Nothing much to add. Like your 9/11 post, this one gets the tone just right. I'm reminded of the great abolitionist and feminist Abby Kelly, who -- at the start of the Mexican War -- said something to the effect that in 1775, the nation's founders struggled with "God and right" on their side; her generation, by contrast, had neither. "This nation," she summed up, "is doomed."
I came across that quotation once about four years ago but cannot for the life of me recall where. It will be one of the great regrets in my life if I can't track it down again someday....
it shows you how little power the pen really has. there are dozens of great books detailing exactly when and where the bush admin went wrong, but it just keeps going. I guess thats american fascism: free speech and trotsky-ite perpetual war = weird tyranny
Your words leave nothing to say except Amen. I would add words from the Quran:
"... be you securers of justice... let not detestation for a people move you not to be equitable; be just - that is nearer to piety." (5:
It is tyrannical for a State to protect its citizens right from threats by aliens? Wouldn't the reverse be far stranger?
This post reminds me of the "Committee to Restore the Constitution" spams I would receive during the last Clinton presidency. Something about two-turners generates these complaints, it seems...
"It is tyrannical for a State to protect its citizens right from threats by aliens?"
Is this a serious question? The answer, of course, is that It depends on what the state does to protect its citizens from threats by aliens.
"Is this a serious question? "
Yes, very much. A tyrant exerted his rule over some state. In this case, however, you are upset at the State exerting its power over citizens of other States.
States do such things all the time -- indeed, without such activity, diplomacy would have no place!
the state is exerting it's power over it's own citizens to allow for it's continued exertian of power over other states citizens. no one in the equation wants to be exerted over with said states power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B...uWnJamiUc&
eurl=
MAKE MINE FREEDOM
Yes, very much. A tyrant exerted his rule over some state. In this case, however, you are upset at the State exerting its power over citizens of other States.
No Dan, he is upset at the fact that in exerting power over the citizens of another state, our state is not living up to the ideals upon which it was founded. Mainly, by endorsing torture it is adopting a rule that undermines our own moral base and hence is damaging to our security in the long run.
He makes this clear when he counters your question by stating that "It depends on what the state does to protect its citizens from threats by aliens."
torture isn't taboo only because it hurts so much. it can also be used to force false information out of people. Imagine this administration has decided they want to go to war with iran. How can they use warrentless wiretapping and torture to achieve that? seems to me it would go a VERY long way in helping them make their case.
so torture is off limits for other reasons besides moral whatever.
Nykrindc,
But... if Dan's point was that the actions are morally bad, then why bring up the definition of tyranny? A state can be morally bad without being tyrannous.
Lester,
Attacking torture on technical grounds is dangerous, because it opens up a defense of torture when better techniques become available. I made a similar point, elsewhere.
the moment i heard the bill had passed the senate, i flew my little flag upside-down.
boyfriend put it the right way, citing that people wouldn't understand (we're in NC so...)
he's from colombia. i'm afraid that if he gets on the wrong list (and heaven forbid, gets named as an enemy combatant), he could be denied his rights from the Geneva Convention (sec.948b.(f) of s.3930) because he is an alien resident of the us.
oh, ps. he is legal, i've seen his visa!
Commenting by HaloScan.com
