the People as expressed by "putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience?"
I want our representatives to actually represent us.
So . . . you want them to take public opinion polls and vote accordingly? Or, in the president's case, command accordingly?
I would like it if more people took their citizen-ship seriously, and accept the responsibilities that come with it. We have a participatory form of government. There are more ways to participate than going to the voting booth as well. So no, I don't want the government to run polls, I want Americans to do what we used to value highly as a nation, and get involved. We used to be a nation of activists, for the most part. With the communication potential that the information age has brought us, I don't see why we shouldn't exercise our rights to bring the government to task when they step outside the very clear boundaries laid out in our founding documents.
Instead, for the most part, we allow Olbermann and Hannity to do our speaking for us (and at us), and we sit on the couch like bobble heads.
I fail to see how the military can be loyal to the will of the people as expressed by demostrations and counter demonstrations.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
Perhaps, but there are enough along that bend to blot out the sky.
Maybe, but we are depending on a popular government to bend the bow.
So I'd say that if our aim is closing a historical and legal precedent, torture is the top priority and domestic law is the way to get it done.
We really only have the Bush dead-enders against us, and that was before the recent revelations. I'm done trying to convince the Bush dead-enders of anything.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
As to the expression of the will of The People. Through our franchise as citizens to vote, also our right to redress our grievances to the government through the first amendment. Basically by throwing the bums out at election time, and putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience.
You want the army to be loyal to The Will of the People as expressed by "putting pressure on elected represenatives through correspondence, discourse and if that fails public protest and finally civil disobedience?"
I want our representatives to actually represent us.
So . . . you want them to take public opinion polls and vote accordingly? Or, in the president's case, command accordingly?
I would like it if more people took their citizen-ship seriously, and accept the responsibilities that come with it. We have a participatory form of government. There are more ways to participate than going to the voting booth as well. So no, I don't want the government to run polls, I want Americans to do what we used to value highly as a nation, and get involved. We used to be a nation of activists, for the most part. With the communication potential that the information age has brought us, I don't see why we shouldn't exercise our rights to bring the government to task when they step outside the very clear boundaries laid out in our founding documents.
Instead, for the most part, we allow Olbermann and Hannity to do our speaking for us (and at us), and we sit on the couch like bobble heads.
I fail to see how the military can be loyal to the will of the people as expressed by demostrations and counter demonstrations.
The military can be loyal to the will of the people by following a Chain of Command that ends with elected representatives who answer to the people. If the representatives stop listening to us, I suggest that is the fault of the citizens for not exercising our rights. We have all the tools necessary to ensure that our representatives actually, you know, represent us. If we fail to use them, then the blame lays on our shoulders.
EDIT: There is of course, one serious problem with the whole thing which is how the hell do you give these people a fair trial with an impartial jury?
The type of people we're talking about won't see it as a court of law, they'll see it as a persecution.
Not that that means we shouldn't try to prosecute people who broke the law, but there's a sizable chunk of the populace that's going to take it that way.
I'm not sure that the Amish are cool with serving on juries.
EDIT: And as far as what EB said, no, you're never going to convince those people. But the type of people we're discussing liked to wear their "persecuted outrage" hat when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress. It's built-in, reflexive.
Actually prosecuting people and putting them in jail will be seen as a direct attack on them and their ideology.
We really only have the Bush dead-enders against us, and that was before the recent revelations. I'm done trying to convince the Bush dead-enders of anything.
The public isn't well informed and its opinion is consequently volatile.
I'm not really certain I want to convince people of a conservative bent.
I guess it depends on how you want them to see the prosecution and imprisonment of the leaders they supported.
Who cares? While I understand the political necessity to make an argument for why these people must be tried, the facts point to a major breach of the law. Thus, fuck those who need this explained as their either operating from ignorance or dishonesty.
EDIT: There is of course, one serious problem with the whole thing which is how the hell do you give these people a fair trial with an impartial jury?
