The newest release from the Center for Libertarian Press Information.
President Barack Obama entered the Oval Office brandishing promises to close the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, shut down CIA “black sites” around the world, and bring cleansing sunlight to bear on human rights abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration in the name of a “Global War On Terror.” On Friday, Libertarians called on Obama to quit stalling and get with the program.
“Every time it looks like justice will make it out of the woods, Obama falls off the wagon,” says Starchild, coordinator of the national activist group Grassroots Libertarians. “Less than four months into his presidency, we’re back to kangaroo courts at Gitmo, covering up crimes with a constitutionally baseless state secrets doctrine, and hiding evidence by deeming it ‘classified.’”
Earlier this week, President Obama reneged on his administration’s pledge to publicly release photos depicting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, after months of stalling on closure of Guantanamo Bay, he announced a return to the policy of trying terror cases by military commission instead of in the courts, as required by the Constitution. Obama’s White House has repeatedly sandbagged even his own party’s efforts to prosecute, or even expose, those responsible for the previous administration’s policy of torturing prisoners.
The Libertarian Party’s platform holds that “the Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.”
To Marc Montoni, secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, Obama’s policy shifts smell of politics as usual. “America voted for change we could believe in,” he says. “What we’re seeing so far looks more like Bush’s third term.”
Some Ls are on the tails on a range of issues, which aggregates to WAY OUT on the less-than 1% fringe.
I disagree. I believe Libertarians are a lot more mainstream than you want to think.
The problem is that Libertarians do not spend the time or money to get their message out. A republican or democrat that advocates bailout after bailout is very much in the minority. But nobody knows what Libertarians think or believe because we don’t spend the time or money to reach out to them.
PEACE
Here’s a nuance you forgot: Obama is full of shit.
jd, I love ya, man.
We were discussing the concept of calibrating what policies are appropriate to advocate. My suggestion is it makes sense to advocate things attainable in the foreseeable future. Advocate highly specific goals that are not plausible in, say, 5-10 years, and the advocate runs the risk of sounding like a soapbox lunatic, someone who’s been bashed in the head with rebar, for ex.
I’m sure you have the ability to comprehend this idea.
Capozzi, did you say something? I could have sworn you were nattering.
What specific thing did you have in mind, generally? Or, in general terms, what did you want, specifically?
You have that “lights are on but nobody’s home” drone going. Again.
jd, how’s about this:
there’s a difference between GENERAL and SPECIFIC.
Do you undertand THAT? If not, I’d ask what you’ve been doing with that rebar you seem so fond of.
@57 “He knows that taking a stand on these and other issues near and dear to the R’s heart will cause them to put up roadblocks, delays, and possibly deny his hope for cap and trade tax, socialized healthcare, and his on-going desire to nationalize as much of our economy as possible.”
I find this laughable. The Republicans have no power at all in Congress. So, they cannot possibly be blamed for Obama choosing to torture as many people to death as possible, obliterate as many villages in foreign countries as possible, and keep gay translators out of the military.
In other words, it must simply be Obama doing what he wants to do.
Capozzi, did you say something?
tk, yet another nuance:
Some pro-lifers are OK with the federalist, leave-it-to-the-states solutions. Others aren’t…they want a Life Amendment.
When you press pro-lifers, who characterize abortion as “murder,” see what happens when you ask them how the murder should be punished. Should the doctor get the death penalty? Or the mother?
Then you’ll start to see what is in effect nuance. Oh, no, they respond generally, that would be too severe.
Were I a dualistic absolutist, I’d say: Why so? You’ve just said it’s murder, why not punish abortive murders like OTHER murders?
(For the record, I oppose the death penalty.)
Do you really want to mimic Rush Limbaugh, Tom?
dropped a thought on 74:
The specific PLANS for a moon base are left vague, in the TBD folder.
tk, I somewhat take your point on SOME single issues. Abortions a pretty good example. But, even there, LOTS of pols who get elected and who are pro-choice are OPPOSED to partial birth abortion. Obama himself talked just this weekend about what a difficult decision abortion is, and how he wants to make it rare.
Rush Limbaugh, whom I listen to occasionally, found this strange. His comment was: If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why care if it’s rare?
Limbaugh is a dualistic absolutist. Obama isn’t. Clinton had an even more nuanced position on abortion.
