Most Liber/auto Us Presidents?

[IGotMilk]

What do you think were the most freedom-loving and hating presidents in the US? I say the most free-loving one would be Thomas Jefferson, he was a true Libertarian, and hated strong national power when he was the leader of the Republican/Democrats. The most Authoritarian president for me would be, of course, Dubya the 2nd. Seeing in that he invaded Iraq without HOR/Senate's approval...

What are your ideas?

[VictorGrey]

Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson.

[EKublai]

At 48 minutes ago, IGotMilk wrote: What do you think were the most freedom-loving and hating presidents in the US? I say the most free-loving one would be Thomas Jefferson, he was a true Libertarian, and hated strong national power when he was the leader of the Republican/Democrats. The most Authoritarian president for me would be, of course, Dubya the 2nd. Seeing in that he invaded Iraq without HOR/Senate's approval...

What are your ideas?

Yes, Jefferson, a slave-owner, loved Freedom.

I'd go with Grover Cleveland on that one, since he fought for Hawaii to keep its sovereignty.

I don't believe there has ever been a freedom-hating president.

[Angry-Hatter]

Kind of hard not to name GWB as the most, to use your phrasing, "liberty-hating" President in history, due to his involvement in the trampling of civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping, as well as the gross human rights violations at Guantanamo and other black sites around the world. The boundries of what is acceptable were pushed so far under Bush that any President who came before him seems moderate by comparison.

The runner up would have to be Andrew Johnson, a regressive monster of a President who hated the change taking place in America during reconstruction, who wanted nothing more than to go back to the good old days of the small farmer. He believed that white people should be the masters of the blacks, if not through slavery, then through other means (black codes).

As for the biggest "liberty-loving" President, I'm tempted to say Lincoln because of his opposition to slavery, but when it comes down to it, he only opposed slavery on principle. He was just as much of a racist as most of his contemporaries and didn't believe that blacks were in any way the equals of whites; he just didn't think it was ok to keep the blacks enslaved, even though they were inferior.

I don't know, it's hard to name one, since even the best US Presidents have some negative quality weighing them down. I might give some honorable mentions to the names that are going through my head though: Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter.

[Camarohusky]

At 5 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Kind of hard not to name GWB as the most, to use your phrasing, "liberty-hating" President in history, due to his involvement in the trampling of civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping, as well as the gross human rights violations at Guantanamo and other black sites around the world.

An FYI, most of the basis for the Patriot Act was born during the Clinton Administration.

[All-American-Badass]

I'd say Woodrow Wilson was the least freedom friendly president, he actually wanted to re segregate the white house, and tried to suppress opinions against the allies in WWI. However, Washington and Jefferson were the most freedom friendly presidents, it'll be damn near impossible to implement their style of governing now.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: An FYI, most of the basis for the Patriot Act was born during the Clinton Administration.

The USA PATRIOT Act was drafted in its entirety following the September 11 attacks. It wasn't based on any pre-existing bill, but it did expand the authority of the government in certain areas that had already been addressed during the Clinton years, notably through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (which was, by the way, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole). You'll notice I didn't include Clinton in my honorable mentions, nor did I include Obama. Clinton was bad on civil liberties, Obama is bad on civil liberties. Bush was worse.

[Warforger]

I like how you say "Libertarian" and "Autocratic" as though they are antonyms. If you mean Libertarian then there is a long list most of whom don't have well any significant thing to their career's because well they just simply didn't do anything, you know like Garfield or Coolidge.

At 16 hours ago, EKublai wrote: I don't believe there has ever been a freedom-hating president.

But John Adams, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush all passed legislation restricting it, that's kind of hate though.

At 14 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Kind of hard not to name GWB as the most, to use your phrasing, "liberty-hating" President in history, due to his involvement in the trampling of civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping, as well as the gross human rights violations at Guantanamo and other black sites around the world. The boundries of what is acceptable were pushed so far under Bush that any President who came before him seems moderate by comparison.

Well he didn't actually restrict anyone's basic rights, sure they lost their rights to privacy in the Patriot Act, but he didn't restrict freedom of speech as much as John Adams and Woodrow Wilson did,

As for the biggest "liberty-loving" President, I'm tempted to say Lincoln because of his opposition to slavery, but when it comes down to it, he only opposed slavery on principle. He was just as much of a racist as most of his contemporaries and didn't believe that blacks were in any way the equals of whites; he just didn't think it was ok to keep the blacks enslaved, even though they were inferior.

What? You mean the President who jailed political rivals who threatened to secede their states from the Union? You mean the President who started the whole taking power away from Congress thing?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 1 hour ago, Warforger wrote: Well he didn't actually restrict anyone's basic rights, sure they lost their rights to privacy in the Patriot Act, but he didn't restrict freedom of speech as much as John Adams and Woodrow Wilson did,

Fair argument, but I feel like Bush authorizing the kidnapping, indefinite detention, and torture of people from around the world pretty much trumps everything anyone else ever did as President.