The type of people we're talking about won't see it as a court of law, they'll see it as a persecution.
Not that that means we shouldn't try to prosecute people who broke the law, but there's a sizable chunk of the populace that's going to take it that way.
A much smaller chunk, I'd say, if you prosecute under the domestic law.
The unfortunate part is, stupid people who still support torture vote. Thus, they must at the very least be stepped around lightly. Obama is in an unenviable position on this.
You think it matters at all, Speaker? They're going to be a pissed off rump minority regardless of where you prosecute these assholes.
There are degrees of obstruction. We haven't seen anything close to the worst of them yet.
A much smaller chunk, I'd say, if you prosecute under the domestic law.
I'm really not sure if that's the case. They've already went back into the Clintonian-period schema where they viewed the federal government as their enemy. They'll scream "radical leftist" till their hoarse no matter who's doing the prosecuting. The only way to avoid it would be for this to be done by other Republicans and God knows that's not going to happen anytime soon.
The unfortunate part is, stupid people who still support torture vote. Thus, they must at the very least be stepped around lightly. Obama is in an unenviable position on this.
Specifically, they would have voted for Bush again. They're a meaningless, mostly southern, rump.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
Perhaps, but there are enough along that bend to blot out the sky.
Maybe, but we are depending on a popular government to bend the bow.
So I'd say that if our aim is closing a historical and legal precedent, torture is the top priority and domestic law is the way to get it done.
Yes, but if our motives are fletched properly... I got nothin.
We really only have the Bush dead-enders against us, and that was before the recent revelations. I'm done trying to convince the Bush dead-enders of anything.
The public isn't well informed and its opinion is consequently volatile.
Just tell them that their God-figure Reagan was the one who made sure that the international treaty was ratified. That will have the poor idiots confused and uncertain for years...
oldmanken on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I'm not really certain I want to convince people of a conservative bent.
I guess it depends on how you want them to see the prosecution and imprisonment of the leaders they supported.
Who cares? While I understand the political necessity to make an argument for why these people must be tried, the facts point to a major breach of the law. Thus, fuck those who need this explained as their either operating from ignorance or dishonesty.
But we have a choice of which law to argue that they broke.
Since prosecution is in doubt and relies on a popular government and is politically divisive, I'd say that if you want to argue for prosecution, you should argue for it under th law that is the most clear, popularly legitimate and broadly accepted.
A much smaller chunk, I'd say, if you prosecute under the domestic law.
I'm really not sure if that's the case. They've already went back into the Clintonian-period schema where they viewed the federal government as their enemy. They'll scream "radical leftist" till their hoarse no matter who's doing the prosecuting. The only way to avoid it would be for this to be done by other Republicans and God knows that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Incorrect, because as soon as it's done by Republicans they will instantly turn into RINOs.
Posts
I want our representatives to actually represent us. The system is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. The people aren't Federal property and the Military isn't supposed to be a club that the Executive office can use where ever, when ever, how every they please.
It seems to me that people throw up the U.N. convention because it is the most conveniently found and cited. It is, however, a radioactively bad argument if you are trying to convince anyone of a conservativ-ish bent since it touches the "sovereignty/self-defense" circuit and their willingness to entertain propositions immediately shuts down.
Except that part of all treaty obligations like that one is the creation of domestic laws that basically mirrors it. In order to be a signatory we have to outlaw torture. So...yeah. Plus, you know, the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments come into play.
So . . . you want them to take public opinion polls and vote accordingly? Or, in the president's case, command accordingly?
A lot of conservatives have this strange idea that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens. I have no idea where the fuck it came from (certainly not the actual text), but its there.
EDIT: Of course that doesn't apply to this case because, you know, US Citizens being tortured.
It really does break my brain. How does the supposed "law and order" party end up being OK with detaining a US citizen without a warrant, without charge, for YEARS, while torturing him?
Fixed.
I'm aware of that.
