ACLU. Just saying.

Dave: You are being too cryptic for me. What do you mean?

Dennis,
Well articulated.
-Jill

Thanks Jill.

A question, Dennis, if I may:

IF YOU KNEW WITH CERTAINTY that sticking to a principle like habeas corpus would result in the total destruction of the United States…a result that would have every human currently living on the North American continent dead and the very ground of the continent made unfit for human habitation for the next 30,000 years…would you advocate sticking with the principle and accepting the consequence?

Obviously, Dennis, where I am going with this is to see if a point exists at which you think modifying (or even abandoning) certain deeply held principles makes more sense than simply adhering to the principle regardless of consequences.

Equally obviously, at that point, I would want to explore where, short of the very extreme scenario I presented, you would feel it to be okay and necessary to consider doing so…and from there, to explore whether the people who are heading in that direction at this moment in history…given the possible scenarios that actually exist…can be faulted to the degree you fault them.

So…back to my extreme scenario. Would you, Dennis?

Hmm.
"To be sure, Mr. Obama has made some significant changes to Bush policies. He closed the Central Intelligence Agency’s long-term prisons and required strict adherence to antitorture rules. He also released secret legal memorandums about interrogation."

I'm going to address 2Drake here first. If you were a member of the body of people who actually ran things in a country that was the world's superpower and you had wealth so immense that it was in the billions upon billions, would you not do what was necessary to preserve the belief among the bulk of the country's population that they were in charge?

In order to maintain that pretense, when it became necessary due to disasters, setbacks, and widespread fury towards the last group of political leaders and their policies, that you a) maintain the fundamental aspects of those same policies, and b) provide new window dressing to make it look different (even including making adjustments to it where you have found that the previous tactics didn't get you what you wanted and was backfiring) so that the people of the country didn't revolt, would you not offer the people what looks like an alternative?

This is what Obama is. He is not precisely in every respect identical to Bush. He has done somethings differently than Bush did, partly because some of what Bush did wasn't working, partly because there are some internal differences of approach among the ranks of the ruling circles (these differences of approach can sometimes erupt into fierce fights), and partly because if he were to do things exactly the same as his widely despised predecessor, the society would revolt. What's important here is that the fundamental policies, in this instance, in the war of terror, remain the same. Indeed, in certain key respects, Obama is worse than Bush was. Torture, for example, hasn't stopped. See the current issue of Harper's for a very good article about this. Obama has banned the most blatant forms of torture, but he hasn't stopped it. He has escalated the wars and occupations, and shifted it from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has declared executive powers more extensive than dared by Bush.

In response to Frank's question:

1) Are there principles that should never be violated? Yes. The prohibition against torture is one of them. There is never, ever, a justification for it for reasons which I have previously written a great deal about. Habeas corpus is another one of them. Let's review what HC is. It is the right of a detainee to have their day in court to demand that the government which is detaining them provide just cause and reason for why they should be able to continue to detain them. It is one of the keystones of the American Revolution, one of the explicit, named, grievances against the British. It dates back to the Magna Carta, some 900 years ago, and was key to curbing the tyranny of kings.

Here is one of the areas that Obama has gone even further than Bush and Cheney. He is claiming the right to detain people without HC rights and on the basis of what those individuals might do, not what they have actually done. Frank, I know you will follow Obama anywhere, but let's consider what this means after Obama leaves office. Sooner or later, someone like Bush is going to take the White House again. Say, Sarah Palin and/or someone like John McCain. These people in the GOP have no regard for civil liberties which they regard as just so much rubbish. How will you feel when the president starts rounding up people claiming that they are threats because of what they might do, who they associate with, etc., and holding them indefinitely? Have you not by not speaking out against such measures therefore permitted tyranny to rule?

There are no good reasons to suspend HC or rules of evidence. They've worked well for a very long time for a reason. If you have someone in custody who you think is a threat, a grave, grave threat, then hold them, charge them, provide the evidence, and convict them.

As I have written previously, the ticking time bomb scenario is a fiction. If you thought someone was about to trigger a big bomb, and you had them in custody, those who work with them would know very quickly that their guy/gal was in custody and that the plans would come out very soon. They would then cancel their plans.

You are falling for the tricks of people whose agenda isn't fighting against anti-state terror. Torture and suspending HC aren't being done for intelligence purposes or for security. These actions are, as people like Alberto Mora and others have pointed out, making the possibilities of terror much worse, not better. These are the actions of people who WANT anti-state terror to happen. Here's what Mora said:

Alberto Mora, Former Navy General Counsel (2001-2006) testified before Congress on June 17, 2008:

“[T]here are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”

I think that Dennis Loo is exactly right keeping this issue on the table.

The situation is quite critical.

