I really like Carper's ideas on Iraq - I think he is someone who spends a lot of time thinking about all aspects of an issue before deciding where he stands, and he makes genuine efforts to find common ground with Republicans in order to move the country foward.
Also, props to you for making your hero not only a Democrat, but one who has called for a scaling down of troops in Iraq next year. Of course, he did so with good reasoning, and isn't calling for immediate withdrawal in any way - as he explained when at UD, he just thinks it would be a "sign of good faith" to the Iraqis that we are not there as occupiers. I think his logic is sound, and I also applaud his comments regarding Dean - he really alientated a lot of mainstream Democrats with that statement he made.
I am old enough to remember a time when conservatism was defined by, among other beliefs, a belief in civil rights. They believed that civil rights were something that human beings NATURALLY possessed (like our forefathers) and not something merely given to us on the basis of citizenship. I can remember a time when conservatives would have agreed with these statements:
"The proposed back-room changes to the McCain and Graham amendments could limit liability for government officials violating government-wide prohibitions against torture and abuse, even when they have tortured U.S. citizens in federal custody within the fifty states; allow evidence obtained by torture and abuse to be the basis for indefinitely holding a person; cut off all access to the courts by persons held at Guantanamo Bay, except for very limited appeals; and undermine the legislation’s provisions for applying the Constitution to government actions at Guantanamo Bay."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/
gen...rs20051214.html
In those days, conservatives would have been appalled at the notion that some people should be less amenable to the rule of law than others ("limit[ed] liability for government officials"), and outraged at the suggestion that violating rights in order to obtain convictions was OK permissible ("allow evidence obtained by torture"), and disgusted at a law that denied that habeas corpus was a natural right of every human being ("cut off all access to the courts").
In those days, they would have protested at people calling others “terrorists” who had not been proven to be so by either a jury or military tribunal—not a single one in Gitmo so far. In fact, I read that to date only 9 of them have been charged w/ any crimes. Yet here you are already declaring them guilty, forgetting that literally ˝ of the detainees at Gitmo have been released because they were NOT terrorists.
I realize that things change over time. But I am often confused about what the word “conservative” means these days. If I were take my sense of what the word means from your post, I would have to conclude that conservative means “Giving it to anyone in the neck who isn’t one of us.”
You can't be serious about this post, can you?
First of all, I made no personal statement in regards to Gitmo in that post, I was quoting another blog.
The point of the post was to point out that the ACLU sees no victory in the McCain amendment being accepted by the White House. I would have assumed that they would have been pleased that some progress was made.
I have been told of the good days, when the ACLU was actually conservative, and not absolutist to the point of absurdity.
Personally, I am not sure about how I feel about Gitmo. I am glad that we are releasing people, but I do not feel that non-citizens enjoy the governmental protection (the protection from government) that citizens enjoy. Should they be charged and tried if possible? Yes.
And the word "conservative," as well as the word "libera," is in constant flux. In some places/times I would be characterized as liberal.
Hmm. I remember when "progressive" would mean a group like the ACLU would understand the rights are always tempered with responsibilities. I remember (actually I don't) when a group who claimed to the "Guardian of the Bill of Rights" would not selectively choose which of those rights to actually fight for. (When's the last time you heard of the ACLU defending the 2nd Amendment, hmm?)
I'd like to see sources that no one in Gitmo has been proven a terrorist that has been in Gitmo and/or that nine person figure. Still, your point about "limited liability" is well-taken.
That being said, wasn't there a reason the treatment of POWs was distinguished from terrorists (or unlawful combatants) in the Geneva Coventions, Dana? What was that reason? And since when have those captured on the battlefield -- POWs or otherwise -- have had the right to habeas corpus? "Progressives" like Lincoln and FDR sure didn't seem to agree w/that notion whatsoever!
Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying "It's All George Bush's Fault!"
http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com
Regards,
Notta Libb
Commenting by HaloScan