What I'm saying is that while it is a valid argument, it is not the best arrow in the quiver.
Perhaps, but there are enough along that bend to blot out the sky.
I would like it if more people took their citizen-ship seriously, and accept the responsibilities that come with it. We have a participatory form of government. There are more ways to participate than going to the voting booth as well. So no, I don't want the government to run polls, I want Americans to do what we used to value highly as a nation, and get involved. We used to be a nation of activists, for the most part. With the communication potential that the information age has brought us, I don't see why we shouldn't exercise our rights to bring the government to task when they step outside the very clear boundaries laid out in our founding documents.
Instead, for the most part, we allow Olbermann and Hannity to do our speaking for us (and at us), and we sit on the couch like bobble heads.
There are periods where people have organized and changed our society, many times for the better. The labor movement is one example that immediately comes to mind.
edit: And more recently there was the Vietnam war era, where public protest and civil disobedience changed much in our society rapidly.
edit two: Matter of fact we've had leaders rise out of these movements. John Kerry for example.
I'm not really certain I want to convince people of a conservative bent. I want to prosecute people who break laws designed to protect citizenry from oppressive governments.
I can deal with yet another straw on the "Obama secretly selling us to France" pile.
Those people did not constitute a majority of the populace, and we are not left wanting for more activists. DC is full of them, arguing their case.
Maybe, but we are depending on a popular government to bend the bow.
So I'd say that if our aim is closing a historical and legal precedent, torture is the top priority and domestic law is the way to get it done.
No it didn't.
I fail to see how the military can be loyal to the will of the people as expressed by demostrations and counter demonstrations.
We really only have the Bush dead-enders against us, and that was before the recent revelations. I'm done trying to convince the Bush dead-enders of anything.
The military can be loyal to the will of the people by following a Chain of Command that ends with elected representatives who answer to the people. If the representatives stop listening to us, I suggest that is the fault of the citizens for not exercising our rights. We have all the tools necessary to ensure that our representatives actually, you know, represent us. If we fail to use them, then the blame lays on our shoulders.
I guess it depends on how you want them to see the prosecution and imprisonment of the leaders they supported.
Convicted in a court of law?
EDIT: There is of course, one serious problem with the whole thing which is how the hell do you give these people a fair trial with an impartial jury?
Not that that means we shouldn't try to prosecute people who broke the law, but there's a sizable chunk of the populace that's going to take it that way.
Truck in some Amish who haven't been paying attention?
EDIT: And as far as what EB said, no, you're never going to convince those people. But the type of people we're discussing liked to wear their "persecuted outrage" hat when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress. It's built-in, reflexive.
Actually prosecuting people and putting them in jail will be seen as a direct attack on them and their ideology.
The public isn't well informed and its opinion is consequently volatile.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/58_say_release_of_cia_memos_endangers_national_security
Are you being glib or do you need me to explain?
Who cares? While I understand the political necessity to make an argument for why these people must be tried, the facts point to a major breach of the law. Thus, fuck those who need this explained as their either operating from ignorance or dishonesty.
A much smaller chunk, I'd say, if you prosecute under the domestic law.
There are degrees of obstruction. We haven't seen anything close to the worst of them yet.
Specifically, they would have voted for Bush again. They're a meaningless, mostly southern, rump.
Yes, but if our motives are fletched properly... I got nothin.
It's kind of hard to take that seriously when the ad is "DID YOU KNOW THAT LIBERALS LAUGH WHEN YOU'RE POOR? THEY EVEN KILLED YOUR DOG."
So there are these things called warrentless wiretaps.
But we have a choice of which law to argue that they broke.
Since prosecution is in doubt and relies on a popular government and is politically divisive, I'd say that if you want to argue for prosecution, you should argue for it under th law that is the most clear, popularly legitimate and broadly accepted.
Incorrect, because as soon as it's done by Republicans they will instantly turn into RINOs.
They broke major laws both domestically and internationally and they need to go to jail.