American spending on weapons is bigger than the rest of the world combined.

Obama's administration has expanded the wars, which Bush's administration started. The escalated war in the areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan has already forced about two million people to leave their homes as refugees at border areas of those countries.

Obama has continued and defended the unlawful practices to arrest and keep people indefinitely in jails.

His idea to keep people in jails without any trials by the pretext that those 'people might be dangerous in the future' and they are kept in the jail because of that indefinitely is dangerous.

By that pretext anybody can be arrested and kept in the jail indefinitely.

This also brings to mind another TV episode - this one of the Twilight Zone. A young woman faints because her apt. is too hot. She awakens in a sweat. People can fry eggs on the street. The earth is moving towards the sun and there is no power that can stop it. We are dying. But then she awakens and it is dark and snowing outside her window. The earth in fact is moving away from the sun and we will freeze to death. So the problem is different but the end result is the same. Obama is continuing too many Bush era policies. I used to wonder if there were photos of Bush that he was threatened with, but now I just wonder if the Presidency isnt so constrained by events that there really isnt just an illusion of choice. I dont know.

Hannu's comment hits the nail on the head.

Tim4change: Thanks for the Twilight Zone episode reference. As for why Obama's continuing Bush's policies, it's not the events that are constraining him, it's the needs of an imperialist empire that are determining what he's doing. You cannot continue to ride herd over much of the globe, to the disadvantage of the vast majority of the people, without having to lie, cheat, steal and employ violent means to maintain this distorted and plunderous disparity. The extremities to which Bush and now Obama are going - with Obama modifying some of the practices that were alienating a majority of Americans, let alone non-Americans worldwide, but refusing to prosecute the Bush regime for its manifest crimes, and going even further in certain respects - speak volumes about where things actually stand today. If anyone had told you several years ago that your government would be openly torturing people and openly spying on everyone and insisting that it had a right to "preventively" detain anyone it deemed a possible threat, would you have believed them? Wouldn't you think that the person telling you this was either a) crazy or b) spinning out a sci-fi dystopic tale?

Dennis…I’m not sure you did answer my question, but I’d like to clarify in order to be sure. But first, you said something that was so incorrect, I want to call you on it.

YOU WROTE: Frank, I know you will follow Obama anywhere…

RESPONSE: That is absolutely, positively false.


Now, back to the possible answer.

YOU WROTE: Are there principles that should never be violated? Yes. The prohibition against torture is one of them. There is never, ever, a justification for it for reasons which I have previously written a great deal about. Habeas corpus is another one of them.

RESPONSE: That was written in response to this question from me:

“IF YOU KNEW WITH CERTAINTY that sticking to a principle like habeas corpus would result in the total destruction of the United States…a result that would have every human currently living on the North American continent dead and the very ground of the continent made unfit for human habitation for the next 30,000 years…would you advocate sticking with the principle and accepting the consequence?”

So Dennis, may I assume you are saying that even if it meant that every human being living on the North American continent would die…and the entire land mass of North America would be contaminated and unfit for human habitation for the next 30,000 years…you would stick with the principle and accept those consequences????

Frank - I didanswer your question regarding your hypothetical scenario. To make it clearer hopefully: under what realistic scenario would you know for a fact that the entire continent was endangered? You need to spell this out because one cannot proceed on the basis of your so-far stated scenario as if we knew for a fact that such an outcome was in the offing. That is the problem with those who argue for torture based on the ticking time bomb scenario. When you look at the actual conditions, you discover that there are fatal flaws in the logic. So please spell out your scenario and specify why you KNOW for a fact that such an outcome is going to happen unless you suspend habeas corpus.

As for my comment about you following Obama anywhere: I said that because a) Obama has done a number of extremely objectionable and outrageous things and b) you've defended him every time.

Perhaps you could spell out what a) it is that he might do that you WOULDN'T follow him on and would condemn him for, and b) explain why you find acceptable the things that Obama has already done that you haven't spoken out against him for. Trusting him isn't an argument. As far as I can tell, that has been your argument about his actions - that you trust him that he knows what he's doing, that this is the best that can be expected at this point, and that he has a plan to undo these things down the road somewhere... If this is not your position, then please explain.

Frank - Just so you know that my comment about you following Obama anywhere wasn't a cheap shot: if you adopt the position that you will accept a political leader's actions and defend those actions on the grounds that that leader must know what he's doing, even if what is evident on the surface of it about what they are doing is egregious, then the logic of such a position is that you will follow that leader anywhere.

It's the logical outcome because you have surrendered any capacity on your part to dissect, assess, and judge the rightness or wrongness of what that leader's done by saying that you're willing to trust them in all things.

