McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 09:21:04

You were the one that suggested that we monitor Muslim places of worship, and I think that makes sense. Dosen't it also then make sense to monitor other worship centers, since they could be (and in some instances are) used for plots against the saftey of Americans and our way of life?

Sure, if you have some reason for monitoring them. Most wouldn't need it, not many mosques are used as terrorist support centers and not many churches are used to support abortion clinic bombers. If you get some information that one is, take a closer look. They are supposed to be open to the public, which presumably includes agents of the various security institutions of our government. The hard part is filtering which need more scrutiny.

I wouldn't expect anyone should fear a religious service being reported on in normal circumstances. It's irritating to some perhaps, but nothing more.

But as is often the case, how this is taken depends largely on how it's painted. It's possible we're actually in agreement about substance, but you're portraying it in a more ominous, assume-the-worst manner. Fair enough, I never said trust the government.

If everyone who should be here legitimetly has an ID card, then police or other federal agents merely need to demand to see that ID to easily ferret out whose who. You have a better idea for screening?

We don't need a Fed ID card, we can just make sure states don't issue drivers licenses to illegals, those with expired visas or people otherwise not supposed to be here. It's already the standard form of ID, easy enough to implement.

But now I have to report someone for implying less-than-honorable intentions of our government. God bless America.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 09:27:46

Scapegoats are the Right's source of energy.

"McCarthyism" is inevitable because the Left and Right use each other as scapegoats.

You are not yet ready for the grey shirt.

clark · 2005-02-02 09:34:05

But as is often the case, how this is taken depends largely on how it's painted. It's possible we're actually in agreement about substance, but you're portraying it in a more ominous, assume-the-worst manner. Fair enough, I never said trust the government.

Never trust the government? Yet don't we have to for your suggestion to work? How many checks and balances are you willing to put up with, or for-go, in order to achive your desire?

Considering we are fighting a "war", don't we need to reduce the checks on the agents of the US to act in the best interests of the United States, and assume that there will be little abuse of power? We don't want to tie our hands, do we.

If we go in it with a mind set of "crime fighting" we are merely reacting, which in today's climate is untenable since we may be investigating a mushroom cloud after the fact. No, really, we need to allow the federal government and her agents to act on suspicion, ineuendo, heresay, circumstantial evidence, and faith. Facts will follow, or will not, but in the end, our saftey will be secure.

You see, we never know where the terroists or enemies might be conspiring, and if we wait for a sign, then it may be too late. We need to be proactive- we need to be preemptive, which requires that we monitor any and all possiblities, even if it is slightly remote. That's how we remain safe.

We don't need a Fed ID card, we can just make sure states don't issue drivers licenses to illegals, those with expired visas or people otherwise not supposed to be here. It's already the standard form of ID, easy enough to implement.

Yet even normal citizens get along fine without a drivers liscence. and NOT having one isn't a crime. How do you then ascertain if someone should be here or not? It seems the most effective and effecient means is to require a federal ID which must be carried at all times. This way, those who don't have one, can be weeded out and shipped off. If someone forgets theirs, well, they can clear that up later down at the station, or local holding center. That will ensure our saftey (not to mention making it easier to pick up criminals of all sorts because a centralized database would allow for all ID's to be checked against it).

Palomar · 2005-02-02 09:45:04

*Well I don't consider myself much of a paranoid person at all, but I see some warning signs: What I've already mentioned in my first post, and then the weird voyeurism so rampant in the U.S. currently, in the form of "reality TV." Sorry, "reality TV" to me is akin to poring over someone else's photo albums, watching their slides/home movies for hours on end -- I'll pass.

I try to see it as perhaps a healthy thing (maybe we're blowing off some steam in a strange way, socially speaking), but combined with everything else....

The surge in school- and work-related gun rampages of the late 90s, etc.

Of course the Right has gained a foothold now.

I just get this feeling that something very unpleasant is about to emerge swiftly, as a "spillover effect" -- maybe even in the form of a "witch-hunt" mentality.

