Drone Strikes - Is Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero? - YouTube
Printable View
Rand Paul may have had some correctness on his side when he puts a spotlight on the entire expansion of Presidential power that was granted to Bush 43 in response to 9-11 and has been closely guarded by Obama. And frankly rather than cloture as it has been used in recent years Paul demonstrated what obstruction is supposed to look like.
But whether it was poorly thought out or Rand Paul is a just a loony-tune, 4/5th of his talking points were crazy and inflammatory at best and at worst is a step towards inciting another Oklahoma City incident.
I applaud put a spotlight on the entire issue of drone use, which is a whole separate debate. The crazy stuff he said makes it easy to dismiss him and some of it was self-serving but drone technology is so new that what the rules of use should be need to smoked out but I happen to believe that drones are a better solution than invading a country to catch a single or a group of terrorists and if the world is going to fight terror proactively that is always going to be a dirty business.
For me, this is the major area where I disagree with Obama. But I am one who questions the validity of 'preemptive strikes, whether domestic or on foreign soil. The only exception I could see would be a military theater of war. Otherwise, it amounts to execution without a trial. Also it is a violation of another nation's
sovereignty. We would not permit another nation to kill people here, especially by bombing. Besides 'combatants' being killed, I'm pretty sure others are also killed in these attacks. So, in fact I see it as mostly counter-productive. I would ask, if doesn't create more enemies, than it destroys. Clinton used it also. This included attempts to get Bin Laden. Though I disagree with many of his views, I admire Ron Paul, for bringing up the subject of "blowback" in one of his campaign videos. So why cant the issue be brought up for public discussion about drone strikes, in general. I'm sure, that I disagree with Rand on many things also, like the video commentator.
For me the simple test of what is right or wrong, is asking the question whether I would approve of the same thing being done in my community. Or in other words: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." And in fact this whole 'new' controversy, is the part of the principle that is , doing unto us, what we have done to others.
Before the expansion of presidential powers on 9-11, did Bush have the authority (never mind the mental wherewithal) to shoot down (with drones or missies launched from more conventional craft) the commercial planes filled wih innocent civilians that were heading toward their targets on 9-11? If I'm correct the president did and still has that authority and this is the kind of power Obama is reserving for the executive.
Butt butt butt... They're DRONES!:hide-1: Doesn't that make everything billions of times more evil & horriblerer? Somebody said so on YouTube. Actual Presidential powers are never at issue as long as permission is granted for all actions before hand by the great cabal, which currently consists of Rush Limbaugh, Ronnie & Randy Paul, the stuffed corpse of L Ron Hubbard, & Noam Chomsky.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This damn Barry O'Bama guy just won't live up to expectations! I guess we'll have to take away the Irish potatoes (...oes) again.
Setting aside the rights a President has, I think you have raised the crucial issue that ought to be a dominant theme in political discussion. The arguments in favour of the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [UAVs] or Drones are that they are an effective counter-terrorism method that minimises collateral damage and casualties, that they reduce any dependence on combat troops in theatre, and that the cost of military engagement is therefore significantly reduced. Against this is the claim, on many occasions supported by fact, that collateral damage and civilian casualties DO take place; that the use of Drones increases hostility to the US motivating more rather than less potential attacks on US targets -(payback for drones deaths was one motive for the Times Square bomber); that it violates the sovereignty of states; that it is illegal under international law; and that it is promoting a new development in the arms race which must inevitably produce Drones for 'unfriendly regimes' - in this context, are Drones more worrying than nuclear weapons, be they developed by Iran or North Korea?Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
I think for Obama the key element is the absence of boots on the ground and the costs and complications that result from sending troops to foreign countries. Strategically, Obama inherited from Bush unresolved issues in the Middle East and South Asia -will they ever be resolved?- from which a strategic shift would be considered by critics a 'defeat' or 'weakening' of US influence in the region, as some must feel may happen with the progressive withdrawal from Afghanistan. Drones enable US military objectives to continue without the human cost to US service personnel, but do not address any of the fundamental problems of democracy, economic growth and good governance that cause so much violence and disruption in the region. Indeed, Drones may make it harder for the US to 'win hearts and minds' and further alienate ordinary people from the best of US intentions.
