Ah, the classic leftist strawman: Reject those who are warning of tyranny because they think that all government is tyranny and bad!
Meanwhile, pay no attention to the man behind the podium--the man who made a secret kill list; who had his Attorney General tell Congress that they were confusing "due process" with "judicial process" and that the internal deliberations of the executive branch could qualify as "due process;" whose problem with the 2012 NDAA provisions for indefinite detentions was that they bound his hands too much.
Are we to believe him just because he says to? Remember that land east of Daytona I offered you?
He did repeat an important concept: self-rule. That's the idea that we as a nation rule over ourselves, rather than bow to some other power, yes, but it's also the idea that each one of us has the right to make decisions about our own lives--decisions that we don't have to submit to others for approval.
What I don't get is why Australia and England haven't devolved into the most abject forms of tyranny yet. In fact, given the abuses of our own government, we're worse off then they are in spite of all you freedom-fighting patriots with guns.
That sounds all well and good until you look at various news stories coming from them--especially England.
People jailed for fighting back against home invaders with whatever is at hand. A fellow who found a discarded crime gun in a flowerbed, turned it in, and was arrested for possession because he carried it in rather than calling the cops to pick it up. People fined for displaying Bible verses in their shops because they offend Muslims. Muslims who are afraid to make eye contact with you because they are treated so badly by whites and cops. Surveillance vans traveling the streets, snooping for untaxed TVs. Meter readers given a financial incentive to snoop around your flat looking for an untaxed tv or anything else to report. Prior restraints on publication and other limits on free speech. Fewer due process protections. Etc.
No, they're not the most abject tyrannies yet, but their governments get away with far more than ours does--more than most of us would want to put up with. Has our government developed problems? Certainly. And it is amassing more power to itself daily, but it is still catching up to most other parts of the world.
With all the cameras around Britain, that nation isn't as far away from tyranny as you think. But again, why do you keep goading us into violent action? I've told you before, we're not there yet. You're the one pushing us to use our guns when we're still trying to use the political process.
Stuff it, Mikey. Far as I can tell, Orlin and I have pretty similar views on the actions of the U.S. government and its encroachments into our lives. They're bad and they're getting worse, but our government is still less intrusive and better restrained than most others. It's not saying much, kinda like saying we're the leper with the most extremities still intact, but it's accurate as far as I can tell.
Though, if you want to enlighten me about how our government is worse than theirs, please do. Just know that saying that they don't protect us enough by putting up cameras and taking our guns, or similar statements, will be laughed at and result in the hurling of ribald insults.
T., if the unauthorized eavesdropping, indefinite detention, legitimized torture, Guantanamo and Patriot Act are not enough to convince you, let's just drop it.
But, god forbid you can't own a fucking AR-15 anymore.
My point is that Britain has a lot of those same things. Hell, if they're driving around with infrared, microwave, or whatever they claimed they were using to look through the walls for TV's, do you really think they don't snoop on their subjects' calls and e-mails?
It's true they don't have a Gitmo that we know of, but the impression I got in comparative government classes and the little bit of comparative law that we studied was that they have fewer protections of due process and civil rights than we have. One example that springs to mind is that here, pre-9/11, the FBI could act domestically, but was on a tight leash; CIA and Military Intelligence had more latitude, but weren't supposed to work inside the US. Of course, the PATRIOT Act started breaking this down, and Bush and Obama have gone beyond what it even allowed, but there is still somewhat of a divide (however damaged and crumbling). Meanwhile, it's my understanding that in Britain, while there is a distinction between the foreign intelligence service (MI-6) and the domestic (MI-5), both are branches of the Military Intelligence department and at least MI-5 has more domestic latitude than we allow the FBI.
When you combine the differences in the limits placed on the British Government with it's penchant for secrecy and the history of dirty tricks that either they or their agents used in recent conflicts, I don't think they're on any more firm ground than we are in our war on terror tactics, they're just not as open about it.
Getting back to the legal protections of rights, I'd be glad to hear Laci's evaluation of their legal system--if he practiced there, maybe he can clarify which system provides more protections for the accused.
I have problems with each of those items you listed, Mike, and as I see it the government is pushing as close to the line as possible, and even dancing on it.
