Can you provide any instance of something like this happening in the US? At all?
You are right that this sort of policy is the norm in Western Europe, but it is also true that Western Europe has a much worse record on free speech than the US.
I think other responses have spoken well to the space parts of your post, especially in pointing out that NASA actually hasn't accomplished all that much compared to the money pouring into it. I would add that NASA has also served to reduce the opportunities for other entities to make money in space, so there is, in fact, a negative to government-subsidised space exploration which must be considered. I'd like to speak to your third paragraph, though, as here I think you're way off base.
You say that cutting taxes always encourages economic growth, but only in one sphere. What it really does is widen the gap between the rich and the poor. When the taxes are lower, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The problem with this claim is that the poor have almost never gotten poorer in any absolute sense, so you can only maintain this claim by relying on comparisons between the rich and the poor, instead of looking at the fact that a growth economy improves standards of living at all levels of society.
To give a clear example of this, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much (adjusted for inflation) as the middle 20% had done in 1950. In other words, the poor did not, in fact, `grow poorer' at all, they experienced an improvement in condition unlike that produced by any other economic system in the history of the world.
Nor are `the rich' a monolithic entity. Talk about the improvements in the standard of living at the top levels of society is meaningless if we do not also consider the fact that membership in those top levels is constantly changing. Indeed, asked by a 2000 Gallup Poll whether they believed a poor person in America could become rich by working hard, 84% of Americans answered `yes'. 84%.
At some point after the taxes are lowered, people begin to recognize this, and the economy goes south. But that is only part of Wall Street's paranoia: if it's doing too well for too long, it will drop. There is no getting around it. Similarly, if it is doing too poorly for too long, it will improve. It happened to Reagan, it happened to Clinton, and it will happen to every 8 year president who is at least a little bit good at economic issues.
But you speak as if these changes in the economy happened in a vacuum. They did not. Reagan (like Kennedy before him) cut taxes, focusing on taxes which punish investment. This resulted (as it had for Kennedy) in unprecedented economic growth. Clinton (and Bush Senior) raised taxes, and each kicked off an economic tailspin. In the time since Bush's tax cut, unemployment has dropped, and the economy has begun to slowly grow again. To speak of these economic changes as `cyclical' or `inevitable' ignores the fact that they followed specific government actions.
By the way, for Kennedy's view on tax cuts, check out his speech
to the Economic Club of New York of December 14, 1962.
Bush's people realized this, and thus were born the weekly terror alerts. No one can be sure if there really is a threat, but everyone is sure that they have to be really careful and that they can't question the government.
And I think this is just paranoia. Given the rate at which existing al-Qaeda infrastructure is still being uncovered, and the fact of several attacks on US interests being averted very recently (including firing on US planes over Saudi Arabia and attacks on US shipping by agents based in Morocco), can anyone really say with a straight face that we don't have reason to be on alert?
What a load of nonsense. Let's go through what you're saying here, shall we?
oh, so in the name of revenge, it is ok to permit mass murder and indulge in mass murder of citizens of other countries because it suits the purpose of American interests? Only mass murder of Americans counts?
Where do you get this? Who are you suggesting is commiting `mass murder'? Certainly not the US, which has gone out of its way, including putting our own men on the ground in danger, to avoid hitting non-military targets. Nor does `revenge' have anything to do with it. As any nation would, we are acting to dismantle the infrastructure which made the attacks of September 11 possible. We do this not as `revenge' for September 11, but to prevent a next attack which, with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, could be much more deadly.
But what you are telling me is that murder of a person or a people (as the case currently is) who are a "perceived threat" is ok because it will "save" American lives. What ever happened to that wonderful part of the American constitution that says, oh what is it? "...innocent, until proven guilty..."
We didn't ask for this war, but you know what? When war comes, some people die. When a civilized nation like the US goes to war, it does all it can to avoid killing civilians as well as combatants. As we saw on September 11, our enemies have no such scruples.
You think that every Arab in the world is guilty now
Where do you get this? We have gone out of our way to make clear that our fight is not with Arabs in general -- in fact, I would argue we have gone too far in this direction, by turning a blind eye to state sponsorship of terror in `moderate' nations such as Saudi Arabia.
because a group of extremists
terrorists.
took revenge on America for its complicity in the deaths of 100s of thousands of Iraqi children in a futile attempt to remove a foreign leader
Care to back up this claim about the US? At all? And while we're on the subject, care to provide any evidence that Mr. Bin Laden is acting in response to the Gulf War? He doesn't say this -- he says he is acting to destroy the US because of the `tragedy of Andalusia' (the reconquest of spain in 1492), and a general belief that as a powerful non-Muslim nation whose ideals of freedom are antithetical to his own beliefs we must be destroyed.
among other atrocities
Care to name any? Credible cites, please...
Revenge is wrong, no matter who is doing it, it only results in more of the same.
