...that has been hit by terrorism that has NOT responded by enacting emergency legislation and anti-terrorist laws.

Now that's a sensible democracy.

You ARE a charter member, are you not?

Your tirade is duly noted and taken with a grain of salt.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

Germany is NOT Americas ally, they still hold a grudge on us for beating them in WW2!

__________________
www.yanluz.com

Vote John Edwards 2008
Join the campaign to change America
http://johnedwards.com

I can't disagree with you, Therese. It was a bit of a tirade. Deliberate, but I can appreciate how it would be perceived.

You see, I guess I get a little distressed when I see people talking about "suspects" and "keeping them behind bars" in the same breath. It's the type of thing that has distressed me all my life. Excuse me, I'll be more specific - the undemocratic nature of people is something that has distressed me all my life.

People are by nature tribal and suspicious. Others are seen as threats. That is our animal nature. It is quite natural and I say that without judgement and without being derogatory. But I use the word "natural" rather loosely, because of course, everything that happens or exists in creation is natural. The Mahatma Ghandis of the world should not be seen as exceptions to nature, for they too are natural.

The problem with right wing thinking is that it views "natural" strictly in terms of a kind of animal kingdom natural. Not that we are not of the animal kingdom, but perhaps we are a bit more. And it is not that I see right wingers as essentially different than anyone else. I say their "thinking" is the problem, not their natures. And by thinking, I mean "reasoning" (though it is very limited reasoning). If anything, they (right wingers) are more true to their natures and more honest about the world they live in than are liberals, all the spin notwithstanding. This statement is no different than similar statements made in the past by leading conservatives. This honesty with things as they are firmly plant their feet on the ground far more than their liberal counterparts. For liberals have ideas and notions that attempt to reach beyond this limited view of "natural". Indeed, ideas that reach beyond their own "natures". For they wish to make a better world. While conservatives wish to make things better for us IN this world - but the world is very much as it has always been. And the reasoning is always tribal - us against them, all others are threats, competition is the only order of the day.

It seems, for instance, just as an example, that conservatives can only see creativity and inventiveness springing from this basic view - that is, that it can only be motivated by self aggrandizement. In an economic world, that means money. But I would argue that creativity and inventiveness are themselves part of nature - that it is natural to be creative for no reason than the creativity itself. Thus we see, for instance, the encroachment of Linux upon the hitherto wrapped up domain of Microsoft.

But I digress, as usual. Allow me to return to the specific point that stimulated this post.

When I hear about keeping "suspects" behind bars, a sentiment that I seem to run across in ever increasing amounts these days, in one form or another, it does indeed trigger strong emotions in me. There's an old saying that a republican is just a democrat who hasn't been in jail yet. There are even older sayings, but I'm sure that any reference to things that took place during the "Nazi era" will trigger all kinds of emotional and unreasoned responses around here.

When I hear such sentiments, I wonder if the people who utter such things have ever heard of habeas corpus. I wonder if such people have any real concept of the importance of development's in civilization's thinking such as habeas corpus.

The founding fathers had some unique and extremely rare spirit pass through them. They founded a system that virtually had no right to survive in our world, but survive it did. They founded a system that went against human "nature". Indeed, that went against their own natures. Thomas Jefferson understood the importance of a free press (and make no mistake - a corporate owned press is not a free press - you want free press nowadays, read the bloggers of the Internet, be they left or right). And he was vilified by the press. He was torn to shreds by the press in ways that no modern politician - be they left or right - has had to weather. In Iraq, we shut down a newspaper. For lying. For inciting trouble. Not for Thomas Jefferson such things. He said if he had to choose between a government and a free press, he would choose the press.

And the same can be applied to the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't a child. He would have known that this goes against the grain of human "nature" - that lesser nature which isn't really human nature at all, something we forget and bury because it is inconvenient. He would have known as much as anyone today that people really feel that others are guilty until proven innocent. But still, he and others around him felt that a system must be built upon such principles if it is to escape the dangers of the type of system that they fought a revolution to free themselves of.

The American system is built upon faith. When that faith disappears, America is no longer America, but just another country with a name. The faith is that the system is right for people regardless of how things may appear at any given time. In a way, it is a miracle that it has survived for so long, albeit that the period of time has been relatively short.

Terrorists can thrive because of democracy, just as the mafia could survive because of democracy. Democracy permits all kinds of evil to flourish. Does this mean that we must abandon democracy in order to combat such evil. A quick glance at history will reveal that we would engender a far greater evil than any we now face were we to do so; were we to abandon the principles that made America America.

How many people here, I wonder, assume that OJ Simpson was guilty. Yet, he was not guilty. He was innocent. By definition he was innocent. One can quibble with such nonsense if one likes, but to do so is to quibble with the reality of America. For America's reality is what America says it is. What the founding fathers said it is. For anyone to have the arrogance to assume that they can determine the real reality is folly indeed and a sure road to destruction. Scientists, after all these thousands of years, are realizing more and more each day that they haven't a clue about reality. So let us not decide what reality is, but let us accept the definitions of reality as laid down for us by our founding fathers.