Even among pro-lifers, there’s nuance on the issue. Some carve out exceptions for include rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.
Still, there certainly are absolutist voters on this single issue. They are on the tails of the Bell Curve.
Some Ls are on the tails on a range of issues, which aggregates to WAY OUT on the less-than 1% fringe. Disagree with any litmus test question, and you are a statist, and are therefore evil, seems to be the thinking. That thinking’s a non-starter, IMO.
I would agree that REALLY effective communicators are skilled at making their nuance sound forthright.
jd, boy, yer not getting what I said, are you?
A “moon base” is aspirational. The specific PLANS for a moon base.
The US should no longer to policeman of the world is aspirational. The specific plans are I will have the joint chief draw up a 5 year plan to wind down US presence in WE.
Bob,
You write: “Are you suggesting that most people are NOT relativistic? I’d like to hear more.”
If you want to hear more, go out and talk to some regular people, i.e. people who don’t spend most of their time on politics.
What you’ll find, if your experience is anything like mine — as a Marine, as a union factory worker, as a store clerk, etc. — is that MOST people have VERY strong opinions on the issues they consider important, and they don’t see any “shades of grey” about those issues.
For example, when I hear regular people discuss abortion, it’s either “killing babies” or it’s “the woman’s choice” — none of this iffy, butsy “shades of gray” nonsense … and they want to hear the same black and white evaluations from their politicians.
Hint: Sticking with the issue I grabbed for example’s sake, when was the last time you heard a “mainstream politician” discuss “shades of gray” on abortion. Mainstream politicians are either pro-life or pro-choice. They choose their constituency and they nail the hardcore talking points.
If you hear a politician use the word “nuance” in a campaign communication, go find your bookie and bet every dime you’ve got against that politician in the upcoming election. Try to do it before the bookie hears that the politician has lapsed into “shades of gray” babble, though, or you won’t get very good odds.
@71 It is possible to be radical without rebar. But one cannot be as radical as possible without rebar, and plenty of it. I’m all about the rebar. lol
It is simply forward thinking to advocate policies that won’t be enacted soon. Many of us advocated all through 1983 for a Moon base. Reagan went boldly for a space station, where many had gone before, lol.
It isn’t insane to see beyond the “foreseeable” future. It is simply imaginative. Or, perhaps you think science fiction authors belong in lunatic asylums.
Having sat and watched more than a few of them eat, I can’t really argue the point. lol
4) What does being “as radical as possible” mean? Is it not itself a relative thing? The operative term is “as possible.” It’s wise to be aspirational in general. It’s insane to advocate specific policies that will not and, by any reasonable judgment, be enacted in the foreseeable future.
mdh, I hear ya. But let’s test some assumptions.
1) Is Ron Paul’s message an absolutist one? I’d say no, not even close. He DOES advocate a fairly major change in direction, but he himself talks about more and less “offensive” government programs. Especially at his age, coupled with some of his hard-right views, hitching the L star to Ron (whom I admire) seems contra-indicated.
2) Is the anti-FRB movement large? I see no evidence of this. It may well be larger than it was 5 years ago, but I certainly see no evidence that this is water-cooler talk. It’s a single issue matter as well, so it doesn’t necessarily port to a broad-based political strategy.
3) Can being “as radical as possible” MAKE people wake up? I can’t think of a case where this has worked, and especially not in a pro-liberty direction. The world has always had its soap-box lunatics, but they generally discredit themselves as wild-eyed crazies. Occasionally, they are viewed as “well-meaning dreamers.”
I think that people see shades of grey often as comfortable, friendly, and easy to choose. Unfortunately, the LP will never be that, since we’re not a comfortable, friendly, and easy to choose party. Until we start getting a LOT more media attention (ie, some rich libertarian buys Fox out from under Murdoch or something) then we won’t be.
The other option is to be as radical as possible and make people realize why they can’t stand for something easy and comfortable – why they absolutely need radical change. That is happening more and more – consider the Ron Paul Revolution and how many people it awakened. Consider how large the anti-FRB movement is becoming. That’s the way forward.