Again, we're not out for revenge, we're out to prevent the next September 11, so this statement tells us nothing.
That "the majority of Americans support Bush's Foreign policy" says more about the media machine that is controlled by big business, for whom George Bush acts, than the belief that Americans want George Bush to kill people "in the name of National security".
Hmmm, yes, the classic line of the last century's totalitarian dictators: `the people must be told what to do, because having been deceived by big business/the jews/enemies of the state' they can't be trusted to vote for themselves'. Get over it. Americans understand that the answer to terrorism is not appeasement but self-defense. If you do not, that is your loss, not ours.
The rest of your post descends into incoherence, and I will not bother to address it point by point.
Which is well and good, but while you're arguing about how NASA should be funded, most of the really interesting work is being done in the private sector by people like Bob Zubrin.
Nor is it very convincing to argue that if NASA is not funded, this must be because of tax cuts. See, there are two problems with this argument: first off, there is so much wasteful spending going on that to look at the federal budget and see raising taxes as the only way to balance the budget is absurd. How 'bout we look at that farm subsidy? Or programs such as the federally funded tattoo removal program in San Diego or the office of the federal tea taster in Connecticut?
Secondly, raising taxes in no way ensures higher government revenues. As Arthur Laffer demonstrated during the Kennedy administration (leading to JFK's tax cuts, which were very similar to those of the Reagan and Bush administrations), the best way to raise tax revenues is often cutting tax rates, especially for taxes which discourage investment. This works because cutting tax rates in ways that encourage investment encourages economic growth, resulting in a larger tax base.
The Bush administration isn't doing any damage to the fourth ammendment -- they are exercising a power which has existed under the constitution since the earliest days of our republic. If you think that power should be withdrawn, argue that. Don't try to claim that this is a new invention, though.
If you want my opinion of who is doing damage to our constitutional rights, I'll tell you -- it is those who shout `civil rights violation'
at every opportunity, without looking into the details or legal precedent in the case, and thus sap all the power of such claims when they really are needed.
How seriously do you think people will take search and seizure rights in this country if people keep shouting that it is a violation of their rights to have their bag scanned when they board a plane?
How seriously do you think people take your claims about the fourth ammendment if you can't bother to acquaint yourself with the legal precedent in the area?
All you're suggesting is that there is already precedent for the abuse of civil rights. If your interpretation of the law is correct, anyone can who re-enters the country can be arrested for indeterminate periods by executive fiat.
Subject, of course, to judicial review, in which the executive would have to show that they have sufficient evidence to consider the suspect to be a combatant and in the service of a hostile power. Mr. al-Muhajir is getting that judicial review in a Manhattan courtroom right now, and may appeal that court's decision all the way up to the Supreme Court, if he is unhappy with it.
The Bush administration is violating his fourth ammendment rights and will continue to do so until let him meet with his lawyer *and* either charge him with a crime followed by a speedy trial, or show compelling evidence to a judge why he should be considered a military prisoner and not a criminal suspect.
Under the precedent which has existed in this nation since the dawn of the nineteenth century, and has been upheld a number of times, the current situation is not in violation of the fourth ammendment. Should a current court decide otherwise, Mr. al-Muhajir will, of course, be immediately remanded to the DOJ, who may then release him or press criminal charges.
So, again, the administration is not setting new precedent here. If you think that this power should be removed from the executive, who have held it since the nation's founding, you should argue so, and you should be following the current hearings in Manhattan very closely.
As a side note, I wouldn't assume that the government is `hiding something' because not all details were available as the linked articles went to press -- all of those came out within 48 hours after Mr. al-Muhajir's transfer to military jurisdiction, which is really the first time the case became interesting to the media. Much more information has been available in later reports.
I repeat my previous objection: Yes, it's fine to put men under military law if they are, in fact, "in the service of a hostile power" but how do we know they are? Wouldn't you have to have a trial first to determine this? If not, then you're presupposing guilt. It's backwards logic to say that we consider you a terrorist, we'll hold you indefinitely, and somewhere along the line we'll give you a fair trial. After all, we've already
considered him guilty enough of the charge to suspend his rights--why bother having a trial at all?
It is certainly the case that Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to a hearing in a civilian court to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to hold him as an enemy combatant. He is getting that hearing even as we speak -- his lawyers filed a motion to overturn the use of military jurisdiction in his case last week, and it began to be heard this week. To this point, the standing precedent (remember, the administration is not staking out a new position here) is that the nature of acts of war is such that actions to prevent them may need to occur before the judicial review process kicks in (as in the case which Ex Parte Quirin grew out of, where several German agents, one a US citizen entered the country in order to commit attacks, but were arrested before any attacks had been committed).
I would certainly like to see the procedure here fleshed out a little better -- it is an area of law which we as a nation have had the good fortune not to have to visit very often. The current hearing in New York, and subsequent appeals will certainly help clear some of this up.