This link is to a long but serious discussion of Drones and strategy from a recent issue of International Affairs, highly recommended.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/de.../89_1Boyle.pdf
1. It easy to see first hand why it is politically expedient to use drones rather than troops. I know that I personally would rather see my family and friends in the military stationed behind a joystick in Nevada than on the ground in Afghanistan and making incursions into Pakistan. That’s a big PLUS for the use of drones.
2. Political expedience on the domestic side makes it easier to slip a war (peace keeping missions, liberation, whatever it’s called) or two past the Congress and the electorate. That’s a big MINUS for drones.
3. I don’t know the statistics on collateral damage and how it differs between the use of drones and more conventional aerial strikes. The injustice of having your son, your wife, your mother declared a victim of collateral damage adds the grief of their loss; but being told the person responsible was robotically operating a drone one continent and one ocean away must feel particularly unjust. Another big MINUS for drones.
4. Someday, probably not very far off, drones will be in the hands of rogue states and terrorist gangs. But this is neither a plus nor a minus for our use of drones, because it will happen regardless of whether we continue in their use.
I suspect the widespread use of drones in the near future will neutralize objection (3) that death by robot is more objectionable than death by a bullet fired from behind the rocks and the trees. For me the big objection is (2). Already the U.S. is too readily inclined to “solve” problems by asserting its military might. We don’t need anything to encourage that inclination. For me the big argument for the use of drones is (1). The first guns already put soldiers further from the act the act of killing. Long range rifles are fired from hidden remote locations. Artillery can be fired tens of miles from the front. Mothers want their soldiers to be safe...at all costs. Drone technology is just an extension of the past capacities of military weaponry. It was always pointed in the direction of remote operation and deadly efficiency.
Thanks Stavros for the link. Try to read later this weekend.
The purest says that as a nation we do not engage in pre-emptive attacks or assignation.
The Neo-Con says that we invade and occupy countries where potential terrorists are hiding, hunt them down with conventional military plus intelligence, capture high value detainees, torture them into telling us a bunch of BS we want to hear and then leave them to rot at Gitmo.
The current Administration says when you can't get at a potential terrorist without use a large forces, you don't physically invade Pakistan and occupy, you target the suspect with a drone and kill them. Even when there is collateral damage it is a lot less than you'd incur if you went the Neo-Con route and it costs less beyond just blood but also in treasure.
Terrorism is not going away and just because there hasn't been a major incident on US soil since 2001 doesn't mean it has.
None of these choices are good. The purest waits to get hit. The Neo-Con jumps on the hit or creates war after war (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) to get at terrorists, the use of drones does create a execution without due process and does not give authorities a chance to interrogate.
Terrorism like insurgency largely nullifies conventional military defense techniques. It is a dirty business any way you look at. The fear of course is where drone technology will go not only in the hands of US Federal government and/or when the government changes will that power be used wisely but as time goes on it will expand all over the planet.
But for the moment I personally think it is the best of a bad set of choices and seriously doubt if any American would be questioning this if the World Trade Center was still smoldering.
I read the whole thing. Wow! He makes many of the same arguments, that I have considered, but goes into more scholarly detail. He makes many interesting claims, such as saying the US is going beyond targeting leadership, to targeting ordinary foot soldiers, in some cases. They are more likely to have stronger ties to their communities, thus making anti-US backlash more likely. I noticed the deep irony, in his statement that innocent people in target area, feel "terror" about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being caught in a US drone attack. Another line that was amusing to me, came from an unnamed State Dept official, who was reported to say that, "three men, observed by surveillance, doing jumping jacks, is considered by some to be solid evidence of a 'terrorist training camp'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I understand Obama's position of not being able to appear weak on 'terrorism'. I think a real public debate, would make him appear more reasonable, should he choose, to emphasize more strategic objectives, over drone strikes. I know that most on this forum are not as 'religious' as I claim to be. But for me, I am disappointed that religious leadership, does not speak on US drones, in terms of moral issues. Instead many look at sexual conduct as the major barometer of public morality. Killing people, in distant lands, with no names, and no accountability as to why in most cases, and not even being able to verify who and how many were killed, or injured, is damn near universally approved here.
Not even considering what those community we attack may feel, goes directly against one of the two commandments, Jesus left the world. But religious or not, a person who thinks and feels deeply about human issues, might understand there are always consequences, for the taking of human life without adequate legal framework to do so. "Blowback", is one of several terms that could be used to describe this.