We won’t win on the GOP/Dems turf. We’ve gotta bring the masses onto our turf.
tk: An interesting assumption, which explains a lot. You should consider re-examining it in the cold light of reality.
me: you’re leavin’ me hangin’, man. Are you suggesting that most people are NOT relativistic? I’d like to hear more.
sh: The people we -want- to attract to the LP are those whose opinions are, as you put it, ‘at odds with the news coverage and general consensus’. The people who -agree- with the so-called ‘general consensus’ already have a political affiliation they are comfortable with.
me: can’t say I disagree, Susan. I wonder if the name “Starchild” strikes a serious tone? As I have some knowledge of who Starchild is, I find him thoughtful and serious, but the name itself? Wish I could say Yes, but, in truth, I cannot.
“Most of humanity analyzes most things as shades of gray, and search for improved direction rather than absolutes and dramatic, dislocative change.”
An interesting assumption, which explains a lot. You should consider re-examining it in the cold light of reality.
jd: It does make one wonder why so many in the LP are so dedicated to making the LP so much like the other parties.
me: can’t say I know ANYONE who wants to make the LP “so much like the other parties.” Speaking as one who WOULD like the LP to move into the “plausible zone,” I do so because I’d like to see Ls in office, changing the dynamics in Washington and state houses. It’s apparent to me that there are a range of positions anyone can take on any given issue: status quo to no taxes tomorrow, for ex.
Most of humanity analyzes most things as shades of gray, and search for improved direction rather than absolutes and dramatic, dislocative change. It’s like losing, say,30 pounds. One could sever a limb, but most see that as counterproductive. One could go on a crash diet, but most medical professionals suggest those are contra-indicated. Or one could do the sane, plausible, and healthy thing and go on a dedicated, disciplined diet made up of balanced meals and an exercise regimen.
Dualistic absolutes don’t work in much of anything, and politics is no different, IMO.
@57 “Did anti-war people really believe he was different?”
I don’t know what anyone believed, or believes now. People believe what they want to believe.
It seems clear that anti-war Democrats in particular and anti-establishment Democrats generally were encouraged to vote for Obama by Howard Dean. Many people were encouraged to vote in November for Obama on the strength of these promises about ending the war, closing Guantanamo, ending the torture of captives, and changing the policy on gays in the military.
Obviously, the establishment has Obama firmly in and the suspicion that he was always an establishment Democrat seems to be confirmed. Howard Dean did a lot of work. How has he been rewarded?
It is just another shameful episode in the history of major party politics. It does make one wonder why so many in the LP are so dedicated to making the LP so much like the other parties.
“[T]he argument that this is a Bush third term might play well with the 20,000 folks already in the LP, but its at odds with the news coverage and general consensus that for better or worse, this administration is significantly different than the last.”
Yeah, we’re way out on the radical fringe with the likes of the Wall Street Journal and other insignificant street rags on that one.
@ #59 – adp, this country needs some solutions which are far outside of those which are at odds with the general consensus; only those who present themselves as being outside the general consensus can offer such solutions.
As I like to say, “When radical change is what is needed, only radicals can make that change!”
Also the argument that this is a Bush third term might play well with the 20,000 folks already in the LP, but its at odds with the news coverage and general consensus that for better or worse, this administration is significantly different than the last.
Actually, I think it is becoming apparent to an awful lot of folks that there hasn’t been any change at all! And these are the people we SHOULD be reaching out to, the people that are now having second thoughts. People that are already libertarian, but for one reason or another did vote for the candidate that purported to be for change.
I also think it was pretty clear throughout the campaign that most people opposed torture. And most people opposed the war(s). Nobody can claim with a straight face that there has been any change with these major issues at all.
PEACE
Couldn’t whoever wrote the release find anyone else than someone named Starchild to quote?
Why?
Also the argument that this is a Bush third term might play well with the 20,000 folks already in the LP, but its at odds with the news coverage and general consensus that for better or worse, this administration is significantly different than the last.
The people we -want- to attract to the LP are those whose opinions are, as you put it, ‘at odds with the news coverage and general consensus’. The people who -agree- with the so-called ‘general consensus’ already have a political affiliation they are comfortable with.
Couldn’t whoever wrote the release find anyone else than someone named Starchild to quote?
Also the argument that this is a Bush third term might play well with the 20,000 folks already in the LP, but its at odds with the news coverage and general consensus that for better or worse, this administration is significantly different than the last. Being that far outside conventional thought isn’t a good place for a political party.
“While I like the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to so-called enemy combatants, I’m not sure they do. Do they? If so, how so?”