What? You mean the President who jailed political rivals who threatened to secede their states from the Union? You mean the President who started the whole taking power away from Congress thing?

Yeah, that's the guy.

I told you, Lincoln was a mixed bag.

[Camarohusky]

At 1 hour ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Fair argument, but I feel like Bush authorizing the kidnapping, indefinite detention, and torture of people from around the world pretty much trumps everything anyone else ever did as President.

Even suspending habeas corpus?

Or shutting down every port on the Atlantic?

Or commonly utilizing extraordinary rendition?

Or creating and passing the Alien and Sedition act?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote: Even suspending habeas corpus?

Or shutting down every port on the Atlantic?

Or commonly utilizing extraordinary rendition?

Or creating and passing the Alien and Sedition act?

Well, number 1 and number 3 of those were the bread and butter of the Bush Administration, so I don't really know what you're getting at. Yeah, torture, kidnapping and indefinite detention was common under Bush, but at least he didn't have you arrested for speaking ill about the government?

[joe9320]

At 1 day ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Yeah, torture, kidnapping and indefinite detention was common under Bush, but at least he didn't have you arrested for speaking ill about the government?

I wouldn't want to live in such a hellhole like America if this is how people act.

[Iron-Hampster]

It is a shame that I can list a but load of US presidents who seemed to hate freedom yet "freedom loving" presidents seem so few and far between, and are even so up for debate I can't even say them with confidence. here is what I got for "freedom loving"

Abraham Lincoln: purely result based, state rights vs human rights and even if the war wasn't even about slavery. result was that slaves were freed that's big enough for most people. He did also pave the way to Corporate person hood, even if not on purpose.

Herbert Hoover: failure to say the least, performed various acts of unlawful and unwise government intervention with tariffs and keeping both prohibition and the fed. the only real thing libertarian about him was his economic policies but I seriousely question his knowledge of economics and what the role of government was supposed to be.

Kennedy: but he got shot so we don't know the full extent of what he planned on doing.

Franklin Roosevelt: I honestly believe his intentions were good and that he wanted to simply restore faith in our economic system, even if he set us up for our downfall.

then there is the massive long list of freedom haters, but my knowledge of American history is limited by my Canadian high school history 12 class, but most of them seem to be from the 20th and 21st century.

[VictorGrey]

At 6 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:

Herbert Hoover: failure to say the least, performed various acts of unlawful and unwise government intervention with tariffs and keeping both prohibition and the fed. the only real thing libertarian about him was his economic policies but I seriousely question his knowledge of economics and what the role of government was supposed to be.

Hoover wasn't free market and no amount of retarded propaganda and lies about that era of change facts of reality.

He was a market interventionist and a strong one at that.

[VictorGrey]

That was strong.

I get irked by that is all. It's not true.

[Warforger]

At 11 hours ago, VictorGrey wrote: Hoover wasn't free market and no amount of retarded propaganda and lies about that era of change facts of reality.

He was a market interventionist and a strong one at that.

No he wasn't. He was a traditional do nothing economist, that's why for the first few years of the Great Depression he did nothing saying that the economy will rebound as these Depressions happen all the time. Except by the end of the 1st year it didn't. He said that the year after. It didn't. So by 32-33 it was pretty clear that the government had to do something, so he decided to pass legislation which would help people with their mortgages, which in 29 would have done something, but by 32 was pointless because if you don't have a job, which alot of people didn't and often were losing them, you couldn't pay off even these lowered prices. While it is true that he did do some intervention, it was too little too late, and he in general hated it and did not want much more than he believed necessary. He did promote the Swoot-Hawley tariff, which did help bring the Great Depression and keep it going on, but that wasn't a revolutionary concept or against intervention. But overrall, he did nothing significant to stop the Depression and that was why he failed. That is not retarded propaganda that is pure hard fact.

[Camarohusky]

At 1 day ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: I don't really know what you're getting at.

Just letting you know that bad acts have been done by many Presidents, including (in the order I presented) Lincoln, Jefferson, Clinton, and Adams.

[TheMason]

At 2 days ago, IGotMilk wrote: What do you think were the most freedom-loving and hating presidents in the US? I say the most free-loving one would be Thomas Jefferson, he was a true Libertarian, and hated strong national power when he was the leader of the Republican/Democrats. The most Authoritarian president for me would be, of course, Dubya the 2nd. Seeing in that he invaded Iraq without HOR/Senate's approval...

What are your ideas?

I'd say the first four presidents because of their involvement in the founding of our country and the shaping of our republican form of government. However, Jefferson stands out because of what he considered to be his three most important accomplishments (which he wanted on his tombstone).