Hopefully I'm totally wrong, but the issue of McCarythism occurring to me the other day surprised me, unpleasantly so.

Yeah, the Left and Right do scapegoat each other. It's oh-so-tiresome. (I'll pass on the grey shirt...geez, some folks have zero fashion sense). LOL.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-02 09:48:23

Scapegoats are the Right's source of energy.
"McCarthyism" is inevitable because the Left and Right use each other as scapegoats.
You are not yet ready for the grey shirt.

As far as the organized political parties go, absolutely true.

Neither the Right ™ nor the Left ™ truly want Roe v Wade overturned because that would interfere with fundraising. :;):

= = =

The question is can we Americans have a genuine dialouge on the real questions - - such as "does society have the right to enact policies which shape the bell curve that describes income and wealth distribution."

IMHO, the current Right is actively seeking a "U" curve using laws and federal policy to concentrate 99.5% of the wealth in the hands of the top 0.5%.

A Marxian diagnosis to be sure however as we have discussed before I most forcefully reject a purely Marxian solution, as I believe that ending mercantilism (where the hand of Washington washes the hand of corporate donors) will go a long way towards correcting this problem.

= = =

PS - - The War on Terror ™ while genuine and serious is also being used by the Right ™ as a ploy and smokecreen to distract the American people from an unprecedented stripping of their basic rights and a government sanctioned reverse-Robin Hood transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper uber-elites.

= = =

PPS - Bashing the new elites (rock musicians and lousy quarterbacks being paid millions per year) is another great smokescreen for hiding the billions flowing into the coffers of the uber-elites.

Edited By BWhite on 1107359750

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 09:51:05

Never trust the government? Yet don't we have to for your suggestion to work? How many checks and balances are you willing to put up with, or for-go, in order to achive your desire?

I stated "I never said trust the government.", not "never trust the government." There's a world of difference in those two statements, you don't get a grey shirt either.

Sure we have to trust that when they do something it's in the interests of us all, but at the same time they need to know there will be consequences if that is abused. We already have the two greatest checks and balances we could hope for in that regard in the form of the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.

Yet even normal citizens get along fine without a drivers liscence. and NOT having one isn't a crime. How do you then ascertain if someone should be here or not? It seems the most effective and effecient means is to require a federal ID which must be carried at all times.

The important part is not so much having a card some cop can look at but screening earlier. Tighten the borders, make what reforms are needed to the visa program. Sure there will be millions of illegals still here but if we can stop the flow in and send them out as we catch them we'll be far better off then now.

Sure, lots of Americans don't have a drivers license and still more forget it from time to time. If they get picked up by law enforcement they ask who you are and run the information you give back, then ask you other bits about the name you gave to see if you actually are that person. If you're not doing anything wrong and aren't acting suspcious they let you go, if not they take you in to find out for certain. Been there, not that big a deal.

(not to mention making it easier to pick up criminals of all sorts because a centralized database would allow for all ID's to be checked against it).

This is actually one reason I'm against it. Sure, I want to catch terrorists and violent criminals, but they turn up in checks anyway, there are nation-wide databases for such people. I don't want a nation-wide database that can be checked for parking tickets, minor drug possession and other such trivialities. Balance is key, I want the important and necessary laws enforced but I don't mind a little effort being required to enforce the less important and often less just variety.

Palomar · 2005-02-02 09:53:15

*...and 9/11 was so harrowing, then the anthrax scares including people receiving anthrax-laced stuff in the mail and dying from it, the continual (and now very much MORE real) threat of biological warfare, all the political tensions and angst over current military stuff including our dead and wounded...

Just seems like something's going to "give."

::sigh::

Really, I don't recognize this nation anymore. Feels like a different country, or like tumbling into a very strange and terrible parallel universe or something.

Thank god for astronomy; one of the few things keeping me sane at this point, I think.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-02-02 09:55:18

LOL!

