|
 shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
 Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights  [Re: daimyo]
#3605480 - 01/09/05 09:11 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shroomydan said:
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this your ideal, or is this based on something else? A quote from a founding father perhaps?
This is the basic philosophy of John Locke upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based. It is the bedrock of all modern democratic nations.
Locke's theory of government replaced the political theory of Thomas Hobbes who advocated absolute monarchy. Both Hobbes and Locke begin with man in a state of nature. In the state of nature there are no laws and each man has a natural right to take anything he wants. In this situation industry and a peaceful prosperous life are not possible because if one man were to build a house or plant a garden another man could simply come by a kill him and take it from him. In order for man to get out of the state of nature and into civilization, individuals must form social contracts which limit there natural rights. Hobbes said that for peace and industry to prevail, free people had to transfer their natural rights onto a single person, a Sovereign, who would protect the people from one another and insure a peaceful environment where industry was possible. This social contract between the sovereign and his subjects gave the sovereign absolute authority over his subjects and in turn he was obligated to provide them with protection. This was the governing philosophy during the period of absolute monarchies in Europe. Locke took Hobbes's philosophy and made a subtle and profound change. Instead of transferring their rights to a single man who was sovereign, Locke proposed that individuals make a social contract with all other individuals in the nation, making the abstract concept of nation Sovereign instead of a single man. The laws of the nation would be Sovereign, hence a nation of laws, not a nation of men. The law would be written by the people for the people and no citizen of the nation would be above the law. It was Thomas Jefferson et all who wrote the constitution, but it was John Locke who first penned its principle ideas.
I can't quote to you where the constitution forbids torturing foreign nationals who are suspected of a crime. I do know that it prohibits cruel and unusual punishment for crimes, but I guess the torture in this case is not punishment.  I also know that the Declaration of Independence acknowledges the God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all men, regardless of their national status.
As a veteran I am more familiar with the Geneva Convention which expressly forbids the torture of prisoners of war. The way bush is trying to get around this one is by saying that the terrorist are not prisoners of war and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention. He also says that the are not criminals, and therefore not protected by criminal law. With the monikers "enemy combatant" and "terrorist", he has created a subclass of nonpersons, protected by no existing law. This however is a violation of the bedrock principles of freedom outlined in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal, with inalienable rights. History has shown that when any organization acts counter it foundational principles, that organization collapses.
I don't know if this evil trend can be reversed, it seems to me that the US has been sliding towards an invalidation of its basic laws for quite some time. This is just another crack in the foundation of a collapsing system.
|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights [Re: shroomydan]
#3605898 - 01/09/05 10:58 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
shroomydan writes:
This is the basic philosophy of John Locke upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based. It is the bedrock of all modern democratic nations...
Excellent synopsis of Locke vs Hobbes. Very, VERY well done.
I can't quote to you where the constitution forbids torturing foreign nationals who are suspected of a crime. I do know that it prohibits cruel and unusual punishment for crimes, but I guess the torture in this case is not punishment.
You are correct that it is not a question of punishment at all, but rather a question of information gathering. These people aren't being punished, they are being interrogated.
The way bush is trying to get around this one is by saying that the terrorist are not prisoners of war and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention. He also says that the are not criminals, and therefore not protected by criminal law. With the monikers "enemy combatant" and "terrorist", he has created a subclass of nonpersons, protected by no existing law.
And -- by the definitions in the Geneva Conventions themselves, they are not prisoners of war. They are in fact spies -- a specific subclass of spies. In the early Forties in Europe they were known as saboteurs. Spies receive none of the protections due legitimate soldiers who have been captured on the battlefield, and they never have. This is nothing new, and Bush certainly didn't invent a new "subclass" of "criminals". The "monikers" you refer to are accurate descriptions of the people involved. They are combatants, but not soldiers. They are certainly not "criminals". They are in fact -- by the commonly accepted definition posted earlier in the thread -- terrorists.
pinky
--------------------
|
daimyo
Monticello
Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights [Re: SoopaX]
#3605932 - 01/09/05 11:04 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SoopaX said:
Quote:
daimyo said:
Non-citizens are not afforded the rights granted in the Constitution, so that point is moot.
Yes, they are. The Constitution applies to anyone on American soil.
This is not my understanding of the matter. Please cite your source.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
|
daimyo
Monticello
Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights [Re: shroomydan]
#3605950 - 01/09/05 11:08 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
As pink has pointed out, the Locke vs Hobbes part of your post was excellent. Thank you, and have 5 shrooms.
As for the rest, I believe that leads to the next necessary discussion. What constitutes torture? How should it be defined(narrow vs broad definition)? Maybe I will make a thread about this next.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights [Re: Phred]
#3606027 - 01/09/05 11:33 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They are certainly not "criminals". They are in fact -- by the commonly accepted definition posted earlier in the thread -- terrorists.
That's the scary part. How do we know that they are in fact "terrorist" unless they have been tried and convicted of terrorism? It seems a simple accusation is enough to warrant the torture. It's also my understanding that most of the prisoners at Git Mo were captured on the battlefield in Iraq; in my view this makes them closer to soldiers than to spies.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights [Re: shroomydan]
#3606125 - 01/09/05 11:59 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Check the thread titled "Dude, where's my shirt?" The guy pictured there is a terrorist. There is no doubt about it whatsoever -- he was caught redhanded planting bombs under civilian vehicles. It is a certainty he has information on others of his ilk -- the guy he got the bombs from, for one. Are you saying he must not be questioned until he has been convicted in a court of criminal law?
Is it impossible someone might be detained who is totally innocent? No, it's not impossible. But to refrain from interrogating captured terrorists until they have been convicted in a court of law necessarily means more innocents will continue to be blown up who otherwise would not have been. That's not speculation, that's fact.
Despite John F Kerry's view of this situation, it isn't a criminal matter. It's war. To refrain from interrogating captured spies, saboteurs and terrorists in wartime isn't being humane, it's being insane.
pinky
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: An Open Secret: George Bush and Terror Flights [Re: Phred]
#3607390 - 01/10/05 10:53 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just to be clear, pinky, would you grant the US military the right to detain and torture as many people as they like, so long as it's done within what can loosely be defined as a warzone?
--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
FileSoup
1 2 3 all )
pattern
carbonhoots
Swami
GabbaDj
Psilocybeingzz
Rono