This is not relevant. The earliest precedents of this case go back to the undeclared hostilities between the US and France in the early nineteenth century, and it has never been a requirement that the US be in a state of declared war to detain people arrested while entering the US to commit an act of war in the service of a foreign power.
Nor could it be otherwise -- or are you suggesting that had we shot down one or more Japanese pilots during the attack on Pearl Harbor we would have had to release them because we had not yet declared war at the time of the attack?
OK, let's go through the procedure that protects us from the valid concern in your last paragraph, and then we'll look at sources. Were this simply a case of `anyone declared an enemy of the state can be turned over to the military', you would be quite right to object, but that is not the case.
Long standing precedent, going back to before the war of 1812, and with corresponding cases in the Civil War and the Second World War makes clear that military law is the proper jurisdiction for trying cases of an individual entering the US in the service of a hostile power in order to commit acts of law. As cited above, Ex Parte Quirin upholds the established precedent that such cases are a matter for military justice even if the suspect is a US citizen, but also leaves room for civilian court appeals of the decision that a case falls in this category.
Mr. al-Muhajir, ne Padilla, is filing just such an appeal right now.here in New York. If the court rules that there is not valid evidence to classify him as an enemy combatant, he will be remanded to a civilian court. At that point, the DOJ can either seek to bring other charges, or release him.
So this is not something which can happen lightly. In addition to the direct order from the president which is needed to classify a suspect as an enemy combatant, the whole process is subject to judicial review in the normal federal courts.
Now, on to sources. Here are some more articles on the matter:
suggests that Mr. al-Muhajir was held on a material witness warrant before being charged.
this piece from the Baltimore Sun discusses some of the precedents in the case, and what the government's options are, as does this piece from National Review.
this piece from USA Today has some more discussion of the case.
Yes, you are correct. Ironically, a democratic republic, as opposed to a direct democracy is much more democratic -- which is to say that it better weighs the opinions of more of the population than direct voting would.
On any sort of large scale, direct democracy is subject to domination by regional cliques, overrepresentation of those with the most free time, and so forth.
Or rather, `it's not like those with an axe to grind would carefully ignore the facts and instead spread their own version of events'.
Let's look at the facts of Mr. al-Muhajir's case, shall we? Mr. al-Muhajir was picked up on other charges, and has had a lawyer at every stage of the process. Even as we speak, he is contesting his transfer to military jurisdiction in a Manhattan courtroom. As with any judicial procedure, he has the right to contest the ruling that he is a combatant, and appeal as often as he may wish, to the Supreme Court if he deems it necessary.
In his appeals, the main precedent which will be referenced is Ex Parte Quirin, an extremely similar case from 1943, in which the US Supreme Court upheld the precedent, stretching back to the earliest days of our republic, that persons entering the US to commit acts of war in the service of a foreign power are subject to military jurisdiction. In particular, the court ruled in Quirin that
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not
relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful
because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate
themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its
aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent
on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague
Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615,
617 S., 618.
and
petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly
within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by
military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose
of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry
remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law
of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense
against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried
by military commission.
So, if you wish to make an argument that the law should be changed from what it has been since the birth of our nation, go ahead -- but don't try to convince us that the law is being changed by this case.
Re:Non-thinkers call the thoughtful center "biased
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
I'm afraid you've got your facts mixed up. Those Washington journalists of whom you speak - employed by megacorps, and having incomes well over the American median - are in fact farther to the right [fair.org] (i.e., more conservative on economic issues) than the average American.
Can you provide any credible source to back this up (no, FAIR is not a credible source -- compare their ideas of `mainstream opinion' with any credible poll of the American populace). Do you not find it suggestive that eighty to ninety percent of reporters on the Washington beat identify themselves as Democrats or independents? That the broadcast media are losing viewers hand-over-fist, with one of the major reasons people cite for switching to cable news in general and Fox in particular is that they are looking for more balanced reporting?
And by the way, you keep throwing around the words `mega-corporation' as if they mean anything, but the fact is that every survey suggests that the public (read taxpayer- and donor- funded) media are even more out of touch with the general public, and are losing viewers even faster than the broadcast networks.
I shudder to think of being conquered by ideas rather than by guns.
Or, in other words: `I finally have to admit that I'm not actually being opressed -- in fact as a citizen of the US I live in the most free, most democratic, and most prosperous society on earth. But if I think really hard, maybe I can come up with a weird theory in which the very lack of oppression I am experiencing is itself a form of oppression, `the real bondage', if you will.'
So, in fact, you acknowledge that about 13% of their funding comes directly from government agencies, and only about twice that comes from memberships. As we have already seen, for the national public networks (PBS, NPR, etc), the percentage of funding which comes from the government is rather higher.