As long as I'm not bothered by these encroachments into civil liberities.

Democracy is advanced, or receeds, by the slefish self-interest of each and every individual. Bravo! :laugh:

Keep your gray shirt, I'll play skins.

clark · 2005-02-02 10:02:09

Sure we have to trust that when they do something it's in the interests of us all, but at the same time they need to know there will be consequences if that is abused. We already have the two greatest checks and balances we could hope for in that regard in the form of the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.

Yeah, of course if you say something wrong, utilizing your right to free speech, well, then you can be legitmately targeted for investigation.

If you own weapons, then you can be targeted for investigations.

The important part is not so much having a card some cop can look at but screening earlier. Tighten the borders, make what reforms are needed to the visa program. Sure there will be millions of illegals still here but if we can stop the flow in and send them out as we catch them we'll be far better off then now.

How do you catch them if they lay low? Get the visa, get in, lay low. Didn't most of the 9/11 terroists do exactly that?

Sure, lots of Americans don't have a drivers license and still more forget it from time to time. If they get picked up by law enforcement they ask who you are and run the information you give back, then ask you other bits about the name you gave to see if you actually are that person. If you're not doing anything wrong and aren't acting suspcious they let you go, if not they take you in to find out for certain. Been there, not that big a deal.

You escaping their clutches does not support the current use of the system.

Didn't the same thing happen to terroists? Picked up by cops, then let go... didn't that happen with McVeigh?

This is actually one reason I'm against it. Sure, I want to catch terrorists and violent criminals, but they turn up in checks anyway, there are nation-wide databases for such people. I don't want a nation-wide database that can be checked for parking tickets, minor drug possession and other such trivialities.

Why not?! You yourself have stated that illegal immigrants are criminals and demonstrate that by their very minor act of gaining access to this country. How is it any different? A man who enters this country illegaly has no respect for our laws just as someone who violates the law by illegal drug possession and unpaid parking tickets.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 10:04:04

As for gun control, I say "Uncle" as have most Democrats.

Frankly, encryption technologies are more important, today. And more in keeping with the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Once real shooting starts, our modern information age society would already be FUBAR-ed.

I'll let you have your rifle if we put the DMCA and strong crypto restrictions in the circular file.

= = =

But that would undermine American hegemony, no?

Edited By BWhite on 1107361418

Palomar · 2005-02-02 10:16:28

*Shaun wrote:

In the Roman Republic, before the advent of the emperors, power was held by a collegiate structure of magistrates, who consulted the Senate in all their decision-making. The chief magistrates, or Consuls, would occasionally appoint a Dictator, who assumed absolute power for a limited period (no more than 6 months) when the Republic was under serious external threat.
This was a remarkably sophisticated system, in that it allowed for a significant degree of consultation and input by the people for the most part, but deferred to the perceived advantages of absolute dictatorship when uncompromising and decisive action were essential to the survival of the state.

*Wow, that's interesting (6-month dictatorship). You know so much about Roman-era stuff.

Of course, the world today is far more complicated and implementing a system exactly like Republican Rome's is impracticable. America's Patriot Act, as my limited understanding of it goes, might conceivably be regarded as a watered-down version of the old Roman response to a national emergency but it has led to fierce opposition. The magnitude of the threat to America and the rest of the world is hotly disputed, perhaps quite rightly, and many see its alleged exaggeration as an excuse for the covert advancement of a fascist agenda.
So, what do we do?

*I've heard it said the only sin is what one commits against one's self (whether via commission or omission). Failing to protect one's self would fit into the "omission" category, surely.

Machiavelli's comment about a leader being alternately (and when required) a lion or a fox comes to mind.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-02 10:17:05

Sure we have to trust that when they do something it's in the interests of us all, but at the same time they need to know there will be consequences if that is abused. We already have the two greatest checks and balances we could hope for in that regard in the form of the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.