The Bill of Rights does not grant us citizens or anyone else any rights. What it does is recognize some of the rights we already have, not to be coerced in certain ways by a government that may represent a majority that does not include us. The Guantanamo prisoners’ rights against being held without trial, and cruel punishment, are part of their basic human dignity, and the Bill of Rights’ recognition of this basic human dignity is universal. Essentially, the government has no more right to commit torture than its citizens, because all its power comes from its citizens.
I think that we would be much better off, if instead of the Bill of Rights, we had a clause in the Constitution recognizing every person’s (not just citizen’s) right not to be subject to any action of government whose form and purpose is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. White lists work much better than black lists.
JD.
BObama is not pursuing action against those guilty of torture, not attempting to end Don’t ask, Don’t tell, not speeding up the withdrawal from Iraq…because he is a politician FIRST.
He knows that taking a stand on these and other issues near and dear to the R’s heart will cause them to put up roadblocks, delays, and possibly deny his hope for cap and trade tax, socialized healthcare, and his on-going desire to nationalize as much of our economy as possible.
Just as an aside, if you add up the 50k troops he wants to leave in Iraq, and the ~70k he wants in Afghanistan, it is about the same number we have in Iraq now…Did anti-war people really believe he was different??? “Change” doesn’t count if it is only a “change” of geography.
gc: Contra the opinion, I see no basis whatsoever in the text of the Constitution for the notion that the 5th amendment doesn’t apply any time agents of the US government act…
me: If I understand how constitutional law works, the Rehnquist opinion will be with us for some time, yes? Rare is it that stare decisis is actually reversed. To do so, contrary opinions will need to arise in other decisions that counteract and weaken Rehnquist and the majority’s view. Or the Constitution would need to be amended.
I thought it was very clever when Jon Stewart on his eponymous “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” worked in the recent decision by Obama to ignore the firing of a gay Arabic translator in the military, connecting it to the torture issue. “You can torture them until they talk, but you can’t make them speak English that way.”
It is interesting how many promises Obama has broken, already. He did specifically promise to stop the policy of eliminating openly gay persons in the military. Does it protect the country more, or less, effectively to fire an Arabic translator on the grounds that he is openly gay? On the whole, it doesn’t seem to me that a preference for penises has much to do with defending the country by translating words from one language to another. Nor in the case of a lesbian would a disaffection for penises be any liability in translation.
I also note that there were to be one or two brigades a month removed from Iraq as soon as he took office. Somehow, I missed the part where five to ten brigades have left that country. Anyone?
“College Frat Party hazing rituals”
Every year, it seems, some college students die of alcohol poisoning due to fraternity hazing rituals. I suggest that this feature of “greek” life is a good thing, part of the splendor of evolution in action.
Another good release , Great job Tom? and whoever else is at the helm:)
rc, I can imagine an argument of the kind you describe, but I don’t think it would wash textually. I think the military carve-out in the 5th amendment is designed to deal with the high-pressure emergency situations one might imagine arising with respect to military personnel in war-time. I don’t see any obvious textual basis for extending this beyond the single clause in which it appears.
Contra the opinion, I see no basis whatsoever in the text of the Constitution for the notion that the 5th amendment doesn’t apply any time agents of the US government act: there’s no limitation in the text as regards the location of the action or the nationality of anyone affected by it. I’m certainly open to broader contextual arguments, but the simple fact that the carve-out is present in the 5th amendment doesn’t provide what seems to me to be a strong argument for allowing it to alter the plain meeting the rest of the 5th amendment, much less that of the 6th.
tk, thanks for the cite. hmm, again, I’m no lawyer, and I may be misreading this mostly 4A opinion, but it does say this:
“Indeed, we have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States.”
Is Gitmo sovereign US territory? Maybe that makes this finding inappropriate…not sure.
The law and its sometimes glacial procedures, and requirements for standing and so forth, can be AWFULLY frustrating.
Bob,
I pointed you directly to the relevant Supreme Court opinion: The majority opinion, written by Rehnquist, in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. See the distinction he makes between rights protected for “the people” (citizens and/or other residents enjoying a longstanding connection with the United States) and rights protected for “persons” (anyone and everyone).
