At 17 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
Yes, so said the man who owned slaves. I guess giving up liberty was only bad when he had to do it...
So said I. The hypocrisy of the person who originally said it notwithstanding, the power of a statement such as this cannot be denied. If I may call your attention to the quote in my signature; it was said by a man who has nothing but fear of the future, and seemingly no interest in taking a part in shaping it, but they are words to live by, nevertheless.
This isn't a civil liberties issue. These are foreigners who have declared open war upon the United States. Not only do foreigners not have a right to our civil liberties, when someone takes up arms against the US, it is forfiet.
"Our" civil liberties? As in, only Americans deserve civil liberties?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
All men. Not just all Americans.
And how do you KNOW that a person has "declared open war upon the United States" and "taken up arms against the US" when there hasn't been a trial where evidence can be submitted and examined? You just have to trust that the government knows what it's doing? That isn't nearly good enough.
I suggest you take a closer look at that pillar, namely the foundation of that pillar. I can guarantee you that an alarmingly high amount of our freedom complex was built upon the subjugation, oppression, and deprivation of others.
While that may be true, does that mean that subjugation, oppression, and deprivation of others is ethically permissible? Does talking about the value of freedom forgive you for acting in opposition of freedom?
I think the system should be changed. Do I think the Guantanimo Bay folks should be sent through the Domestic Court system? Absolutely not. I think the military tribunals are well equipped enough to handle these case whilst having an evidence code better geared toward anti-terrorism style policing, as well as the ability to hear classified material without the fear that it will become public. Why this hasn't happened, I don't know.
I'm glad to hear you say that, but aren't you condradicting what you said earlier? These people are terrorists (allegedly), so why do they deserve a fair trial? They are foreigners; why should they have access to the civil rights and liberties set forth in YOUR legal system?
Then you possess a much greater trust in authority than I do, friend.This is the crux of the issue. It's not about liberty and freedoms. The freedoms lost in this pale in comparison to many other judicial issues that we are completely fine with (like detention after and arrest and before trial). The liberty and freedoms argument is nothing other than a weak attempt to claim the high road.
I hope you realize how deeply cynical and un-American that sentiment is. How is the American government supposed to argue for human rights with any kind of moral authority when they themselves aren't living up to the lofty rhetoric? My thoughts turn to the two Swedish journalists in Ethiopia who were recently sentenced through a kangaroo court to 11 years in prison for allegedly supporting terrorism. Ethiopia is just protecting itself from terrorism, so are they not as justified as America is to impose lengthy sentences to individuals who they claim are guilty of supporting terrorism?
All it boils down to is: Do you trust the government to judiciously use this power only on those they have substantial evidence (not judicial evidence, but coloquial evidence) against.
No, I do not trust that at all. And there's substantial evidence that the government has not used that power in a proper fashion (thanks Wikileaks!).