With regards to Gitmo, I think the whole "Enemy Combatant" classification is bullshit that Bush came up with so that he could make up the rules for how to deal with them instead of dealing with them as Prisoners of War as they should have. Is it a tyrannical move? Yes. But the system as a whole is not 100% broken beyond repair, I hope, so I keep trying to do what I can to argue for a return to the proper treatment of the captives.
Similar analysis applies to the other issues, so far. The government has not yet started rounding up the opponents of whoever is in power, putting them in secret prisons, and torturing them. They're doing it to people we're at war with, which is bad enough, but we are still free to use the non-violent levers of the political system to try and fix that.
Do you understand where I'm coming from a little bit better? Both on the idea of us being better or worse than Britain, and on why I'm saying that violence is not a justifiable answer at this time? (Note, I'm not asking you to agree with me, but just if you understand where I'm coming from enough to see that there is an internal logic to what I'm saying, not just some irrational "'Murica's the Best" idea.)
But, god forbid you can't own a fucking AR-15 anymore.
Luckily, especially for the secular-minded (like me, for example), we don't need any deities to forbid denial of our ability to own AR-15s. We'll forbid it ourselves, and if necessary, use the AR-15s to enforce that forbiddance.
T., if the unauthorized eavesdropping, indefinite detention, legitimized torture, Guantanamo and Patriot Act are not enough to convince you, let's just drop it.
By the way, Mikeb, are you arguing that the U.S. is tyrannical, or at least headed in that direction? Are you, in other words, disagreeing with Obama's call to "reject voices warning of tyranny"?
But we should give up our AR-15s and their standard capacity magazines, anyway?
Ah, the classic leftist strawman: Reject those who are warning of tyranny because they think that all government is tyranny and bad!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, pay no attention to the man behind the podium--the man who made a secret kill list; who had his Attorney General tell Congress that they were confusing "due process" with "judicial process" and that the internal deliberations of the executive branch could qualify as "due process;" whose problem with the 2012 NDAA provisions for indefinite detentions was that they bound his hands too much.
Nothing unconstitutional here--no overreach--no nascent tyranny.
That's what a wannabe dictator would say.
ReplyDeleteThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
It is obvious which camp Obama is in.
orlin sellers
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
DeleteOne of my all-time favorite flicks...
DeleteAre we to believe him just because he says to? Remember that land east of Daytona I offered you?
ReplyDeleteHe did repeat an important concept: self-rule. That's the idea that we as a nation rule over ourselves, rather than bow to some other power, yes, but it's also the idea that each one of us has the right to make decisions about our own lives--decisions that we don't have to submit to others for approval.
His message about citizenship is right on.
ReplyDeleteTennessean, Orlin, and Greg have left me with nothing to add. Superbly stated, as always, gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kurt. Now if only Mikeb would get it...
DeleteWhat I don't get is why Australia and England haven't devolved into the most abject forms of tyranny yet. In fact, given the abuses of our own government, we're worse off then they are in spite of all you freedom-fighting patriots with guns.
DeleteThat sounds all well and good until you look at various news stories coming from them--especially England.
DeletePeople jailed for fighting back against home invaders with whatever is at hand. A fellow who found a discarded crime gun in a flowerbed, turned it in, and was arrested for possession because he carried it in rather than calling the cops to pick it up. People fined for displaying Bible verses in their shops because they offend Muslims. Muslims who are afraid to make eye contact with you because they are treated so badly by whites and cops. Surveillance vans traveling the streets, snooping for untaxed TVs. Meter readers given a financial incentive to snoop around your flat looking for an untaxed tv or anything else to report. Prior restraints on publication and other limits on free speech. Fewer due process protections. Etc.
No, they're not the most abject tyrannies yet, but their governments get away with far more than ours does--more than most of us would want to put up with. Has our government developed problems? Certainly. And it is amassing more power to itself daily, but it is still catching up to most other parts of the world.
With all the cameras around Britain, that nation isn't as far away from tyranny as you think. But again, why do you keep goading us into violent action? I've told you before, we're not there yet. You're the one pushing us to use our guns when we're still trying to use the political process.
Delete" their governments get away with far more than ours does."
