Re: Ferraro: US Black People Have It Easy

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Robert Munn
<cfmunstergmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM, denstar  wrote:
....
>  > Are you saying that you believe that the only
records that the telcos
>  > turned over were for people with overseas calls?
>
>  That's different than the wire-tapping story.

It's still domestic spying.

>  >  Torture is illegal, the definition of torture is
a problem. President
>  > McCain
>  > >  will make sure there is no gray area on
torture.
>  >
>  > See, I don't think that waterboarding, for
instance, suffers from
>  > definition.
>
>  McCain has already made it clear he doesn't support
waterboarding.

What does McCain have to do with state sponsored torture?

They're trying to change the definition to cover what has
been done,
not what will be done.

>  > The bags on the heads and naked bodies and
whatnot-- it wasn't all
>  > those lowly soldiers just doing it for kicks, I
don't think.
>  >
>  > It seems to me that it was encouraged from on
high.  Which is horrifying.
>
>  Evidence. Without evidence, that is idle speculation
at best.

Speculation?  The Secretary of Defense, and the President
by
extension, if not outright, has hemmed and hawed about the
definition
of torture.

Further, they've gone so far as to basically stipulate that
the
president could torture someone if he wanted to, and is
above the law,
so to speak.

They're constantly trying to redefine the law, and, surprise
surprise,
defining it in a way that gives 'em more power.

>  > War is hell.  We are shining beacons of humanity,
or whatever.  At
>  > least we tried to be.  Now we're like "lets
ask the lawyers".  Bah!
>  >
>  > Mere husks of our former selves.
>
>  Come on, hyperbole seems to be making the rounds on
the list of late. Mere
>  husks?

I like to think that even as little as 10 years ago, had
crap like
this gone down, people would have stood up, vs.actually
trying to
justify it.

We're busted torturing prisoners of war (depending on your
definition
of war, and maybe, upon what it can be waged) and then we're
actually
debating waterboarding and shit?  What the hell kind of
message do you
think that sends?

Mere husks.

People are trying to justify this crap, man.

>  > The preemptive strike stuff that Walker pushed.
>  >
>
>  Why are we talking about Chuck Norris? 
Seriously, who is Walker,
>  exactly? I don't remember anyone named Walker
directing our troops to invade
>  a country.

Yup, I'm speaking of the Texas Ranger. :]

>  > But ensconcing this crap in law, and making it a
policy... that's what
>  > gets me riled up.
>  >
>
>  Our system of government provides checks and balances
to deal with this sort
>  of thing, and the system is working quite well. The
Executive branch takes
>  charge in times of emergency, then when things cool
down, Congress and the
>  courts step in and push back against the Executive.
That is how our
>  government has worked since its founding.

Working out quite well, eh?  I had thought you were a
conservative, as
in small government, fiscal responsibility and whatnot.

Two steps forward, and three steps back, isn't give and
take.

>  Seeing the politicians on TV, talking about pork
projects, and how
>  > "that's how the system works" pisses me
off.
>  >
>  > Bribery, eh?  That's how we do it now?
>  >
>
>  Congressional earmarks are fine, IMHO, as long as
there is transparency in
>  government. Do I think it is a bad thing that Congress
allocated money to
>  build a bike path in San Diego? Hell no, I think it's
great. That bike path
>  wasn't free, I paid for it with my taxes. Otherwise
the money gets doled out
>  by bureaucrats, and I would much rather have my tax
dollars being directed
>  by an elected official who is answerable to the voters
rather than an
>  unelected bureaucrat who can't even be fired for
incompetence because of the
>  way federal civil service rules work.

I would have thought you'd rather personally choose what the
money was
spent on, versus either of those choices. 

You think it's o.k. to say "I'll get you that bike
path, but you have
to vote yes on bill 365"?


See what I mean?

>  > Doesn't the way we've become just sorta sadden
and anger you?  Not so
>  > much that crap happens, but that we're saying
it's o.k..  Trying to
>  > make it be part of what being American means
(puke).
>  >
>  >
>  We haven't "become" anything, this is how
our country works. As MD says,
>  people are willing to give up a little freedom (having
their bags searched
>  on the subway in NYC) in times of trouble in exchange
for protection.
>  Ultimately, things will change, they always do.

What do people who are willing to give up liberty for
temporary safety deserve?