I agree with this as political theory, if we read the Second Amendment as being intended to give citizens genuine power to resist governmental domination. (But as a practical matter, few citizens could acquire the firepower or skills needed to resist a modern SWAT team, so I choose the alternate route of not owning any gun at all.)

And, since the Constitution was enacted to better protect the inalienable (pre-existing) rights asserted by Jefferson on July 4, 1776 these rights do not arise from the document itself (as asserted by Scalia, et. al.) but arise from a place beyond humanity and therefore are the birthright of every human on the planet, and eventually off the planet.

= = =

PS - - This second point is why I go ballistic when Ashcroft says the scum at Gitmo ain't got no rights! By saying that, he is undermining the legitimate foundation of MY rights.

Edited By BWhite on 1107361345

clark · 2005-02-02 10:23:50

I would place the politcal theory earlier... the Declaration of Independance. While not a governing document per se, but taken in context with the Bill of Rights and the enite Constution, the fundamental inalienable right would be the individual right to defy the dictates of the State when it no longer represents the consent of the governed. First Amendment is mearly a means to that end-determining if it does represent the consent of the populace.

You don't need a gun to defy the State.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 10:27:11

I would place the politcal theory earlier... the Declaration of Independance. While not a governing document per se, but taken in context with the Bill of Rights and the enite Constution, the fundamental inalienable right would be the individual right to defy the dictates of the State when it no longer represents the consent of the governed. First Amendment are mearly a means to that end-determining if it does represent the consent of the populace.
You don't need a gun to defy the State.

I think I said that.

As evidence, note that at Gettysburg, Lincoln talked about fourscore and seven, which counts out to 1776 not 1787.

Lincoln was too astute to do that by accident.

The Constitution of 1787 created NO rights, it merely seeks to better preserve the pre-existing inalienable rights discovered (not created) by Jefferson.

By saying the Gitmo detainees have no rights, the Right blasphemes the original source of American legitimacy.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 10:30:43

Yeah, of course if you say something wrong, utilizing your right to free speech, well, then you can be legitmately targeted for investigation

Depending on what is defined as "saying something wrong". If you say "the President is an idiot nad this war is corrupt" investigating that is wrong. If you say "I'm gonna shoot that S.O.B. for starting this corrupt war" that should be looked into.

But then you already know this don't you. :;):

If you own weapons, then you can be targeted for investigations.

Which I also oppose, as you know.

How do you catch them if they lay low? Get the visa, get in, lay low. Didn't most of the 9/11 terroists do exactly that?

If I recall correctly a couple of them had expired visas, in which case they should have been tracked down. Atta was stopped by the police and should have been detained and deported since, IIRC his visa was one of those that had expired.

These simple reforms if in place would have caught some of the 9/11 hijackers, but not all. But are we going to do the best that we can or hold out for that "Terrorist Detector" wand that gets 'em all?

You escaping their clutches does not support the current use of the system.

Why not?! You yourself have stated that illegal immigrants are criminals and demonstrate that by their very minor act of gaining access to this country. How is it any different?

Because someone who is wanted on some minor misdemeanor drug charge or for a speeding ticket will still show up as being whoever he says he is from wherever he says he's from. An illegal alien will have no such background so when picked up with no ID and no record of existence the pieces of the puzzle start to come together.

Once real shooting starts, our modern inforamtion age society wouls already be FUBAR-ed.

Modern American society would be FUBAR'd if the air conditioning went out. Hell, if Starbuck's closed down even.

I'll let you have your rifle if we put the DCMA and strong crypto restrictions in the circular file.

I'm torn on the encryption question. On the one hand there's the privacy concerns, but on the other there's don't send private information in email. There's why can't I put 128 encryption on this list of Bush jokes if I want to versus we're giving up a means of catching inept terrorists and criminal types stupid enough to send killing-people plots via the internet.

But I'm leaning towards encryption and firearms for all.

But as a practical matter, few citizens could acquire the firepower or skills needed to resist a modern SWAT team, so I choose the alternate route of not owning any gun at all.)