The 5th amendment guarantee does make exception for the military — but that exception applies only to whether or not a grand jury indictment is required for an arrest/charge. The other amendments make no exception for the military, nor does the usual military criminal charge process deny the rights of the accused as described in subsequent amendments. In point of fact, a fair case can be made that in some cases military personnel accused of crimes enjoy MORE protections than civilians.
gc, I can imagine that some attys might say that 6A depends on 5A. Prosecutions require indictments, yes?
I can’t see how anyone would disagree with your take on 8A’s applicability. The only question would be what’s “cruel and unusual.” Holding someone who’s been carved out? Dunno. Waterboarding? Sounds cruel and unusual to me.
gc, as a theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist, yet non-nihilist, I agree. The Constitution ain’t sacrosanct, but it’s the current rule of law, which seems a requirement for a civil society.
Rachel @37:
“The real men have no problems with me, eh boys? :o)”
Not in the slightest! *smooches*
Reasonableness is always a factor in interpretation. But I’m not sure I see anything in the text of the 6th amendment that suggests any need to qualify, for instance, the reference to “all criminal trials.”
As an anarchist, I’m not committed to the view that the US Constitution is an infallible sacred text. But it does seems to me that, if one is going to employ it as a basis for making moves in a legal system, the unqualified language of provisions like those found in the 6th amendment is pretty difficult to skirt (just as I’m inclined to agree with Hugo Black that, when the 1st amendment says “no law,” it really means “no law”).
gc, I considered that. But if US military is carved out, it would be consistent to carve out US persons, yes?
Point is, the law is vague sometimes. If I get jurisprudential theory, the gaps in the law are plugged with the “reasonable man” notion.
I guess that’s why lawyers can get the big bucks!;-)
And the exception, even if it should be read as more inclusive than I’m inclined to think it should, only applies to the indictment process; it doesn’t undermine the 5th amendment’s broader due process guarantee (which surely opens up space for appellate review in ordinary federal courts), nor the 6th amendment’s guarantee of a speedy, public and otherwise fair trial “in all criminal cases,” nor the 8th amendment’s preclusion of cruel and unusual punishment.
I guess I read “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger” as a reference to people who actually belong to the US military–I think this is an attempt to carve out a narrow exception for actual service members.
drl, thanks for your feedback. Not sure what you mean by tangential, as my politics are pretty darned mainstream.
I’d say being one’s own worst enemy describes the human condition pretty well.
Your comment about making events seems awfully tangential (and obscure) to me. Is this a reference to the Paul dissing? I don’t think Barr handled that one too well, if so. Carrying that grievance around seems awfully unhealthy to me. We all make mistakes.
Robert Capozzi: boy do you have a tangential view of the world………
Robert Barr is his own worst enemy and if you like the guy buy the sucker a watch [so that he can make it to future media events……..]
whatever, actually, I’d say Barr would be GREAT for something like that, on its face. Former congressman, prosecutor, and non-aligned with either party. I doubt they could do better.
it might even be good for the LP, as he’d be in the press a lot.
Still, this release is probably correct that Obama wants this issue to be swept under the rug. So if they do appoint a special prosecutor, they’d want someone who will do their bidding. Barr wouldn’t be indicated for that.
gc: In any event, the Bill of Rights refers consistently to “persons”–not to “citizens,” “combatants covered by the Geneva Conventions,” etc.
me: I see you are a law professor, so bear with me. I’d not read the 5th Amendment in some time, but it does say this:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger…”
So, yes, it does say “person,” but there’s also a specific carve out for times of war and even “public danger,” whatever that is.
Even for the Bushies, I think we should be fair in our critiques. (Best way to maintain credibility, I dare say.) Unless I’m missing something here playing constitutional lawyer, there seems to be justification for a DIFFERENT treatment of “enemy combatants,” which sounds like “militia” to me. Is there some stare decisis precedent that makes my take false?
Of course, this could lead to a slippery slope, where anyone the government CLAIMS is militia or “enemy combatants” is denied due process, so I’m VERY sympathetic to defining rights as broadly as possible. Still, in times of war or public danger, it appears the Founders carved out exceptions that seem reasonable, or at least not without merit.
Would the CLIPR National Committee support Congressman Barr as special prosecutor on torture if he is so appointed by Obama/Biden/Holder?
Been said that I’m a gurlie man too.
Usually said by gurlie men. The real men have no problems with me, eh boys? :o)
TK, yes, one or the other might be tidier.
