Skip to main content

View Diary: Enough with Hysteria on "Indefinite Detention" - Give Me Facts. (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Throw away the key! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, G2geek, bnasley, Cedwyn

    Photobucket

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

    by Radical def on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:49:25 PM PST

    •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley, cotterperson

      However, I'm specifically addressing aspersions made against President Obama.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is where your partisan thinking is (14+ / 0-)

        wrong and dangerous.

        It doesn't matter which President or party is assaulting the Constitutional rights of the American people.

        Presidents are temps

        Presidents are not only term-limited, but also extremely political in how they make their governing decisions.  

        Presidents are inter-changeable as they were always meant to be within the construct of our Democracy.  Their personal imprint was always meant to be limited in its scope - checked and balanced by the Legislative Branch and the JUDICIAL Branch.

        The Judicial Branch has had its ability to check severely limited in the past decade and today is yet another step away from the balance of power that is a necessary requirement for us to continue a democratic form of government.

        It does not matter that Obama is in the White House today as much as it matters that he and everyone else who holds that seat of government from this point forward will have extraordinary power and that the people will not be able to count on a proper judicial review when and if they come under the scrutiny of our all powerful government.

        •  With the right agitating for civil war... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          ...arming themselves to the teeth, with increasingly hysterical and draconian rhetoric and practice, it seems likely that drastic measures may prove necessary.

          Those who declare war should expect to be treated as enemy combatants, seems to me, regardless of their citizenship.

          Will the suppression be conducted fairly, justly, humanely?  

          Actual real progressive, liberal, rational moderate filibuster-proof Democratic Super Majorities in the House and Senate, Not rotten with Blue Dogs, would Not be "the same" as right wing dictatorship.

          In that regard, I would agree, this is Not about Obama, so much.

          It's Much more about the relative right/left plurality in the House and Senate.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:24:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the right arms themselves, they are (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Avila, aliasalias, Troubadour

            no match for this government and they should be entitled to a trial no matter what their alleged offenses are.

            Trials are good things.  In the best of cases they provide clarity and legitimacy.  Without trials being even a possibility we have not clarity and no legitimacy -- and that's when the real rebels start to emerge and wreak havoc.  I don't want to go there.

          •  We are indeed dealing with a slippery slope. (0+ / 0-)

            But the slipperiness is in multiple directions.  You are correct that right-wing insurrection is a real danger, and we are already in a state of affairs where economic elites are above the rule of law.  We still have to enforce the Constitution, though.

            A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

            by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:04:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  But you're begging the question. (0+ / 0-)

          You're simply asserting that this President is "assaulting the Constitutional rights of the American people," as opposed to failing to fight for them sufficiently.  Has this administration detained a single American citizen as an enemy combatant?  Have they detained a single foreigner as such that was captured on their watch on American soil?  I would like answers to these questions before I can reach further conclusions.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:01:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whether this president does it or not (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, LaEscapee, poligirl

            is irrelevant.  This President's particular culpability may only ever be failure to veto it, but on some level that is probably worse from the perspective of history than the myriad of abuses of the Constitution we might see down the road from his successors.

            In any case, I don't care which President(s) attack the Constitution nearly as much as I care about the attack itself and the long-term ramifications of the attack.

            I am just not particularly partisan on this front.  I care more about this country, the people and our democracy than I care about any particular politician or party.

            •  My paramount concern is also this country. (0+ / 0-)

              And in particular, I recognize that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are the best we've got to get where we want to go.  I wouldn't trust Glenn Greenwald in his position for a single day, and I know there are no other parties both willing and able to do the hard work.

              Perhaps this President is a little too reality-based, and stubborn about making decisions in historical and legal context rather than in reference to ideals existing in a perfect vacuum.  

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:35:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Greenwald could never be president: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                if he was he'd have to spend his entire day writing articles about himself and all the horrible things he was doing.

                I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

                by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:10:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, that's not my assessment of him. (0+ / 0-)

                  People who are overly rigid of their criticism of authorities usually end up being extremely authoritarian leaders when put into power themselves.  When not in power, they blame the people in power; when they themselves have power, they blame the public with the same unyielding rigidity.

                  A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                  by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:58:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I would like to point you to this story (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, LaEscapee, Tam in CA

            about George Washington's rejection of the offer to become King of the United States and suggest that you and others ponder the honor and restraint that he displayed in preserving the balance of power when our Republic was in its infancy.

            Ponder that kind of greatness and loyalty to the democracy and the will of the people.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            George Washington knew more about terrorists and tyranny than anyone serving in government today.

            •  well, people who were white, and male only (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              but yes, your point is apt.

              [insert pithy sigline here]

              by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:22:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You have to start somewhere. (0+ / 0-)

                Cultural, political and social evolution takes centuries.

                99.9% of white guys in England didn't enjoy much by way of rights prior to the Age of Enlightenment, either.

                Remember the people called "serfs"?

                It is not so much that your point is invalid as it is that any historical progress by your standard is inherently illegitimate and therefore we have nothing to build on to get to the utopian equality that you clearly want and I, too, would aspire to achieve.  The truth is that the class system in England even today is still a challenge even for a lot of white guys.  We in the US took steps to depart from that system that made way for the Civil Rights advances in the 1960s.  Did it take too long?  Yes.  But I would argue that the Colonial settlers in the "New World" probably felt like the time between the 1600's and late 1700's took too long too.

                Anyway, today we go backward and that is my concern.  Less enlightened and less upon which to build the Utopia.

                •  Ah, but you make a critical point: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fogiv, terrypinder
                  Cultural, political and social evolution takes centuries.

                  You may, like many here, believe that indefinite detention is some recent innovation, but it isn't - there has never, ever been a firm legal finding that it is an action fundamentally denied to the US government under all circumstances.  

                  We can say that the President should be working toward such a finding by vetoing a bill that enshrines the status quo, but if you forgive men like Washington and Lincoln for having to live in their times, how can you possibly demand that the President live in a future time when such a finding is made?  Is his determination of what is achievable less credible than men like Washington who didn't try to end slavery?

                  A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                  by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:50:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The Ones Who Walk From Omelas (0+ / 0-)

                  (Utopias aren't possible.)

                  [insert pithy sigline here]

                  by terrypinder on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:09:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Washington was often lampooned (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fogiv

              as a king nonetheless, and plenty of his actions as President merited serious criticism.  In historical context, we have a truly great (but also morally good) President in the White House today.  I find that the people most angry at Barack Obama are the ones who know the least about his job.

              I find this bill dangerous, but I'm not about to condemn the President or try to "Go Galt" with vote over it.

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:39:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site