Unlike the military, this is a purpose which is in no way in line with the responsibilities and powers of federal government established by the US Constitution, and I say it's high time that that federal funding was withdrawn. If NPR has as broad a base of public support as you suggest, let them seek funding there.
Re:Non-thinkers call the thoughtful center "biased
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
I'd laugh because describing megacorp-owned media as anything but rightist is ridiculous. The whole notion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in control of the media is a wonderfully effective strawman for conservatives, but has no basis in fact.
I don't think anyone is claiming that their is an active conspiracy in control of the media. The truth is more insidious -- the overwhelming majority of reporters identify themselves as liberals, and they tend to hire people who agree with them. In their limited world of Georgetown cocktail parties and Manhattan soirees, they see their views not as `left of center' (which they are by any comparison with the US population as a whole), but as `reasonable', and by extension, conservative views, many of which are much more in tune with the opinions of the larger population, are described as `extreme'. The result is a steady leftward bias in reporting which shows itself in every area of the broadcast news.
As for Goldberg's Bias, since when has being a best-seller had anything to do with quality? His claim about labeling has already been debunked [prospect.org] (with a follow-up here [prospect.org]).
Wait, let me guess -- you would consider TAP to be a `mainstream' media outlet? Even the fact that they can find only one small part of Mr. Goldberg's thesis to argue with is telling, but even were it not, TAP's methodology and claims were contested in great detail in the Wall Street Journal at the time those columns first appeared.
As for the bestseller status of Mr. Goldberg's work, it suggests that his thesis has struck a chord with the general public, much as the mass exodus of broadcast news viewers -- to cable in general and to the more balanced reporting of Fox in particular -- suggests the same.
4) In its fight against terrorism, the federal government is putting in place systems to find out anything about you at anytime (scan the headlines if you don't believe it).
Ashcroft has been eviscerating the Fourth Amendment... arresting anyone with a turban
Care to back up either of these claims? At all?
ostensibly to protect us against terrorism, but I don't feel any safer
Oh, ok. If Mr. MillionthMonkey doesn't feel any safer, let's call the whole thing off. Open up the border, boys! Call the troops home! Forget preventing further attacks, and let's focus on making Mr. Monkey feel safer instead!
You miss two key points here: first off, there are strong arguments that banning guns would result in more crime deaths, not less -- indeed this has been the experience in the UK, which finally banned handguns several years back, and in the years since has seen skyrocketing rates not only of violent crime, but of gun crime. London is now more dangerous to live in than any large city in the US.
Secondly, Mr. al-Muhajir is not under arrest for `planning' to do something without falling through. He is under arrest for entering the nation as an enemy combatant in the service of such actions. This is a crime, and under the supreme court precedent set in the case Ex Parte Quirin is subject to military jurisdiction.
(Quirin, by the way, was a case stemming from a very similar precedent -- several Germans agents, including one American citizen, were infiltrated into the US from an enemy submarine with plans to blow up dams, power plants and Jewish-owned businesses in the US. They were caught by the FBI and tried by military tribunal, a procedure which the supreme court upheld.)
As for whether Mr. al-Muhajir should have been arrested at once or tailed, I doubt that you are in possession of enough information to make that judgement at this point, and I'm not sure that such monday-morning quarterbacking accomplishes anything...
So I'm assuming that in calling Mr. Bush an idiot you are more accomplished then him? That you have an ivy-league MBA, have been a highly popular governor of a large state with a strong bipartisan following, and are currently enjoying 76% approval ratings?
You may thing Mr. Bush is an idiot. Luckily, 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans know better...
Yes, but most of those are nations like Germany, which gets a free ride because Kyoto calls for reductions against 1990 emissions levels, and all the inneficient, pollution-heavy plants of East Germany were shut down in 1991, or China, which is not required to make any change by the treaty.
Alaskian (sic) Temps up, Canadians remarking about how hot it is
With due respect, even the staunchest advocates of belief in global warming admit that if it is occurring it is currently lost in the noise of current climate patterns. So none of the things you cite are relevant to the debate, and you only hurt your argument by citing them.
Don't forget that only two decades ago, the very same scientists now telling us about global warming were telling us about the terrible scourge of
global cooling...
It's hard not to ignore the fact that Exxon-Mobile and the other oil companies are the ones who are REALLY in charge.
Yeah, that sneaky, sneaky Bush. He's not willing to throw away the US economy in pursuit of an ineffective `fix' to a problem which hasn't been convincingly shown to exist? Gee, he must be working for the oil companies.
Leaving aside the racist, flamebait site you link to, what exactly is this supposed to mean? Are we `all' citizens of a totalitarian regime whose tinpot dictator offers us wads of cash to send our children to blow themselves up in the children's area of restaurants or on school busses, in order to distract us from the fact that we have no rights and have thrown away the whole economy of our country in attempts to annihilate our neighbor? I guess I'm not buying it...
