Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/16/05 11:11 am:

Hello again:

I suppose the conversation isn’t complete without a discussion of “values”.

Core values? The documents listed above describe mine: in a nutshell, they say freedom for all is good. Oh, I’m not thrilled with homosexuals marrying. I think it’s kinda creepy. But, they are part of “ALL”. And, I know what that word means even if you don’t. Whatever your petty religious values are, they pale in comparison to real, solid, American values which cherish freedom for all. It’s not even a close race. Not even close. Blows me away how some of you can think your personal religious preferences outweigh basic AMIERCAN values. Blows me away…

Yes, like Moore, I’ll be called a Bush hater and an America hater. But in the real world, it is YOU who hate the America that I love.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by VisionsInBlue on 01/16/05 12:22 pm:
Excon...

I must disagree. Methinks, however naively, that if you don't break the law you have nothing to fear about.

Example: people protest against volunteering DNA to help solve a crime. If I'm innocent, I don't care if they have my DNA or not. I really don't see why I would feel threatened if the police has my prints or DNA. If they REALLY want it, they can get my garbage bag and lift it off of the bottle of Coke.

So let's say the police had ALL of our DNAs in a huge databank... Any time there's a crime, they could match it to somebody. Don't you think it would bring the crime rate down at least somewhat? But that is violating the right to privacy.

On the same token... I don't have to be afraid of being detained forever cuz I never did anything wrong.

Terrorists do. And if they are indeed picked up, don't you think there's a reason for it?

Bottom line -- I would gladly sacrifice some of my liberties to know that my son and me are safe. You can't fight suicide bombers... So if that is the way, I'm all for it.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/16/05 12:41 pm:

Hello Visions:

>>>I must disagree. Methinks, however naively, that if you don't break the law you have nothing to fear about.<<<

Frankly, coming from the country you come from, it is quite naive.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by VisionsInBlue on 01/16/05 12:46 pm:
Not quite, dear excon. Over there you have to fear such things. Here the justice system works. Yes, it has faults as any other sustem, but at least it works.

That gives a sense of safety that was not there before. Then the terrorists come along and you are back to square one. I felt safe until 9/11. Made me SO MAD that I was right back to what I was running from (among other things). Therefore my only reaction is: keep 'em in!

Do you understand now?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/16/05 2:23 pm:

Commitment!

As a Nation, we have a hard time with that word. Yeah, we “talk the talk”, but we don’t “walk the walk”. Oh, it’s easy to utter the word, but we don’t mean it. Sure, we’ll say it now and then, but when the going gets rough, we may rethink our commitment. And, that’s the problem. You see, the word commit doesn’t allow for an escape clause. It’s an absolute, like pregnant.

We have a commitment to the accused. Even if our founding documents didn’t say so, (and they do, loudly and clearly) that is who we are as a Nation. Not surprisingly, the accused don’t tend t be very nice people. Well, duh!

If we back out of that commitment, none of our commitments are worth a damn

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by VisionsInBlue on 01/16/05 6:35 pm:
And happy b'day to Ben Franklin tomorrow! I just bought a bunch of books on him, including the Autobiography and I don't play with Spiderman... I play with the Ben Franklin action figure...

Well, not me, but my son. :)

Anyways... Commitment. Don't you think it goes both ways? If I commit to be your friend what good is it if you are not mine? Therefore, the citizens have the same commitment.

Granted, the terrorists are hardly citizens... So, who said that the commitment includes them? When they don't want anything but to blow up that commitment.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/17/05 1:00 pm:
Arthur's Camelot was a society based on a standard of morality and justice.Let Guenevere die for her treason of having an affair with Lancelot ; Arthur's life is over; Let her live his life's a fraud. Kill the queen or kill the law .When he couldn't or wouldn't adapt for the exception then the society collapsed.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/18/05 11:20 am:
excon,

The lesson that I have learned through Jewish history is that the only way my rigts will TRULY be protected is with a gun.

My rights are NOT protected by extending non-existant "rights" to people who are trying to kill me. My rights are not protected by a piece of paper that says that I have rights. My rights are protected by being willing to defend those rights with my life, if necessary.

So while liberals like yourself claim to be looking out for my rights, what you are actually doing is LIMITING my rights by extending those rights to people who do NOT have any such rights... and at the same time making my own rights less valuable. So... thanks but no thanks.

If "they" want to come for me, no "constitution" or "bill of rights" or any other piece of paper is going to stop "them" from trying. Firearms probably won't stop them in the end analysis either, unless it turns out that I am miraculously better at combat than the entire US army. But firearms give me the chance to go out fighting and take as many of "them" with me as I can shoot.

You don't protect individual rights by extending them to larger grous of individuals. You protect them through force of arms.