But how many SWAT teams can they employ. Get the bulk of the population angry enough to fight and it's over.

And, since the Constitution was enacted to better protect the inalienable rights asserted by Jefferson on July 4, 1776 these rights do not arise from the document itself (as asserted by Scalia, et. al.) but arise from a place beyond humanity and therefore are the birthrignt of every human on the planet, and eventually off the planet.

But in practice it creates very thorny issues. If all people everywhere are protected by the Constitution then our detainment of terrorists and the like at Gitmo is illegal, as has our detainment of any Prisoner of War from the birth of this nation on.

That's right, every German and Japanese soldier we captured in WWII was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers according to this intepretation.

It also implies that if those Rights apply to everyone, anywhere and the Consitution exists to defend those rights, that we have an obligation to ensure they are upheld everywhere. Which essentially means we have an obligation to expand our own borders or remake other nations in our image by whatever means are necessary.

And why just the Bill of Rights, which is just an list of additions to the Consitution? Does everyone in the world get to vote? Does everyone have to pay US taxes?

Yes, it's a bit of a clarkish "no grey" argument, but stands on lofty but impractical principles or so prone to such things.

clark · 2005-02-02 10:31:02

I think I said that.

Think of it as reinforcement.

I was under the impression that the Supreme Court had ruled that the US constution applied to non-citizens as well.

clark · 2005-02-02 10:35:24

It also implies that if those Rights apply to everyone, anywhere and the Consitution exists to defend those rights, that we have an obligation to ensure they are upheld everywhere. Which essentially means we have an obligation to expand our own borders or remake other nations in our image by whatever means are necessary.
And why just the Bill of Rights, which is just an list of additions to the Consitution? Does everyone in the world get to vote? Does everyone have to pay US taxes?

Our law dosen't extended beyond our soil.

Which explains the trouble of finding a place to put all those people on Gitmo...

If it wasn't the case, we have the facilities on American soil to hold them- yet we go through quite a bit to keep them off. Precisely because of the interpretation you laugh at.

You mean the Constution defines the basic human rights of all people? Not just Americans? Well, golly. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-02-02 11:02:32

That's right, every German and Japanese soldier we captured in WWII was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers according to this intepretation.

Nah.

Soldiers of nation states at war have a clear legal status. If the nation state system established at Westphalia starts to unravel, we lawyers have work to do. Fair enough.

al Qaeda does create new problems in the context of the Geneva Convention versus the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Problems we are plenty powerful enough to address in an open and transparent manner.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 11:14:26

al Qaeda does create new problems in the context of the Geneva Convention versus the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Problems we are plenty powerful enough to address in an open and transparent manner.

Indeed they do create new problems. One could argue that they are civilians with the same rights as American citizens, but it could also be argued with equal justification that as non-uniformed combatants they are essentially the same as spies or saboteurs and can be executed on site if need be.

At present they're in legal limbo and I'll agree that we have some details to work out in as transparent a manner as possible.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 11:16:08

It also implies that if those Rights apply to everyone, anywhere and the Consitution exists to defend those rights, that we have an obligation to ensure they are upheld everywhere. Which essentially means we have an obligation to expand our own borders or remake other nations in our image by whatever means are necessary.

Cobra's point also means US global military supremacy would violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Let's discuss the 2nd Amendment and gun control in the context of Iran's potential "right" to nuclear weapons to resist US flag SWAT teams. ???

If it is unjust for society to keep handguns away from drug dealers on Chicago's South Side what about mullahs with nukes?

You mean the Constution defines the basic human rights of all people? Not just Americans? Well, golly.

Actually, no.

The principles which guide and shape the Constitution, the basic human rights which the Constitution was drafted to preserve apply to all people.

And if we violate the spirit of those rights we undermine our own legitimacy.

clark · 2005-02-02 11:20:35

Potato, Potato.