* Declaration of Independence
* Writing the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
* Father of the University of Virginia
(Note he doesn't list being president.)

Most freedom hating:
* FDR curtailed the economic liberties of millions of Americans. He confiscated gold and other precious metals and instituted many federal programs which forced people to sell their goods and/or services for prices set in Washington instead of what local markets could afford. The minimum wage actually priced many unskilled workers out of the labor market. And many of his programs favored either a) Democratic states/operatives or b) unions which were crusading for workplaces made up entirely of white men (in the 1920s and 30s unions saw blacks and women entering the workplace as a threat traditional workers).

As for your stated reason for thinking the second president Bush was the most freedom hating: it is FALSE! Bush invaded Iraq with the full approval of Congress. While he didn't get a Declaration of War, the last time Congress issued a Declaration of War was WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan and Iraq were all done under the War Powers Act of 1973. In it the president is compelled to seek Congressional authorization for committing US troops for any longer than 90 days.

The only two presidents to commit US troops without Congressional approval under the War Powers Act:
Clinton (Kosovo)
Obama (Libya)

Furthermore, the War Powers Act came about because of the actions of Truman in Korea and then Kennedy (followed by LBJ) in Vietnam.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 3 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Just letting you know that bad acts have been done by many Presidents, including (in the order I presented) Lincoln, Jefferson, Clinton, and Adams.

No, I get that. I just don't see how what any of those Presidents did was way WORSE than what Bush did. Kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention without a trial, warrantless wiretapping, warrantless searches, etc.

If Bush wasn't the worst President in history on civil liberties, then he's definitely a very strong runner up.

[Camarohusky]

At 1 hour ago, TheMason wrote: * Declaration of Independence
* Writing the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
* Father of the University of Virginia
(Note he doesn't list being president.)

Don't forget the embargo of 1807. That was very freedom loving.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 26 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: Don't forget the embargo of 1807. That was very freedom loving.

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life. No President was perfect on freedom, but some were better, and some were worse, and I'd have to say that Jefferson was among the better ones overall.

But stop throwing bombs from the sidelines dude. Let's hear who you'd pick for most freedom loving.

[Camarohusky]

At 2 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: But stop throwing bombs from the sidelines dude. Let's hear who you'd pick for most freedom loving.

My vote would have to be for LBJ, if nothing else for the Civil Rights Act of 64.

However, I think the nature of the office of the President makes this question a little stilted. A President, by very nature of being the head of the Executive Branch, should be inclined against freedoms. It's the nature of the office.

So outside of civil rights and some civil liberties, a good President should be fairly authoritarian. It's up to the other two branches to be focused on freedoms.

[TheMason]

At 14 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: No, I get that. I just don't see how what any of those Presidents did was way WORSE than what Bush did. Kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention without a trial, warrantless wiretapping, warrantless searches, etc.

Honestly, I think the difference between what Bush did and other wartime presidents (including all Cold War presidents) is he did it openly. Afterall the first person to do warrentless wiretapping was Wilson during WWI. Also there's this class of detainees known as "Prisoners Of War". In all of our wars we have caught soldiers from the other side and detained them indefinitely and without trial because as 1) non-citizens and 2) individuals who have taken up arms against us...they are not entitled to the same rights and due process as a US citizen, tourist, guest worker or even illegal immigrants.

[Camarohusky]

At 3 hours ago, TheMason wrote: Honestly, I think the difference between what Bush did and other wartime presidents (including all Cold War presidents) is he did it openly.

Seriously. We can't let the world of 24 hour news, rampant punditry, and ubiquitous internet make us forget the fact that just 15 years ago, secrets were... drum roll... secret.

We are very much jaded with the amount of information and access we have.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 4 hours ago, TheMason wrote: Honestly, I think the difference between what Bush did and other wartime presidents (including all Cold War presidents) is he did it openly. Afterall the first person to do warrentless wiretapping was Wilson during WWI. Also there's this class of detainees known as "Prisoners Of War". In all of our wars we have caught soldiers from the other side and detained them indefinitely and without trial because as 1) non-citizens and 2) individuals who have taken up arms against us...they are not entitled to the same rights and due process as a US citizen, tourist, guest worker or even illegal immigrants.

If they are truly "Prisoners Of War", then they DO have certain rights under the Geneva Convention, such as a right to a fair trial, and freedom from cruel and inhumane treatment.

The trick that the Bush administration pulled was to refer to them as "Enemy Combatants", arguing that since they are NOT technically Prisoners Of War, then they are exempted from the Geneva Convention and do not have the rights of regular POW's. In essence, the US can do whatever it wants to these people, imprisonment, torture, intimidation, anything.