One last thing from the article, that I also considered. How likely is that someone from a remote area in Yemen is going to directly harm something in the US homeland, so that his immediate execution is nescessary? Thanks much for the link Stavos.
How likely was it that someone in a remote cave in the mountains of Afghanistan was going to launch an attack that ended up killing over 3,000 people in NY and DC?Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Sherman famously said that all war is hell. Of that there is no doubt. The tactic is troubling and does require a leap of faith in both the integrity of the Administration but also the intelligence community. Still it is troubling than waiting to get hit without doing anything OR using the conventional warfare technics of the Bush Administration that created over $1.5 trillion in debt to date, well over 150,000 dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, a detention/torture center in Cuba that nobody knows how to close and little if any intelligence of use.
I get the civil liberty issues and the inhumanity of the killings. But if Rand Paul is really worried about American civil liberties perhaps he should sponsor real election reform. If he is really worried about the safety and well being of Americans perhaps he could support sensible gun safety regulations or possibly stopping this race to the bottom where America is the place where no defense contractor will ever go hungry but screw the unemployed and the under privileged.
Even if the topic is worthy of debate what a terrible messenger. Rand Paul is far more Tea Party than true libertarian and far more interested in his own self fulfillment than making a real difference.
I agree that drug laws are stupid. But while I agree with Paul that government is far too intrusive, I believe it is in people's personal lives from same sex marriage to choice. He believes it is regulating the robber baron bankers and the king's of pollution for profit like his benifactors the Koch Brothers want him to.
Bless Lindsay Graham for saying where were these GOPers when 43 was the President on this occasion even though IMHO far too often he has found himself opposing Obama not on the content of his policies but rather because of party affiliation.
The Koch brothers contributed to Rand Paul's campaign....Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...?cid=N00030836
More hogwash to create more obfuscation.
The use of drone strikes is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.
The fact that the technooogy for drones now exists means that it is virtually nevitable that "hostile' regimes will develop and use them (Don't Hezbollah already have some rather primitive versions of these). So expect iran, North Kirea et all to offer us their own drones soon - and i am sure Russia and China will have the technology very soon.
Bin Laden was never charged with having something directly to do with 9/11. He was wanted in connection with the Cole bombings, and an embassy attack. The US has had 11 1/2 years, without a major terrorist attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
Yes drone attacks are cheaper than invading a country, but that's still ignoring cheaper alternatives such as empowering the local/national governments to deal with their own problems. Also the drone process could be, an probably is, easily subverted. All someone has to do is to plant false information, through informants/double agents. Then the wrong people get killed. The local people get further enraged, and it becomes a perfect recruitment tool for anti US groups. According to the article the ranks of anti US groups are swelling greatly in areas US drone attacks. According to the article, even funerals have been targeted. Who goes to funerals? Also there have been double strikes, attacking people attending to the dead/wounded. All you have to do is to put yourself in the place of another, to better understand.
Executing people without having to provide evidence, is a slippery slope. We don't really even know how many non-combatants have been killed. We rely on the people who have something to lose, that is leadership, to tell us the results with no independent verification. There is also the question of whether national governments, such as Yemen, exaggerate the threat to the US, in order to get assistance with regional resistance groups. Didn't the US (we) 'accidentally' attack a funeral in Pakistan, killing maybe 20 people, a couple of years ago? Nothing wins friends like killing innocent people, huh? We should not ignore the possibility that someone planted false information, as the real cause of the 'accident'.
The other issues you mention are important also, but we can't just kill people and ignore the consequences. Bombs cannot kill ideas, especially when those who hold the ideas, live with others in a greater community. So we kill the person, but his ideas are simply passed on to another. On responses to news articles, I have seen people say we should exterminate all Muslims. The thing that bothers me the most was that others were not speaking about it being wrong, or impractical to eliminate 1/5 of the world's population. The thought of genocide is now ok, with some people. Some people dont understand why the sudy of human history is so important.