Slashdot Mirror
Can you provide any instance of something like this happening in the US? At all?
You are right that this sort of policy is the norm in Western Europe, but it is also true that Western Europe has a much worse record on free speech than the US.
I think other responses have spoken well to the space parts of your post, especially in pointing out that NASA actually hasn't accomplished all that much compared to the money pouring into it. I would add that NASA has also served to reduce the opportunities for other entities to make money in space, so there is, in fact, a negative to government-subsidised space exploration which must be considered. I'd like to speak to your third paragraph, though, as here I think you're way off base.
You say that cutting taxes always encourages economic growth, but only in one sphere. What it really does is widen the gap between the rich and the poor. When the taxes are lower, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The problem with this claim is that the poor have almost never gotten poorer in any absolute sense, so you can only maintain this claim by relying on comparisons between the rich and the poor, instead of looking at the fact that a growth economy improves standards of living at all levels of society. To give a clear example of this, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much (adjusted for inflation) as the middle 20% had done in 1950. In other words, the poor did not, in fact, `grow poorer' at all, they experienced an improvement in condition unlike that produced by any other economic system in the history of the world.
Nor are `the rich' a monolithic entity. Talk about the improvements in the standard of living at the top levels of society is meaningless if we do not also consider the fact that membership in those top levels is constantly changing. Indeed, asked by a 2000 Gallup Poll whether they believed a poor person in America could become rich by working hard, 84% of Americans answered `yes'. 84%.
At some point after the taxes are lowered, people begin to recognize this, and the economy goes south. But that is only part of Wall Street's paranoia: if it's doing too well for too long, it will drop. There is no getting around it. Similarly, if it is doing too poorly for too long, it will improve. It happened to Reagan, it happened to Clinton, and it will happen to every 8 year president who is at least a little bit good at economic issues.
But you speak as if these changes in the economy happened in a vacuum. They did not. Reagan (like Kennedy before him) cut taxes, focusing on taxes which punish investment. This resulted (as it had for Kennedy) in unprecedented economic growth. Clinton (and Bush Senior) raised taxes, and each kicked off an economic tailspin. In the time since Bush's tax cut, unemployment has dropped, and the economy has begun to slowly grow again. To speak of these economic changes as `cyclical' or `inevitable' ignores the fact that they followed specific government actions.
By the way, for Kennedy's view on tax cuts, check out his speech to the Economic Club of New York of December 14, 1962.
Bush's people realized this, and thus were born the weekly terror alerts. No one can be sure if there really is a threat, but everyone is sure that they have to be really careful and that they can't question the government.
And I think this is just paranoia. Given the rate at which existing al-Qaeda infrastructure is still being uncovered, and the fact of several attacks on US interests being averted very recently (including firing on US planes over Saudi Arabia and attacks on US shipping by agents based in Morocco), can anyone really say with a straight face that we don't have reason to be on alert?
What a load of nonsense. Let's go through what you're saying here, shall we?
oh, so in the name of revenge, it is ok to permit mass murder and indulge in mass murder of citizens of other countries because it suits the purpose of American interests? Only mass murder of Americans counts?
Where do you get this? Who are you suggesting is commiting `mass murder'? Certainly not the US, which has gone out of its way, including putting our own men on the ground in danger, to avoid hitting non-military targets. Nor does `revenge' have anything to do with it. As any nation would, we are acting to dismantle the infrastructure which made the attacks of September 11 possible. We do this not as `revenge' for September 11, but to prevent a next attack which, with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, could be much more deadly.
But what you are telling me is that murder of a person or a people (as the case currently is) who are a "perceived threat" is ok because it will "save" American lives. What ever happened to that wonderful part of the American constitution that says, oh what is it? "...innocent, until proven guilty..."
We didn't ask for this war, but you know what? When war comes, some people die. When a civilized nation like the US goes to war, it does all it can to avoid killing civilians as well as combatants. As we saw on September 11, our enemies have no such scruples.
You think that every Arab in the world is guilty now
Where do you get this? We have gone out of our way to make clear that our fight is not with Arabs in general -- in fact, I would argue we have gone too far in this direction, by turning a blind eye to state sponsorship of terror in `moderate' nations such as Saudi Arabia.
because a group of extremists
terrorists.
took revenge on America for its complicity in the deaths of 100s of thousands of Iraqi children in a futile attempt to remove a foreign leader
Care to back up this claim about the US? At all? And while we're on the subject, care to provide any evidence that Mr. Bin Laden is acting in response to the Gulf War? He doesn't say this -- he says he is acting to destroy the US because of the `tragedy of Andalusia' (the reconquest of spain in 1492), and a general belief that as a powerful non-Muslim nation whose ideals of freedom are antithetical to his own beliefs we must be destroyed.
among other atrocities
Care to name any? Credible cites, please...