Dennis…I attached what I consider to be a rather significant addendum to the extreme scenario I offered…in what I erroneously assumed would allow us to avoid this particular take on the question. Here is what I wrote:

Obviously, Dennis, where I am going with this is to see if a point exists at which you think modifying (or even abandoning) certain deeply held principles makes more sense than simply adhering to the principle regardless of consequences.

Equally obviously, at that point, I would want to explore where, short of the very extreme scenario I presented, you would feel it to be okay and necessary to consider doing so…and from there, to explore whether the people who are heading in that direction at this moment in history…given the possible scenarios that actually exist…can be faulted to the degree you fault them.

Now…while I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that my scenario is extreme…make that EXTREME…your response that no matter the consequences, you would not be willing to modify or abandon a principle like habeas corpus is EVEN MORE EXTREME!!! It is, in fact, terrifying to me.

You are essentially saying that you can conceive of no situation where suspension or modification of habeas corpus would make sense…not even mass death and destruction.

In any case, that is your right.

I would, however, point out that there are significant numbers of people in this country who fear people who think like you in this regard…much more than they fear outside enemies, because they feel the outside enemies have less opportunity to do damage to us.

Obama wants to be sure the people who feel as I just described do not see him as the kind of person who would agree with you. I don’t blame him. I don’t want him to be that fixed…I want him more flexible.

Respectfully as possible, Dennin, in answer to your other question…I would stop “following" Obama in an instant if I ever saw him heading in that direction.

Frank - I don't know if you wrote your latest comment before you saw my response to your previous one. But your latest comment doesn't answer my query to you: How do you know, specifically, in your hypothetical scenario, for a fact that a devastating, catastrophic attack is about to happen? You can't just postulate a situation without specifying how this scenario could realistically unfold and how you would know without any doubt that it was about to happen to elicit an answer regarding violating habeas corpus.

I also don't understand your answer to my question about when you'd stop following Obama. Further, you didn't answer my query about why what he's already done is ok by you.

Dennis:

YOU WROTE:
Frank - I don't know if you wrote your latest comment before you saw my response to your previous one. But your latest comment doesn't answer my query to you: How do you know, specifically, in your hypothetical scenario, for a fact that a devastating, catastrophic attack is about to happen? You can't just postulate a situation without specifying how this scenario could realistically unfold and how you would know without any doubt that it was about to happen to elicit an answer regarding violating habeas corpus.

You can create a hypothetical of this sort without that information…and in fact, I indicated that the reason for the scenario was merely to have a jumping off point to arrive at a more realistic point where you would finally say, “Yes, this might be a position and circumstance that would justify modifying or altering certain principles.”

But the need for the hypothetical (which often are unrealistically extreme…and which I acknowledged was extreme) is obviated by the fact that you insist that there is NO condition under which you would condone modifying or suspending certain principles. I am willing to accept that you are of that opinion…and will leave it at that.

I also don't understand your answer to my question about when you'd stop following Obama.

Not sure what you do not understand, Dennis. If you were president and suggesting the things you are suggesting right here…that you are so devoted to certain principles that you cannot conceive of anything that would cause you to countenance altering, modifying or suspending those “principles”…even if you were fairly sure huge numbers of people would be killed and incredible damage occur…I would not follow you anywhere! I would, in fact, do everything I could to oppose you. So what I am saying is…if Obama were to adopt your attitude, which I see as unrealistic and potentially damaging, I would not follow him. I would oppose him. The irony here, Dennis, is that the one way I most certainly would stop “following” him…is if you were successful in persuading him to change to what you see as proper governance.

We certainly can discuss this for a bit…but it seems crystal clear to me.

Further, you didn't answer my query about why what he's already done is ok by you.

I’ve answered this question several times in several places, Dennis.

I have been arguing for giving Obama enough time and space to do the things that must be done HIS OWN WAY. I am of the opinion he has a full plate…cannot do all things for all people…and is picking and choosing how he is going to conduct his administration. I still think he needs more time for that.

I might note here that I have begun to alter parts of that opinion.

I have slowly been coming to the opinion that humanity may well be better served by having Obama be an abject failure. I am becoming persuaded that aiding you folks trying to damage him…may, in the long run, be in the interest of the great good. Having Obama fail miserably…and having our country return to government by people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, and company may be the best option for humanity. (NOT FOR THE REASONS diehard conservatives might give for that being the case, but in fact, for reas0ns quite the opposite of those.)

Still mulling that “revolting development” over. We’ll see how it plays out.

Nancy and I are heading out to a barbecue right now. Will get back to you tomorrow. Interesting discussion.

Jesus knew speaking the truth would result in his "destruction". He did it anyway. That's what it means to have principles: that to live without them is not living at all.