[TheMason]

At 2 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 4 hours ago, TheMason wrote: Honestly, I think the difference between what Bush did and other wartime presidents (including all Cold War presidents) is he did it openly. Afterall the first person to do warrentless wiretapping was Wilson during WWI. Also there's this class of detainees known as "Prisoners Of War". In all of our wars we have caught soldiers from the other side and detained them indefinitely and without trial because as 1) non-citizens and 2) individuals who have taken up arms against us...they are not entitled to the same rights and due process as a US citizen, tourist, guest worker or even illegal immigrants.

If they are truly "Prisoners Of War", then they DO have certain rights under the Geneva Convention, such as a right to a fair trial, and freedom from cruel and inhumane treatment.

Yes they do have certain rights...but a right to a fair trial is not one of them. In fact, that's something we don't want POWs to have. The reason being if we start trying POWs and give one a death sentence...then that green-lights every tin-pot dictator to put on "show" trials to execute our POWs.

The trick that the Bush administration pulled was to refer to them as "Enemy Combatants", arguing that since they are NOT technically Prisoners Of War, then they are exempted from the Geneva Convention and do not have the rights of regular POW's. In essence, the US can do whatever it wants to these people, imprisonment, torture, intimidation, anything.

And it's not a trick...it's fact. In order to qualify for POW status (in the military we call them EPWs Enemy Prisoners of War) certain criteria must be met:

* Wear a uniform
* Have a chain of command
* Openly bear arms
* Follow the norms, customs and 'laws' of war

Furthermore, the conventions make a provision for people (civilians) who resist a foreign invader but do not have time to organize into formal units to develop the aforementioned formal structures. This is why Guerrillas are also covered as POWs.

However, terrorist organizations are not covered. What it comes down to it terrorist organizations do not follow the norms, customs and laws of war. They fight dishonorably by intentionally targeting civilians, hell al-Qaida in Iraq and Afghanistan changed tactics from attacking the military to pretty much exclusively targeting civilians (Foreign and Iraqi). For this reason when the conventions were written terrorists were expressly left out of consideration for protection under them.

In all honesty, I think terrorists use evil, repugnant tactics to acheive their political aims and are so radical and psychotic in their thinking that they cannot be rehabilitated. Furthermore, they pose an extreme danger to the rest of society and should be locked away and whatever means necessary needs to be employed to extract whatever information they have about on-going terrorist operations.

But this is only a short window and after about only a matter of days or weeks in custody their info is obsolete. After they've spilled their guts I think keeping them in Guantanomo Bay for the rest of their lives is appropriate and in keeping with our Republican (form of government Republican NOT political party Republican) values.

[Camarohusky]

At 1 hour ago, TheMason wrote: But this is only a short window and after about only a matter of days or weeks in custody their info is obsolete. After they've spilled their guts I think keeping them in Guantanomo Bay for the rest of their lives is appropriate and in keeping with our Republican (form of government Republican NOT political party Republican) values.

I am pretty sure our government is smart enough to realize that the information recieved through 'alternative interrogation techniques' is rarely good to begin with.

The indefinite detention of terrorists is much more simple than Republican Government Values. It's a safety issue. In a background where one man can cause 1,000 deaths or more in an instant, holding the terrorists merely for incapacitation purposes is enough.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 22 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: The indefinite detention of terrorists is much more simple than Republican Government Values. It's a safety issue. In a background where one man can cause 1,000 deaths or more in an instant, holding the terrorists merely for incapacitation purposes is enough.

But how do you fairly determine who IS in fact a terrorist without having an actual trial to prove guilt? If you cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is in fact guilty of a crime or conspiring to commit a crime, then how could the continued detention of that person possibly be justified?

[Camarohusky]

At 20 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: But how do you fairly determine who IS in fact a terrorist without having an actual trial to prove guilt? If you cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is in fact guilty of a crime or conspiring to commit a crime, then how could the continued detention of that person possibly be justified?

In most terrorism cases it is not the proof that gets int he way, but the rules of evidence. The very nature of Terrorism and the urgency in preventing it requires the investigations to use methods that would not be admissible in civilian court.

The priority of Anti-Terrorism is: 1) prevent; 2) prosecute.
The priority of civilian criminal investigations of: 1) prosecute; 2) prevent.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 33 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: In most terrorism cases it is not the proof that gets int he way, but the rules of evidence. The very nature of Terrorism and the urgency in preventing it requires the investigations to use methods that would not be admissible in civilian court.

The priority of Anti-Terrorism is: 1) prevent; 2) prosecute.
The priority of civilian criminal investigations of: 1) prosecute; 2) prevent.

Let us say then, for the sake of argument, that a person is captured and detained at Guantanamo or some other black site and is kept there for years and years without a trial because he is suspected of being a terrorist, but in reality he is completely innocent. In other words, this individual is being detained for something he absolutely did not do, but he has been given no opportunity to prove this. Do you view this situation as an acceptable loss of freedom?