The religious angle is an elusive one, because both George W Bush and Tony Blair made no secret of their Christian Faith, yet neither could see a contradiction in that faith and the violence that was inevitably going to result from regime change in Iraq. Blair later said, when asked, that he would accept the judgement of God rather than the British people which suggested that he didn't particularly care what we the people thought at the time or since, a stance he has maintained -his Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell noted in his diaries how often Blair prayed before during (and presumably since) the operation began in Iraq, which he believed was a matter of Good versus Evil, whereas George W Bush apparently told President Chirac of France that 'Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East'...suggesting that for him it was the 'End-times' that occupied his thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Fundamentally, the realpolitik that guides the decisions to use drones does not address the causes of the threats to the USA, be it threats to US official personnel abroad or the population within the USA itself. It is not about any difference between Republicans or Democrats or left and right as Hippifried points out, but the existential threat to the USA. But are there any realistic threats below the level of the state? Obama is caught in this trap -if he doesn't use them and something happens he takes the blame; if he does and the wrong people are killed, he still takes the blame. But not using them does not appear to be an option at the moment.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1998 and attacked US targets outside and eventually inside the US itself. On this basis his 'military campaign' has enabled the US to claim that members of al-Qaeda were/are combatants in the context of international law, hence their prosecution in military tribunals in Guantanamo -although it isn't clear if such laws apply to any group of people who declare war on the USA- in this case 'non-state actors'.
And yes, it does mean that a single man in the Yemen who issues threats and makes videos calling for attacks on his own country -the case of 'the American' Anwar al-Aulaki- must be taken seriously up to a point, because he might be recruiting 'soldiers' in secret, or even on the internet -the point of intelligence in this context would be to establish the difference between an inflammatory 'preacher' with no practical means of attacking the USA physically, and someone with deadly, and realistic intentions to cause harm. Individuals verbally attack the USA every weekend at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, in London -that doesn't make them a credible threat (and anyway MI5 tracks them).
The broader problem of the Tribal Areas of Pakistan is that the US is engaged in a conflict of confidence with the military in Pakistan on the basis that the latter only half-heartedly deal with the militants, because some of them are backed by the Pakistan military and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
The fear that lawless regions can be used to train and recruit new 'soldiers' is undoutbedly part of the strategic mix, yet the fear that this was happening in Somalia was not met in reality, whereas a quite different problem, offshore piracy has become a serious issue. Indeed, the 'Islamic threat' in Somalia has receded and been replaced by Mali in this last year, athough the Yemen still gives cause for concern. But evidence does not show that lawless regions automatically provide a safe heaven for the al-Qaeda franchise -it didn't happen in Somalia, or Iraq, and it is unlikely to develop in Syria or Libya where internal politics are more pressing; and in Mali the Salafi are divided amongst themselves and loathed by most local people. The use of Drones against Boko Haram in Nigeria has become a possibility as the US increased its presence on the border in Niger at the end of February where it is claimed a 'Drone base' is being assembled. An attack on Boko Haram would be justified in a military context in the same way as attacks on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
http://www.ng.quicknews-africa.net/i...nes-in-nigeria
http://www.nairaland.com/1205592/new...ria-door-steps
I think the US has a deep anxiety about Pakistan, which is why Drones are used for the most part in the Tribal Areas, and this feeds into the problem of a resurgent Taliban -yet I cannot see any direct link between the use of Drones and the security of the USA as the politics of Bin Laden is dead. In Bin Laden's case, the attacks on the USA were tangential to his political campaign, which was to revive the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved when the Ottoman Empire was finally laid to rest in 1923, but I am not aware that any but a few Salafi fanatics believe they can mount the revolutionary overthrow of the regimes in the Middle East and re-constitute the Caliphate, even if this is their interpretation of the 'Arab Spring'. And again, I don't know how attacking the USA advances this cause, except to say that attacking the USA for some is a badge of achievement.
But there still has to be a reason, a cause, for weapons to be used. I am not convinced that the use of Drones in the Tribal Areas, for example, has any real military purpose in the context of US security.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/wo...nted=all&_r=0#
Here's a recent development. Others are claiming US drone strikes and the US is denying they were involved at all.
One important distinction in your post. I believe that Bin Laden declared war on the US military. If so, this would be in line with teachings in the Koran, that prohibits the targeting of non-combatants.
As far as this being a liberal or conservative issue, it isn't. The politicalization of the use of drones is different than legitimate concern over their use. I personal question Paul's motives regarding the topic.