Revenge is wrong, no matter who is doing it, it only results in more of the same.
Again, we're not out for revenge, we're out to prevent the next September 11, so this statement tells us nothing.
That "the majority of Americans support Bush's Foreign policy" says more about the media machine that is controlled by big business, for whom George Bush acts, than the belief that Americans want George Bush to kill people "in the name of National security".
Hmmm, yes, the classic line of the last century's totalitarian dictators: `the people must be told what to do, because having been deceived by big business/the jews/enemies of the state' they can't be trusted to vote for themselves'. Get over it. Americans understand that the answer to terrorism is not appeasement but self-defense. If you do not, that is your loss, not ours.
The rest of your post descends into incoherence, and I will not bother to address it point by point.
Which is well and good, but while you're arguing about how NASA should be funded, most of the really interesting work is being done in the private sector by people like Bob Zubrin.
Nor is it very convincing to argue that if NASA is not funded, this must be because of tax cuts. See, there are two problems with this argument: first off, there is so much wasteful spending going on that to look at the federal budget and see raising taxes as the only way to balance the budget is absurd. How 'bout we look at that farm subsidy? Or programs such as the federally funded tattoo removal program in San Diego or the office of the federal tea taster in Connecticut?
Secondly, raising taxes in no way ensures higher government revenues. As Arthur Laffer demonstrated during the Kennedy administration (leading to JFK's tax cuts, which were very similar to those of the Reagan and Bush administrations), the best way to raise tax revenues is often cutting tax rates, especially for taxes which discourage investment. This works because cutting tax rates in ways that encourage investment encourages economic growth, resulting in a larger tax base.
The Bush administration isn't doing any damage to the fourth ammendment -- they are exercising a power which has existed under the constitution since the earliest days of our republic. If you think that power should be withdrawn, argue that. Don't try to claim that this is a new invention, though.
If you want my opinion of who is doing damage to our constitutional rights, I'll tell you -- it is those who shout `civil rights violation' at every opportunity, without looking into the details or legal precedent in the case, and thus sap all the power of such claims when they really are needed.
How seriously do you think people will take search and seizure rights in this country if people keep shouting that it is a violation of their rights to have their bag scanned when they board a plane? How seriously do you think people take your claims about the fourth ammendment if you can't bother to acquaint yourself with the legal precedent in the area?
All you're suggesting is that there is already precedent for the abuse of civil rights. If your interpretation of the law is correct, anyone can who re-enters the country can be arrested for indeterminate periods by executive fiat.
Subject, of course, to judicial review, in which the executive would have to show that they have sufficient evidence to consider the suspect to be a combatant and in the service of a hostile power. Mr. al-Muhajir is getting that judicial review in a Manhattan courtroom right now, and may appeal that court's decision all the way up to the Supreme Court, if he is unhappy with it.
The Bush administration is violating his fourth ammendment rights and will continue to do so until let him meet with his lawyer *and* either charge him with a crime followed by a speedy trial, or show compelling evidence to a judge why he should be considered a military prisoner and not a criminal suspect.
Under the precedent which has existed in this nation since the dawn of the nineteenth century, and has been upheld a number of times, the current situation is not in violation of the fourth ammendment. Should a current court decide otherwise, Mr. al-Muhajir will, of course, be immediately remanded to the DOJ, who may then release him or press criminal charges.
So, again, the administration is not setting new precedent here. If you think that this power should be removed from the executive, who have held it since the nation's founding, you should argue so, and you should be following the current hearings in Manhattan very closely.
As a side note, I wouldn't assume that the government is `hiding something' because not all details were available as the linked articles went to press -- all of those came out within 48 hours after Mr. al-Muhajir's transfer to military jurisdiction, which is really the first time the case became interesting to the media. Much more information has been available in later reports.
I repeat my previous objection: Yes, it's fine to put men under military law if they are, in fact, "in the service of a hostile power" but how do we know they are? Wouldn't you have to have a trial first to determine this? If not, then you're presupposing guilt. It's backwards logic to say that we consider you a terrorist, we'll hold you indefinitely, and somewhere along the line we'll give you a fair trial. After all, we've already considered him guilty enough of the charge to suspend his rights--why bother having a trial at all?
It is certainly the case that Mr. al-Muhajir is entitled to a hearing in a civilian court to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to hold him as an enemy combatant. He is getting that hearing even as we speak -- his lawyers filed a motion to overturn the use of military jurisdiction in his case last week, and it began to be heard this week. To this point, the standing precedent (remember, the administration is not staking out a new position here) is that the nature of acts of war is such that actions to prevent them may need to occur before the judicial review process kicks in (as in the case which Ex Parte Quirin grew out of, where several German agents, one a US citizen entered the country in order to commit attacks, but were arrested before any attacks had been committed).