It appears from a quick check that the Geneva Conventions contain a 3rd category that sounds similar to enemy combatants. (Wiki’s not the best source, but it’s quick!) According to it, “party to the conflict” is the terminology.
Doesn’t seem like “enemy combatant” is made of whole cloth. Do you REALLY mean that the definitions and applications were stretched by W & Co.?
What a mess W wrought, regardless.
Milnes, try u-Haul. Their boxes come in many sizes.
We forgot to add to the torture list, “anything spewed by the delusional Eric Dondero”.
As for “girlie men”, well, I think it’s safe to say that each of the men on that list, names misspelled or not, probably have had more women for free than Dondero has paid for. In Starchild’s case, he gets so many women that they pay him! 🙂
TK, I might need a boxing coach. Know any?
I find it rather rich that some limp-wristed former squid is calling this Marine a “girlie-man”!!
Eric, I got out several years before you went in. And I didn’t get any “counseling” when I got home either, so you might want to be careful who you are antagonizing. Rumor has it that we “go off” pretty easy, some would say even unprovoked!
😉
PEACE
Bob,
See Gary Chartier’s reply. The whole “enemy combatant” thing is an attempt to get around the clear requirements of core law (the US Constitution and/or binding treaties). It was created extra-legally and from whole cloth, and pretty much amounts to an arbitrary presidential “don’t like the law, ain’t gonna obey it.”
My impression is that the category “enemy combatant” was created, not as a matter of principle, but precisely as a device designed to avoid legal constraints like those to which Tom referred.
In any event, the Bill of Rights refers consistently to “persons”–not to “citizens,” “combatants covered by the Geneva Conventions,” etc.
tk: Mr. Dondero loves to characterize waterboarding as the equivalent of a college panty raid, but he has yet to respond to an offer by myself and others to donate $1 to the Republican Liberty Caucus for every minute he allows himself to be waterboarded without admitting it’s torture.
me: That’s rich. It sounds like torture to me, too.
rm, I can’t know. His “progressivism” was quite different from today’s progressive, although he does not rank high on my president’s list. Back then, government was something like 10% of GDP. Now, it’s ~40%…a whole different ballgame.
RC, TR was not a socialist. What sort of economics do you think he would have pursued if he/Progressive Party was elected in 1912?
tk, please expand. I’m under the impression there’s a third category: enemy combatants.
If not, do you know of a good source that supports your summary view?
My understanding is that our punk president did not serve in the military before being elected Commander-in-Chief. How does that figure in your logic, Eric?
rm, since you ask, my sense is a centrist, more moderate LP that takes a more real-world, less theoretical, approach stands a chance at either actual major party status OR could at least challenge the majors (win a few, have significant, double-digit percentages in others).
this approach could attract fiscal conservative Rs, reasonably capitalism-friendly Ds, former Perotistas, and independents.
alas, small-government centrism has made less progress than I’d hoped. Some, though. We have some unfortunate vestigial founding documents and a dogmatic element who have a very specific, doctrinaire, definition of the word L that have blocked efforts to mainstream the LP. Yet, I remain optimistic that something like what I suggest will eventually become prevailing thought in L ranks.
my principal critique of your Progressive Alliance is that Ls can’t stomach progressive economics, mostly. It’s a non-starter.
Once again I agree with Prof. Phillies. (Bob Barr)”He is not a credible source on this or almost any other question.”
Bob,
You write:
“While I like the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to so-called enemy combatants, I’m not sure they do. Do they? If so, how so? I’d think the Geneva Conventions and international law DO apply, btw.”
The abductees at Gitmo and other places fall into one of two categories: Either they’re POWs, or they’re criminal suspects.
If the former, their treatment is governed by the Geneva convention.
If the latter, their treatment is governed by US civilian law, including the protections for the accused specified in the Bill of Rights (see the late Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the majority in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez).
Mr. Dondero loves to characterize waterboarding as the equivalent of a college panty raid, but he has yet to respond to an offer by myself and others to donate $1 to the Republican Liberty Caucus for every minute he allows himself to be waterboarded without admitting it’s torture.
Eric, I have been considering challenging our punk president to a supervised (Pay-per-view?) boxing match. Is that “masculine” enough for you?