The fact that he decided to use the topic of drone strikes on US soil, against US citizens who were non-combatants to filibuster an appointment by President Obama rather than question the correctness of the real drone policy may have been a dramatic way to put more light on the real policy but I personally believe it was motivated by politics and not moral outrage at assignation by drone.
Osama Bin Laden took credit for the planning and execution of 9-11 and did so quite proudly on video for all the world to see. So I think it is a straw man to suggest that he did have a lot of blood on his hands or that the extraordinary nature of the 2001 attacks did not warrant his being taken out either dead or alive.
Bin Laden also in his infamous post 9-11 pronouncements warned of more attacks on US soil against US citizens, so the whole theory that somehow Bin Laden was a holy man that would have only declared war against military targets is almost as revisionist as those who deny that the holocaust ever happened.
I understand that terrorists do what they do because the powers they oppose can not be confronted by conventional methods of warfare. But with that brings the question of how do you combat terrorist techniques when the tactics make conventions ineffective?
Cheney called it the dark side but then proceeded to use a bizarre cocktail of conventional war and occupation, combined with indefinite detention and torture. I honestly always thought he was talking about a cocktail of intelligence and as ugly as it is assignation.
The topic should be openly debated in the US and through out the world but I question Rand Paul's motives though the result is creating reasoned conversation about drones fueling the fear of the ultra extreme right in the US is never a good thing. Never forget Oklahoma City. Those people when incited can do horrible things.
Huh? I had a working remote control airplane over 40 years ago. Mine was a relatively cheap toy, but the grownups had real good ones, with a national network of clubs for the enthusiasts. That's all a drone is. There's more satellites now, so the control can be farther away, but without all this modern communication, we wouldn't be able to publicly fret on this medium. Telstar went up in '62.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
As for hostiles:
Ability to fly & wi-fi gets you a drone. If you can assemble a rocket, you can control it with a cell phone or your kid's X-box. Hezbollah has rockets. Therefore they have deadly drones, as the Israelis found out. Argentina gave the UK a small taste of the exocet back in '82. The french developed them in the '70s. The Iranians were effectively hitting Bagdad with Chinese built silkworm missiles during the Iran/Iraq war in the '80s. Etc...
There's nothing new here. Everybody has this "technology". I don't know why so many people are worried that what's already been happening for decades might happen someday.
Democrats Give Excuses For Not Joining Anti-Drone Filibuster:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/d...one-filibuster
No -the English translations of the 1998 Declaration include this paragraph:Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
The quote from the Quran: "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," is from Sura 9:36 a chapter on Repentence; the second one, "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." is from Sura 8:39, The Spoils of War.
However, none of the English translations of the 1998 Declaration are exact because some references to Quranic verses have been edited out -the English language versions I have seen appear to be the same- yet these missing verses would have meaning for those Muslims with a knowledge of the Quran as being part of the theologial justification for Jihad and was supposed to be part of the legitimacy that bin Laden and al-Qaeda sought amongst other Muslims. However one American scholar (Rosalynd Gwynne) argues that the manner in which Bin Laden and associates wrote the 1996 and 1998 Declarations opens up the charge that al-Qaeda has misinterpreted the Quran to support its own violent aims, quoting verses out of context. In this respect, al-Qaeda risked a degree of scepticism or even ridicule among the more scholarly Muslims for whom the precise origin of the verses is hugely important to understand what they mean. Curiously, Sura 9 is the only Sura in the Quran that does not begin with the invocation Bism'illah al Rahim al Rahman In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate...
Bin Laden was challenged precisely on this issue of non-combatants, and argued that killing Americans regardless of who they were was justified in interpretations of the Quran, but cited two very obscure thinkers (a Pakistani called Sami Zai, and Abdullah al-Shehebi of Saudi Arabia -n18 in the link). He argued that there were no innocents on either side, a form of collective responsibility in which if the USA indiscriminately kills men women and children in the Islamic World, then they must expect the same indisicriminate violence in retaliation. This is clearly where the 'radical Jihadist' parts company with mainstream Islam and is a point of fracture in intra-Islamic conflicts notably those between Sunna and Shi'a.