Quibbling Bill.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 11:21:27

al Qaeda does create new problems in the context of the Geneva Convention versus the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Problems we are plenty powerful enough to address in an open and transparent manner.
Indeed they do create new problems. One could argue that they are civilians with the same rights as American citizens, but it could also be argued with equal justification that as non-uniformed combatants they are essentially the same as spies or saboteurs and can be executed on site if need be.
At present they're in legal limbo and I'll agree that we have some details to work out in as transparent a manner as possible.

"Non-uniformed" is an issue. Who defines uniform?

= = =

What about organized gangs who run drugs for profit?

Sufficiently state-less to justify falling between the cracks of criminal law and the law of war which includes the geneva Convention?

If drug running organized criminals can be fought using tools designed for al Qaeda, what about conspiracies to import illegal cigarettes, or white collar RICO crime rings that steal software?

Can we Gitmo-ize those people?

= = =

So you see, to scream loudly about Ashcroft, Gonzalez and Gitmo is not un-American, it's the essence of being American.

:band:

Edited By BWhite on 1107365103

BWhite · 2005-02-02 11:27:34

New thought,

The record companies, cable TV companies and other digital media companies would LOVE to Gitmo-ize those who steal cable TV or swap songs using the defunct Napster or Kazaa.

clark · 2005-02-02 11:33:27

Gitmo-ize?

You mean teens in their parents basement swapping music and movies?

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 11:35:01

If it is unjust for society to keep handguns away from drug dealers on Chicago's South Side what about mullahs with nukes?

If those drug dealers engage in violent crime it isn't unjust to disarm them. If they just sell drugs then it's just business, no more inherently wrong than some others that operate with complete legality.

As for Iran's Mullah's and nukes, I'd say it doesn't apply for two reasons. <dons grey shirt> First, the Second Amendment even if applied to all people anywhere is still an individual right as are all of those listed in the Bill of Rights. Nations are artificial entities, individual rights don't apply. Iran as an entity has no rights. If it applies to entire nations then what about corporations? Microsoft with the A-bomb?

Do the Mullahs themselves have a right to nukes? The spirit of the Amendment involves individuals having the means to defend themselves from tyranny, whether foreign or domestic. A nuke isn't really a defensive weapon, it's good for attack or retribution but not defense. It can then be argued that since the Second Amendment doesn't protect a right to destroy in desperation it can't be applied to nukes, whether in the hands of nations, corporations or individuals.

A hazy position, but then we're already talking about an individual right in the US Constitution applied to a collective entity outside the jurisdiction of that Constitution, not the most solid legal ground.

If drug running organized criminals can be fought using tools designed for al Qaeda, what about conspiracies to import illegal cigarettes, or white collar RICO crime rings that steal software?
Can we Gitmo-ize those people?

If they engage in defined criminal activity within the US then no, there is a solid legal framework for that case so it can't be shuffled elsewhere on a whim. If it's foreign nationals smuggling to finance terrorist activity, then it gets a bit more vague and open to interpretation.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1107365780

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-02-02 09:21:04

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#27 2005-02-02 09:27:46

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#28 2005-02-02 09:34:05

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#29 2005-02-02 09:45:04

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#30 2005-02-02 09:48:23

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#31 2005-02-02 09:51:05

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#32 2005-02-02 09:53:15

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#33 2005-02-02 09:55:18

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#34 2005-02-02 10:02:09

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#35 2005-02-02 10:04:04

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#36 2005-02-02 10:16:28

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#37 2005-02-02 10:17:05

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#38 2005-02-02 10:23:50

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#39 2005-02-02 10:27:11

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#40 2005-02-02 10:30:43

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#41 2005-02-02 10:31:02

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#42 2005-02-02 10:35:24

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#43 2005-02-02 11:02:32

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#44 2005-02-02 11:14:26

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#45 2005-02-02 11:16:08

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#46 2005-02-02 11:20:35

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#47 2005-02-02 11:21:27

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#48 2005-02-02 11:27:34

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#49 2005-02-02 11:33:27

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#50 2005-02-02 11:35:01

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Board footer