DeleteOrlin, would you please answer that? I know you can do it much better than I could.
Stuff it, Mikey. Far as I can tell, Orlin and I have pretty similar views on the actions of the U.S. government and its encroachments into our lives. They're bad and they're getting worse, but our government is still less intrusive and better restrained than most others. It's not saying much, kinda like saying we're the leper with the most extremities still intact, but it's accurate as far as I can tell.
DeleteThough, if you want to enlighten me about how our government is worse than theirs, please do. Just know that saying that they don't protect us enough by putting up cameras and taking our guns, or similar statements, will be laughed at and result in the hurling of ribald insults.
Ah . . . Europe. Where they'e apparently considering outlawing "ungregistered" gardening.
DeleteLet freedom ring.
T., if the unauthorized eavesdropping, indefinite detention, legitimized torture, Guantanamo and Patriot Act are not enough to convince you, let's just drop it.
DeleteBut, god forbid you can't own a fucking AR-15 anymore.
I think Orlin agrees with me on this one. Maybe he'll tell us.
DeleteMike,
DeleteMy point is that Britain has a lot of those same things. Hell, if they're driving around with infrared, microwave, or whatever they claimed they were using to look through the walls for TV's, do you really think they don't snoop on their subjects' calls and e-mails?
It's true they don't have a Gitmo that we know of, but the impression I got in comparative government classes and the little bit of comparative law that we studied was that they have fewer protections of due process and civil rights than we have. One example that springs to mind is that here, pre-9/11, the FBI could act domestically, but was on a tight leash; CIA and Military Intelligence had more latitude, but weren't supposed to work inside the US. Of course, the PATRIOT Act started breaking this down, and Bush and Obama have gone beyond what it even allowed, but there is still somewhat of a divide (however damaged and crumbling). Meanwhile, it's my understanding that in Britain, while there is a distinction between the foreign intelligence service (MI-6) and the domestic (MI-5), both are branches of the Military Intelligence department and at least MI-5 has more domestic latitude than we allow the FBI.
When you combine the differences in the limits placed on the British Government with it's penchant for secrecy and the history of dirty tricks that either they or their agents used in recent conflicts, I don't think they're on any more firm ground than we are in our war on terror tactics, they're just not as open about it.
Getting back to the legal protections of rights, I'd be glad to hear Laci's evaluation of their legal system--if he practiced there, maybe he can clarify which system provides more protections for the accused.
I have problems with each of those items you listed, Mike, and as I see it the government is pushing as close to the line as possible, and even dancing on it.
With regards to Gitmo, I think the whole "Enemy Combatant" classification is bullshit that Bush came up with so that he could make up the rules for how to deal with them instead of dealing with them as Prisoners of War as they should have. Is it a tyrannical move? Yes. But the system as a whole is not 100% broken beyond repair, I hope, so I keep trying to do what I can to argue for a return to the proper treatment of the captives.
Similar analysis applies to the other issues, so far. The government has not yet started rounding up the opponents of whoever is in power, putting them in secret prisons, and torturing them. They're doing it to people we're at war with, which is bad enough, but we are still free to use the non-violent levers of the political system to try and fix that.
Do you understand where I'm coming from a little bit better? Both on the idea of us being better or worse than Britain, and on why I'm saying that violence is not a justifiable answer at this time? (Note, I'm not asking you to agree with me, but just if you understand where I'm coming from enough to see that there is an internal logic to what I'm saying, not just some irrational "'Murica's the Best" idea.)
But, god forbid you can't own a fucking AR-15 anymore.
DeleteLuckily, especially for the secular-minded (like me, for example), we don't need any deities to forbid denial of our ability to own AR-15s. We'll forbid it ourselves, and if necessary, use the AR-15s to enforce that forbiddance.
T., if the unauthorized eavesdropping, indefinite detention, legitimized torture, Guantanamo and Patriot Act are not enough to convince you, let's just drop it.
DeleteBy the way, Mikeb, are you arguing that the U.S. is tyrannical, or at least headed in that direction? Are you, in other words, disagreeing with Obama's call to "reject voices warning of tyranny"?
But we should give up our AR-15s and their standard capacity magazines, anyway?