Robert Capozzi, “Time to drain the swamp that is Washington, DC. Agreed. But how do you propose this be done? The prevailing remedy is to vote out the offending party & vote in their adversaries. But there are only two viable-capable of winning- parties. So that has been done!-Dubya & reps are out. Punk president Obama & dems are in. The Progressive Alliance Strategy to win is flying like a lead baloon.
Eris=Eric.
I believe Eris is a performance artist. Brilliant at it, too!
Notice whose backing this “Torture” ban?
Hey, you left out Montoni. Marc, aren’t you ashamed to be left out of Dondero’s ‘girlie man’ list?
Dondero’s position is a parody of itself.
To be clear, I didn’t say Barr would necessarily be a source, I’m just curious on his take. His sophistication level and depth of knowledge are strong on many subjects, even when I disagree with his views.
And, while I’m not a vet, I’m also not a military hater. I’d hope that Eric doesn’t believe that ALL non-vets are military haters, as he seems to suggest.
Just for the record Dondero as a Vet, 1962-1966, I support this work and this piece.
Does that help any?
MW
Are you serious? Torture is “pro-male” and voluntarily skipping meals is the same thing as torture? What planet do you live on?
Hey, Girlie Men Libertarians, buck up. Get some Male Hormone shots.
You all are making the rest of us REAL LIBERTARIANS, look to be associated with a bunch of WUSSIES!!
Notice there ain’t a single Vet amongst the likes of you. All a bunch of Military-haters.
Notice whose backing this “Torture” ban?
Steven Linnaberry – Girlie Man
Robert Milnes – Green Girlie Man
George Phillies – whiny-voiced Girlie Man
Starchild – Well, um, Girlie Manism is his Life Profession
And next to be banned: Heavy Metal music, Gym class, Dodge Ball, College Frat Party hazing rituals, and skipping meals. All forms of “torture,” after all.
Oh, yeah! The revenge of the Nerdy wing of libertarians. If it’s Masculine, or Pro-Male, gotta kill it.
I believe the part about security classification is an exact quote from the platform.
Bob Barr has shown an amazing ability to blend his spots with his current environment, as witness his authorship of DOMA and his campaign to purge the witches from the military until he said he was a libertarian. He is not a credible source on this or almost any other question.
My feedback is I like the subject matter, but the content and tone of this release seems off. Here’s a case where I’d like to hear Barr’s view, as he’s an expert in these matters. I’m surely not, and I see no indication that those quoted are, either.
While I like the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to so-called enemy combatants, I’m not sure they do. Do they? If so, how so? I’d think the Geneva Conventions and international law DO apply, btw.
The platform’s language is a bit of a rabbit hole for me. I certainly support the general idea, but what the language LITERALLY means is not obvious. Does it say that NOTHING can be classified? No, is my read. This clause: “We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications” is qualified by “to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.” Does this mean that Starchild should have access to ALL of the CIA’s and DIA’s files, at any time, under any circumstances? Or should Starchild (i.e., the public) be apprised of unlawful acts by the government? The former seems unreasonable; the latter reasonable.
While I have problems with the theory of jurisprudence, it is the tradition in the rule of law in the US (mostly…not so much in LA, which uses Napoleanic Codes, as I understand it). A cornerstone concept in jurisprudential theory is the “reasonable man” standard. It’s simply NOT reasonable that Starchild can have access to the Pentagon’s troop movement plans for Iraq. I oppose the Iraq War, but I surely don’t want anyone and everyone to know who’s doing what there. That strains credulity…big time.
The Obama reversal on the photos is interesting. I have to wonder whether the Pelosi/CIA dust up is at the heart of this. If ranking Ds knew about waterboarding and so forth, that seems to point to D complicity. That might have been the more interesting angle…pox on both houses. Time to drain the swamp that IS Washington DC!
Progressives for Obama. Ha Ha Ha. Wasn’t Tom Hayden in on that subterfuge?
I finally got the facebook thing to work…it WAS just me.
🙂
PEACE
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/magazine/001106.html
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Zm6JXvXXze4/SIM4rMOTmEI/AAAAAAAABYQ/vzucUge2xB4/s1600-h/starchild1.jpg
Who is “Starchild?” I’ve heard her (him?) talked about before, but who is she (he?)?
Another GREAT release!!
I am having a hard time posting this to my facebook page. I don’t know if it is me, or if there is something wrong with the link.
PEACE
I told you so.