I would certainly like to see the procedure here fleshed out a little better -- it is an area of law which we as a nation have had the good fortune not to have to visit very often. The current hearing in New York, and subsequent appeals will certainly help clear some of this up.
This is not relevant. The earliest precedents of this case go back to the undeclared hostilities between the US and France in the early nineteenth century, and it has never been a requirement that the US be in a state of declared war to detain people arrested while entering the US to commit an act of war in the service of a foreign power.
Nor could it be otherwise -- or are you suggesting that had we shot down one or more Japanese pilots during the attack on Pearl Harbor we would have had to release them because we had not yet declared war at the time of the attack?
Perhaps it does. It is certainly less effective a tactic then it would be in a direct democracy -- look at the AARP's endorsements in past elections.
OK, let's go through the procedure that protects us from the valid concern in your last paragraph, and then we'll look at sources. Were this simply a case of `anyone declared an enemy of the state can be turned over to the military', you would be quite right to object, but that is not the case.
Long standing precedent, going back to before the war of 1812, and with corresponding cases in the Civil War and the Second World War makes clear that military law is the proper jurisdiction for trying cases of an individual entering the US in the service of a hostile power in order to commit acts of law. As cited above, Ex Parte Quirin upholds the established precedent that such cases are a matter for military justice even if the suspect is a US citizen, but also leaves room for civilian court appeals of the decision that a case falls in this category.
Mr. al-Muhajir, ne Padilla, is filing just such an appeal right now.here in New York. If the court rules that there is not valid evidence to classify him as an enemy combatant, he will be remanded to a civilian court. At that point, the DOJ can either seek to bring other charges, or release him.
So this is not something which can happen lightly. In addition to the direct order from the president which is needed to classify a suspect as an enemy combatant, the whole process is subject to judicial review in the normal federal courts.
Now, on to sources. Here are some more articles on the matter:
Yes, you are correct. Ironically, a democratic republic, as opposed to a direct democracy is much more democratic -- which is to say that it better weighs the opinions of more of the population than direct voting would.
On any sort of large scale, direct democracy is subject to domination by regional cliques, overrepresentation of those with the most free time, and so forth.
There were plenty of potential scandals today much bigger than watergate that have not been investigated.
Can you provide a single example? One?
Or rather, `it's not like those with an axe to grind would carefully ignore the facts and instead spread their own version of events'.
Let's look at the facts of Mr. al-Muhajir's case, shall we? Mr. al-Muhajir was picked up on other charges, and has had a lawyer at every stage of the process. Even as we speak, he is contesting his transfer to military jurisdiction in a Manhattan courtroom. As with any judicial procedure, he has the right to contest the ruling that he is a combatant, and appeal as often as he may wish, to the Supreme Court if he deems it necessary.
In his appeals, the main precedent which will be referenced is Ex Parte Quirin, an extremely similar case from 1943, in which the US Supreme Court upheld the precedent, stretching back to the earliest days of our republic, that persons entering the US to commit acts of war in the service of a foreign power are subject to military jurisdiction. In particular, the court ruled in Quirin that
andSo, if you wish to make an argument that the law should be changed from what it has been since the birth of our nation, go ahead -- but don't try to convince us that the law is being changed by this case.
I'm afraid you've got your facts mixed up. Those Washington journalists of whom you speak - employed by megacorps, and having incomes well over the American median - are in fact farther to the right [fair.org] (i.e., more conservative on economic issues) than the average American.
Can you provide any credible source to back this up (no, FAIR is not a credible source -- compare their ideas of `mainstream opinion' with any credible poll of the American populace). Do you not find it suggestive that eighty to ninety percent of reporters on the Washington beat identify themselves as Democrats or independents? That the broadcast media are losing viewers hand-over-fist, with one of the major reasons people cite for switching to cable news in general and Fox in particular is that they are looking for more balanced reporting?
And by the way, you keep throwing around the words `mega-corporation' as if they mean anything, but the fact is that every survey suggests that the public (read taxpayer- and donor- funded) media are even more out of touch with the general public, and are losing viewers even faster than the broadcast networks.
I shudder to think of being conquered by ideas rather than by guns.
Or, in other words: `I finally have to admit that I'm not actually being opressed -- in fact as a citizen of the US I live in the most free, most democratic, and most prosperous society on earth. But if I think really hard, maybe I can come up with a weird theory in which the very lack of oppression I am experiencing is itself a form of oppression, `the real bondage', if you will.'
I guess I'm not buying it.
So, in fact, you acknowledge that about 13% of their funding comes directly from government agencies, and only about twice that comes from memberships. As we have already seen, for the national public networks (PBS, NPR, etc), the percentage of funding which comes from the government is rather higher.