That is why what you advocate bothers me so much... it devalues MY rights an MY moral position by putting ME on the same moral plain as the terrorists and murderers who are trying to destroy those very rights that you claim apply to them... when they clearly do not.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/18/05 11:39 am:
Excon and Tom,

Two points about Arthurian Legend/Camelot.

1) Camelot and th story of King Arthur are Legends, not history. So any talk of "fair trials" or "equality" or "justice" during that period of time is just myth.

2) When Mordred and his army came to attack Arthur and Camelot, none of the citizens of Camelot and none of the Knights of the Round Table suggested that Mordred and his army should be given fair trials, or set free because they aren't a real danger to Camelot any more. They set out to kill the enemy, and if any were captured, they were treated as ENEMIES not as citizens of Camelot with all the rights to a fair trial.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/18/05 11:47 am:

Hello again, Elliot:

Interesting, but clearly wrong. You don’t quite understand what we’re about, and that concerns me, about you.

Here’s an edited version of the rating I gave to powerpuff:

Two things about that.

1) I'm not thrilled with who these people are either, but a very basic American tenet is that our treatment of the people we accuse and imprison is based upon who WE are and OUR principles - not who THEY are and THEIR principles.

2) In our Declaration of Independence, these rights (that I speak of) are written about as "inalienable". To me, that means that, as people, we automatically have these rights. And, now for the first time in history, a government is recognizing that fact. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, and I believe them to my core. It doesn't say anywhere that these rights are reserved for "citizens". As a matter of fact, they're not really rights at all if we think we're the only ones entitled to them. They’re just platitudes and empty words.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/18/05 11:51 am:
Excon,

1) Not when it comes to war criminals and enemy combatants. Under those conditions, the principals of the "rights of the accused" no longer apply, and a whole new set of principals comes into play. The Founding Fathers thought so too... go and read a little about how they treated Brittish troops and spies that they caught during the Revolutionary War before talking about the moral standards of the writers of the Constitution in applying the Constitution to non-citizens.

2) >>>In our Declaration of Independence, these rights (that I speak of) are written about as "inalienable". <<<

The only 'inalienable rights' are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". And those rights are guaranteed for anyone who doesn't try to eliminate those rights for others... which means that terrorists need not apply.

Furthermore, if you look at those rights themselves, there is very little that one can do to "guarantee" them in the first place. Life? There is no guarantee against cancer, or illness, or traumatic death. Liberty? Not for one who is convicted of a crime. Pursuit of Happiness? One can pursue it all they want, but there is no guarantee that they will ever acheive it, no matter how hard they try.

>>>It doesn't say anywhere that these rights are reserved for "citizens". <<<

Based on both the wording of the Constitution, and on the actions of the Founding Fathers themselves, it is pretty clear that that is what they intended.

>>>As a matter of fact, they're not really rights at all if we think we're the only ones entitled to them.<<<

Since when? Since when are we required to apply our laws to enemy combatant non-citizens? When has there EVER been a case anywhere where that was true? Never... nor should it be the case.

>>>They’re just platitudes and empty words.<<<

They have ALWAYS been just platitudes and empty words. That is why they need to be defended at the point of a gun. Without a willingness to back them up with ACTION they are NEVER anything more than empty words... worth as little as the paper they are written on.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/18/05 12:29 pm:
Elliot ;
You are correct of course ;very few surivied The Battle of Camlann .Mordred was slain and Arthur mortally wounded.I use history frequently as a reference ,but sometimes literary examples are useful for illustration.

My point of comparison was to point out rigidity /lack of flexibility sometimes leads to destruction . A quick example was Lincoln's temporary suspension of habeus corpus. Clearly not in the spirit of the bill of rights but indeed a necessary exception .

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/18/05 12:40 pm:

Fellas:

This is cool. I now know what Arthurian is, and it is apropos. I don't disagree about rigidity.

However, LIFETIME imprisonment sounds pretty rigid to me. Nobody is talking about a temporary suspension of recognized rights. They're talking as though these rights don't exist, ala Elliot, Powderpuff, Visions, and our beloved president.

Talk to me about temporary, and I'll listen. Talk about forever and I won't.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/18/05 1:18 pm:
I'd venture that if the Civil War had lasted 100 years that emergency powers would've been extended. To the people of Maryland ;the suspension of habeus corpus was an open ended scheme. Lincoln did not say he would reinstate it after a 6 month crisis is over. Of course one of the problems with the 'war on terrorism ' is that there is no clear definition of what victory is ;but that may just be the reality of the 21st century.

It doesn't say anywhere that these rights are reserved for "citizens".......Nobody is talking about a temporary suspension of recognized rights. They're talking as though these rights don't exist, ala Elliot, Powderpuff, Visions, and our beloved president.

Their point is valid . From the Declaration :"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed " It would be impractical to secure due process and rights to an external enemy ;a Mordred who would use the virtues of a society to sow the seeds of it's destruction.