"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." - MLK

It's all in how one defines life: is it the body or the spirit? There are those who want us to abandon our principles and live a cowardly existence standing for nothing. That, to me, is destruction in all certainty.

Dennis: Frank will never answer a direct question that requires him to use reason and logic and evidence. He has never done this, as, I think, his original nonsense question would indicate.

I all too recently attempted, once more (fool that I am), to have him answer a direct question. You can see the results here.

Frank is a true believer. He will follow Obama wherever he leads, even though he might make up some bullshit example to pretend that's not true.

Harry - indeed!

Bill: Thank you.

Frank - the reason that it can be so frustrating trying to discuss things with you is because you don't hew to standards of logic, construction of a coherent argument, and appreciate the importance of evidence.

In the absence of that, your opinions aren't solidly grounded and honestly, not worth debating. It's like trying to play tennis with someone who doesn't acknowledge the rules like keeping the ball within the lines and serving into the correct service box.

If you're going to make the "arguments" in support of Obama that you have in response to my post here and don't offer a reasoned and developed argument about why such a scenario as you paint is realistic, then there's no point in discussing this further. You don't even seem to appreciate the fact that it is necessary to make an argument. You seem to think that offering your opinion is sufficient. It's not sufficient. It doesn't merit being taken seriously. A person could come up with any thing they want and say that this is the basis for their political stand, and there'd be no basis on which to refute it. If a position isn't subject to possible refutation, then it's not worth anything.

Instead, you make the ludicrous statement now that the one thing that would turn you against Obama is if he started to reason the way I do. And that I am the person that many people fear.

If you can offer evidence and make a logical and coherent and consistent argument, then I will respond to that. Otherwise, you're free to comment as I've said before, but I won't necessarily respond.

You are always fantastic - but this one is the best yet! I even had to create a login so I could comment. ;-)

Love the Who reference and the Star Trek. That is one of my fave Star Trek's (and I'm a fan from WAY back), and it was so utterly absurd and yet impossible.

Frank will eventually blame those of us who do not follow blindly for the president's criminal actions and the conditions of the country when he's done with it. "If it weren't for those alarmists, he'd never have had to do it!"

Frank may also believe that Obama is not responsible for Sanford's affair. I might agree. I'll wait and stay hopeful on that one.

Linda: I'm so glad you commented and signed up. Thank you for your comment! Makes my day.

Leslie: Always a pleasure.

I was really shocked and could hardly believe it that Frank is reading the situation the way that he is: "if Obama were to adopt your attitude, which I see as unrealistic and potentially damaging, I would not follow him. I would oppose him."

In other words, if Obama were to actually start to do the right thing, that's when Frank would fight against him!

One of the ironies here, of course, is that Frank objects to taking a stand on a principle as a sign of inflexibility. Obama is doing this on all kinds of issues. For example, Obama's taking a stand on the principle that you do not challenge the basic logic of the so-called "war on terror" by ending American gulags like Bagram. You don't challenge the principle that American lives are more valuable than anyone else's, so that torturing people to death who are innocent (the US has killed some 100 detainees this way) is a forgivable act and you won't prosecute anyone for it and you will enshrine into law the utterly outrageous notion that you can hold someone indefinitely without charges or trial on the grounds that they might do something.

The issue here isn't whether you stand for principle or not. The issue is which principles you stand for.

Okay, Dennis…several barbecues, a trip to the Jersey Shore, a Sondheim Play In The Park “Company”, two terrific fireworks displays, two rounds of above-average golf, and a full afternoon backyard swim in a friend’s pool with over a dozen young, extremely pretty girls from his daughter’s college class…have passed since I read the remarks you and some of the others posted here…

…and all is right in the world with me.

I am a happy camper.

As for the remarks…well, I may indeed not be intelligent enough for this kind of interaction…or not ethical enough…or too evasive…or intellectually cowardly, nonsensical, blindly naïve, incoherent, and lacking in evidence, logic, and argument. I may, in fact, be every one of those things…or perhaps more logically phrased, may have, and display, all of those deficiencies.

I honestly don’t think so! I think you folks are inappropriately and incorrectly evaluating me…just as surely as I think you are inappropriately and incorrectly evaluating Barak Obama.

But for certain, you and the majority of people posting here seem to feel quite strongly that many of those deficiencies do apply to me…and since I respect your opinion and the opinions of many of the others, I gotta at least acknowledge the possibility.

Consider it all acknowledged!

Thanks again for allowing me back in your threads and blogs. I will continue to contribute (or “post,” if “contribute” is not how you would characterize my entries)…and you can continue to comment on those entries you feel merit a response…and to ignore the ones you see as unworthy.

Now…Nancy and I are off to one last barbecue and a final (the best) fireworks display in Cranbury New Jersey…THE BEST! Looking forward to this one a lot!