Link one is to the 1998 text, link two is to the analysis (rather long I am afraid) by Rosalynd Gwynne at the University of Tennessee produced in 2001. The third link is to a chapter by Sohail Hashmi that has the references I noted above.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...atwa_1998.html
http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/526..._tradition.pdf
In fairness this issue will not played out in the capitol very much is quite a burning issue with large elements for progressives in America. One could say that as much as Rand Paul used it for his political purposes, many Democrats are staying away from it only because a Dem is in the White House.
On almost every issue I like to believe I am very progressive. I do find myself more likely to empathize with Obama's "compromises than I would if they came from a right of center President. And I can find a great deal to critique in how they have handled financial reform or lack of it and the lack of punishment for the "bank-sters". My empathy comes in regarding ObamaCare which was a huge compromise, slash, sellout to the Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
But whether it was because I was in NY on 9-11-01 on business and had employees that were directly impacted by the attacks on the WTC, I have fewer issues with Drone use than perhaps I ordinarily would.
Whatever the case, terrorism is a cancer on society that targets the innocent to create as the name suggests terror and in the process destroy the will of the citizens to support their government. It is my choice not or to support my government and I do not want a few people with an axe to grind with my government to try and influence my decision either way by killing me or my fellow citizens.
So as long as terrorists exist as distasteful as it is to target humans for murder, this is a policy I find myself supporting at the same time I wish the Patriot Act would expire and we could get the A-holes in US government to allow the detainees in Gitmo to moved to the US and given due process.
I can only pray that some day before I die that there really will be some period of continual peace on the whole planet because I am not a young guy and there has never been a day in my life that somewhere in the world there has not been war.
Perhaps that headline should read: Fanatics make up excuses for nobody paying attention to them. The biggest lie that false ideologues on both the "left" & the "right" tell is that anyone who professes a certain bent should think in the stereotype of that bent, whether that stereotype has any basis in reality or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
I think it is a mistake to make policy based on reactions like yours -I was living in London at the time both the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA began a campaign of bombings (after 1972 it was mostly PIRA) across Northern Ireland and the UK, and the response of the British Government through actions such as Internment Without Trial, torture, and the aggressive policing of Catholic areas by the British Army actually worsened the security situation in Northern Ireland and the UK and led to more young men and women 'volunteering' for the Republican cause than might have been otherwise; 'Bloody Sunday' was another factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
Indeed, 9/11 and the London Bombings of 2005 enabled the British Government to erode human rights and civil liberties even more than during 'the Troubles', with its collusion with the USA in 'extraordinary rendition' and torture, its imprisonment of 'suspects' held in prison without trial or even being told why they are in prison or what the evidence was against them -not for days or weeks, but years- and when these people do have access to the justice system, vide Abu Qatada, they can only win against a Government that cannot justify in law the causes of detention other than through supposition and hearsay. The humiliation of the British Government on imprisonment without trial has led Home Secretary Theresa May -currently being touted as the next 'Mrs Thatcher' to lead the Conservatives when they ditch Cameron- to argue it is time for the UK to opt out of European Human Rights legislation and its courts -in other words government should be allowed to do whatever it wants without the nuisance of the law getting in the way.
The latest Criminal Justice bill going through Parliament has approved a motion to create Courts that will operate in secret in order to 'protect intelligence sources', which is possibly true, but also works to cover up intelligence incompetence, and imprison people on the basis of no evidence at all, other than that they are Muslims -in the same way that the evidence of the threat in Northern Ireland all those years ago was the undeniable fact that the threat was called Patrick, or Sean, was Roman Catholic and lived on a particular street in Belfast or Londonderry. That the people should through public observance participate in the administration of justice should be basic to any modern democracy, we are to be denied this right not because we are too stupid to understand the case or too immature, but because on too many occasions governments get it wrong, arrest the wrong people, imprison people on the basis of flimsy evidence or faulty intelligence -but cannot bring themselves to admit they made a mistake. And how would you know what case was even being heard in a secret court?
Even though the turn to violence came out of the Civil Rights movement that began in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, had those rights (eg, the right to vote in some cases) not been denied in the first place, the 'moral' cause of the Republican movement would have been weaker -after all the Partition of Ireland of 1921 was not as universally hated across the country as many claim, even if it stored up the potential to cause trouble, as indeed it did.