--
"What are fears but voices airy?
Whispering harm where harm is not.
And deluding the unwary
Till the fatal bolt is shot!"
---- Wordsworth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256989
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:54 PM, denstar <> wrote:

>
> What does McCain have to do with state sponsored
torture?
>

You sound like you think we're on par with North Korea or
Iran. All I can
say is that if you really believe that, you need to spend
some time talking
with people who have lived in countries that are actually
state sponsors of
torture, because your perspective borders on the
delusional.


> They're trying to change the definition to cover what
has been done,
> not what will be done.
>

What's done is done. Am I sorry that they waterboarded
Khaleied Sheikh
Muhammed? No way, fck that guy, I'd put a bullet in his head
without a
second thought.


>
>
> Speculation?  The Secretary of Defense, and the
President by
> extension, if not outright, has hemmed and hawed about
the definition
> of torture.
>

Evidence. Hemming and hawing about definitions is not the
same thing as
evidence of actual practices. What you are implying is that
there was a
cabal inside the government to torture people at Abu Ghraib,
and the
evidence - given by the perpetrators of the crimes - simply
does not support
that conclusion.


> Further, they've gone so far as to basically stipulate
that the
> president could torture someone if he wanted to, and is
above the law,
> so to speak.
>

The President will never actually do anything himself, and
since he has the
power to pardon others, yes, basically they can get away
with almost
anything in the case of real necessity, i.e. the ticking
time bomb scenario.
In that case, though, the person that takes the drastic
measures (torture)
is betting their own life that they are right, because the
President isn't
going to pardon a bunch of clowns who just want to play S
& M domination
with prisors.

They're constantly trying to redefine the law, and, surprise
surprise,
> defining it in a way that gives 'em more power.
>

This is not just normal but expected behavior from the
Executive branch. See
my earlier comments about how the country actually works.


>
> I like to think that even as little as 10 years ago,
had crap like
> this gone down, people would have stood up, vs.actually
trying to
> justify it.
>

That is not justified by any actual historical evidence.


>
> We're busted torturing prisoners of war (depending on
your definition
> of war, and maybe, upon what it can be waged) and then
we're actually
> debating waterboarding and shit?  What the hell kind of
message do you
> think that sends?
>

Prisoner of war is a term of art under international law and
its definition
is very, very clear. There is no gray area. Someone who is a
uniformed
member of the armed forces of a country fighting a war
against another
country and is captured is a prisoner of war. Someone who
walks around in
civilian clothes to blend into the local population while
planting roadside
bombs, firing rockets and mortars from civilian areas and
sending suicide
bombers to kill civilians is a terrorist, and if they get
captured, they can
rot in hell for all I care.

Mere husks.
>
> People are trying to justify this crap, man.
>

What crap? Abu Ghraib? No one is justifying that kind of
abuse.


>
> Working out quite well, eh?  I had thought you were a
conservative, as
> in small government, fiscal responsibility and
whatnot.
>
> Two steps forward, and three steps back, isn't give and
take.
>

I'm not a conservative, though I do believe in small
government.


> I would have thought you'd rather personally choose
what the money was
> spent on, versus either of those choices. 
>
> You think it's o.k. to say "I'll get you that bike
path, but you have
> to vote yes on bill 365"?
>

No, personally I would rather keep the money out of the
hands of government
entirely and have local communities build things like bike
paths with local
funding, but if Congress is going to take my money, the
least they can do is
send a little bit of it back to my community.


>
> What do people who are willing to give up liberty for
temporary safety
> deserve?


Again with the hyperbole. Here is what you need to do. Go
have a
conversation with someone that lived under Soviet rule in
the days when you
could be exiled or killed for expressing the wrong opinion.
Or take a trip
to Tibet. Oh yeah, you can't actually go to Tibet right now,
because the
Chinese government has sealed it off to all outsiders. Go to
Iran and see if
you get out alive or if they arrest and torture you as a
suspected
government agent or worse a journalist. We have not given up
liberty at all,
we have made small accommodations to the government to
protect the core
liberties that we value.

We express all sorts of opinions and beliefs on this list,
some in favor of
the government, some opposed to the government. Have you
been visited by the
FBI for writing something on here? I haven't. I guarantee
you if we lived in
China or Iran or Syria or any other un-free place, most of
the regular
contributors to this list, including me, would be rotting in
jail right now,
without due process, without any recourse to the government.
So when you
talk about giving up liberty, I suggest you hear from
someone who has
actually lived in an un-free country and then re-consider
what liberty
really means.

I hate the idea of the government nosing into my personal
things, but I am
willing to give up some of my jealously guarded privacy in
exchange for the
government's efforts to prevent people from killing me at
random in a
terrorist attack.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257083
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5