Unlike the military, this is a purpose which is in no way in line with the responsibilities and powers of federal government established by the US Constitution, and I say it's high time that that federal funding was withdrawn. If NPR has as broad a base of public support as you suggest, let them seek funding there.
I'd laugh because describing megacorp-owned media as anything but rightist is ridiculous. The whole notion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in control of the media is a wonderfully effective strawman for conservatives, but has no basis in fact.
I don't think anyone is claiming that their is an active conspiracy in control of the media. The truth is more insidious -- the overwhelming majority of reporters identify themselves as liberals, and they tend to hire people who agree with them. In their limited world of Georgetown cocktail parties and Manhattan soirees, they see their views not as `left of center' (which they are by any comparison with the US population as a whole), but as `reasonable', and by extension, conservative views, many of which are much more in tune with the opinions of the larger population, are described as `extreme'. The result is a steady leftward bias in reporting which shows itself in every area of the broadcast news.
As for Goldberg's Bias, since when has being a best-seller had anything to do with quality? His claim about labeling has already been debunked [prospect.org] (with a follow-up here [prospect.org]).
Wait, let me guess -- you would consider TAP to be a `mainstream' media outlet? Even the fact that they can find only one small part of Mr. Goldberg's thesis to argue with is telling, but even were it not, TAP's methodology and claims were contested in great detail in the Wall Street Journal at the time those columns first appeared.
As for the bestseller status of Mr. Goldberg's work, it suggests that his thesis has struck a chord with the general public, much as the mass exodus of broadcast news viewers -- to cable in general and to the more balanced reporting of Fox in particular -- suggests the same.
4) In its fight against terrorism, the federal government is putting in place systems to find out anything about you at anytime (scan the headlines if you don't believe it).
Care to back up this claim?
Ashcroft has been eviscerating the Fourth Amendment ... arresting anyone with a turban
Care to back up either of these claims? At all?
ostensibly to protect us against terrorism, but I don't feel any safer
Oh, ok. If Mr. MillionthMonkey doesn't feel any safer, let's call the whole thing off. Open up the border, boys! Call the troops home! Forget preventing further attacks, and let's focus on making Mr. Monkey feel safer instead!
You miss two key points here: first off, there are strong arguments that banning guns would result in more crime deaths, not less -- indeed this has been the experience in the UK, which finally banned handguns several years back, and in the years since has seen skyrocketing rates not only of violent crime, but of gun crime. London is now more dangerous to live in than any large city in the US.
Secondly, Mr. al-Muhajir is not under arrest for `planning' to do something without falling through. He is under arrest for entering the nation as an enemy combatant in the service of such actions. This is a crime, and under the supreme court precedent set in the case Ex Parte Quirin is subject to military jurisdiction.
(Quirin, by the way, was a case stemming from a very similar precedent -- several Germans agents, including one American citizen, were infiltrated into the US from an enemy submarine with plans to blow up dams, power plants and Jewish-owned businesses in the US. They were caught by the FBI and tried by military tribunal, a procedure which the supreme court upheld.)
As for whether Mr. al-Muhajir should have been arrested at once or tailed, I doubt that you are in possession of enough information to make that judgement at this point, and I'm not sure that such monday-morning quarterbacking accomplishes anything...
So I'm assuming that in calling Mr. Bush an idiot you are more accomplished then him? That you have an ivy-league MBA, have been a highly popular governor of a large state with a strong bipartisan following, and are currently enjoying 76% approval ratings?
You may thing Mr. Bush is an idiot. Luckily, 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans know better...
Yes, but most of those are nations like Germany, which gets a free ride because Kyoto calls for reductions against 1990 emissions levels, and all the inneficient, pollution-heavy plants of East Germany were shut down in 1991, or China, which is not required to make any change by the treaty.
Alaskian (sic) Temps up, Canadians remarking about how hot it is
With due respect, even the staunchest advocates of belief in global warming admit that if it is occurring it is currently lost in the noise of current climate patterns. So none of the things you cite are relevant to the debate, and you only hurt your argument by citing them.
Don't forget that only two decades ago, the very same scientists now telling us about global warming were telling us about the terrible scourge of global cooling...
It's hard not to ignore the fact that Exxon-Mobile and the other oil companies are the ones who are REALLY in charge.
Yeah, that sneaky, sneaky Bush. He's not willing to throw away the US economy in pursuit of an ineffective `fix' to a problem which hasn't been convincingly shown to exist? Gee, he must be working for the oil companies.
Whatever...
We are all Palestinian [sinkers.org]
Leaving aside the racist, flamebait site you link to, what exactly is this supposed to mean? Are we `all' citizens of a totalitarian regime whose tinpot dictator offers us wads of cash to send our children to blow themselves up in the children's area of restaurants or on school busses, in order to distract us from the fact that we have no rights and have thrown away the whole economy of our country in attempts to annihilate our neighbor? I guess I'm not buying it...