But none of this was helped by the behaviour of the British Government in response to social conflict on the streets of Northern Ireland, and the draconian measures taken to deal with it became part of the problem for the succeeding 30 years. Yes, there is an ever present threat in the UK, from 'dissident Republicans', and from deluded Jihadists, and mostly our intelligence networks have done a reasonably good job of containing the threat, but the aggressive undermining of human rights and the democratic right to a fair and open trial are part of the problem not the solution.
Christian and Jews are not pagans, since they believe in the same God, whom Muslims call Allah. They are referred to in the Koran, as "the people of the Book". However, I understand that some Jews did betray the Prophet, in battle loyalties, but that still did not make them pagans. In those cases, I believe they would be called other names, but not such things as "non believers". The Koran is a 'high context' book. One needs to understand what was happening in real at that exact time. I think that 8th Sura, was written at a time, when it was rumored that a large army was coming after them. The two premises for war, are; 1. Those that would fight you because of your faith (that would be defense), and 2. those that would drive you from your homes, (that would be territory). I would agree that If Bin Laden truly believed that anyone could be attacked, his interpretations are obscure, since there are passages in the Koran, which directly forbid fighting non-combatants. I think the distinction that Bin Laden was not a 'good Muslim", so to speak, is very important. I even wonder whether or not some are trying to obscure this, for purposes of manipulating the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
My time is limited today, so I will check out your references later. I do question whether Rand Paul is sincere, myself. I think he may have found an area which the Adminstration was vunerable. IN other words, he may just be doing it for pure political gain, not really about true moral reasons. The real issue should not just be about killing of Americans.
Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-progressives
Rand Paul -- and the Life at Conception Act:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eMJSKHJH5Y
Rand Paul introduces ‘fetal personhood’ bill to outlaw abortion:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.
The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...tlaw-abortion/
Rand Paul is full of shit. Most Americans don't believe in personhood. More people believe in restricting abortions than personhood. It is an attempt by pro-lifers to circumvent Roe v. Wade. Personhood sounds a lot better than banning all abortions. Hell, Rand Paul freely admits that is the purpose of his bill. Personhood only picked up a little steam in the last few years. It is similar to "Intelligent Design" pushed by Creationists to get their viewpoint into the classroom. Creationism became an icky word, so "Intelligent Design" replaced it. Branding is very important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Paul is quite a character. In the same week he takes a stand on "personhood" that is radically to the right of center in its nature, he takes a stand against existing drug laws.
While just like his father his his voting record at moments conflict with the notation he is a true Libertarian his stance on drug laws is both very libertarian and IMHO realistically correct.
In a time when States and the Fed face budgetary challenges dumping a load of money into busting people for using pot is just stupid. Prohibitions never work and the expense of enforcement and the costs of incarceration do not make any sense. Instead the government should regulate and tax just like they do with booze that has a much more clear record of creating havoc in peoples lives.
I have no idea how this issue plays with greater electorate and I am not sure Paul does either, so a tip of the hat goes to him for staking out an position that cuts against convention but at least IMO makes total sense.
If fetuses as persons we should count them in the census and charge them with criminal negligence when they cause the death of their mothers.
Great take!Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The Flaw in Libertarian Theology:
The Flaw in Libertarian Theology - YouTube
We should bear in mind that we don't have a capitalist system. No capitalist system has ever survived. It'd self destruct in 5 minutes. So what we have is a kind of state-capitalist system. With the state playing a substantial role. Think: bailouts, research and development etc., etc.
Without the state, well, the corporate sector wouldn't be viable.
Is there an alternative to this???
Rand Paul: Liberals Don't Understand Capitalism - YouTube
I agree, but your statement, should contain about 500 'etc' in order to be more accurate. I now understand that most free trade agreements, contain copyright protections for US businesses. Actually some businesses are able to keep, the state or local tax money they collect from their employees, under the name of tax credits for business development. The list goes on and on. Assuming the official version of 9/11 was correct, 19 of the 21 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, however the US has strong business ties with that nation. But the US did not have that many business ties with Iraq, before the invasion. Contracts to 'rebuild Iraq' were given to US private contractors, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
YJ, here's the economist Dean Baker on: Patents, Copyrights, & Other Protectionist Barriers:Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
CEPR Seminar 10: Patents, Copyrights, & Other Protectionist Barriers - YouTube