That reality may be paper thin, but it is all we have. And in that reality, OJ Simpson is simply innocent. To declare otherwise is unamerican in the truest sense. To wish for "suspects" to be kept behind bars is unamerican. One hears a lot about anti-Americans, traitors, and America haters nowadays. But the real traitors are those who have sacrificed the ideals of the founding fathers for the sake of symbols and cash. And such people have no concept of what it's really like to live without freedom and would squander their inheritance without thought to consequence.

A conservative by definition should be one who wishes to preserve the old. That is, all that was good in the "old". And it's vitally important to understand that that good was not in the form of things, but in the essence of things. As the I Ching says, it is not the beard that is the essence, it is the chin. The beard is not unimportant, I grant you, but the solidity upon which is lies is the chin. We cannot love the one without the other. In a very real sense, the true conservative should be the most radical among us. "Radical" in the true sense of that word as well - one who goes to the ROOT of things.

So please, I beg, do not forsake habeas corpus. Do not forsake the "reality" that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. Do not forsake the rights of man. Do not keep the "suspect" behind bars.

Germany was right to free the man they had arrested. For until he could be proven guilty, he was innocent. To claim anything else is to be unamerican. To claim anything else is to wish for destruction.

The importance of Miranda and Escabido (sp?) is not that these small time crooks and rapists went free to wreak more havoc on our streets (which they did). The importance of those cases is that YOU and I are free.

Now, Therese, this was the real tirade, the real rant. So feel free to make glib comments and smart remarks all you like. I would hope for something of more substance, but it is not something I have expectations of.

You're last post I can respect and still disagree with. The one where you referred to me as a Bimbo was just not very productive. I must admit word wise you are much smarter than I. Half of your last post I didn't know what a lot of the words meant and I really don't have time to go and look them up, although I will be doing that over time. I did however read the whole thing and you think you are right about everything and the rest of us who don't agree with you are just wrong. Well I disagree and I also think that a person that is suspected of a crime is so for a reason.
While a criminal court found OJ not guilty of the crimes, a lawsuit filed by the families of the victims in that case found him liable. I think that is just fine and dandy because I wouldn't have voted to convict him either just on the basis of the actions of the police. However, that doesn't mean I don't think he was guilty but it doesn't matter. He deserved due process.
As far as terrorists go? I am sorry but they deserve to be locked up and the key thrown away. I am glad they are holding them. I hope they keep them, suspected or proven, and never let them out. I didn't lose anyone personally on 9/11 but I sure don't want it to happen again. If that is what needs to be done than I say so be it.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

Regarding "suspects" and "keeping them behind bars" in the same breath. If a police officer walks in and sees a man stabbing another with blood all over his hands he is by definition a suspect until convicted in court. So your assertion that all "suspects" should be let free until found guilty is not only dangerous, but not fixed in the real world where recidivism happens not only when someone finishes serving a sentence. It does not mean that everyone should be held in jail, but when a preponderance of evidence shows the person is guilty or is a high flight risk then jail is not only appropriate, but necessary.

Firstly, my apologies for calling you any names. It was just a scattershot remark, but probably a bad habit from another forum which is a lot more... uh... bloody than this one.

Well, naturally! If you think something, you naturally think someone who things differently is wrong. I know what you're getting at when you say that, but that's a huge discussion all on its own. But I'm not much into lip service in these forums. Real life is different because social protocol demands it.

Well, forgive me, but I think that's naive for a number of reasons. First of all, the first time you are suspected of a "crime" (or other type of misdeed) that you did not commit, you may have different sentiments about it. I think perhaps you cannot imagine that that would happen. Perhaps you have faith in your society. But I wager, after a remark like that, that you... for instance, in the American context, that you are not black. I doubt if you have ever been subject to prejudice. Furthermore, a brief examination of history reveals how fallacious such reasoning is. Did you, for instance, ever hear of a "lettre de cachet"? There were very good reasons why the founding fathers made such a deal about justice and why all subsequent supreme courts have ruled on such subjects the way they have. There are all kinds of reasons why authorities "suspect" people.

On the OJ case, my personal opinion was that the civil case was a form of double jeopardy. Not technically, obviously, in terms of the law, but imo a miscarriage of justice in terms of the spirit of the law. Furthermore, citing a civil case like that is inappropriate, because the burden of proof is entirely different in a civil case. OJ got screwed, in short. Now whether he was acquited in the criminal case because the police screwed up, or because the prosecutors were not up to the task, or whatever, is irrelevant. By definition, he is innocent. We are not Gods and we cannot know ultimate truth. The law is all we have and the law defines such things. There are many downsides to such thinking, but considering the development of the human race, it's far preferable to anything else that has passed in history.

You say OJ deserved due process, but terrorists do not. Well, once the line is decided subjectively and emotively, the entire system crashes. One must always consider consequence and envision where things will go. If we throw out our most vital institutions to combat terrorists, then the terrorists have won. The founding fathers understood that there are more important things than security or even than staying alive.

You talk about 9/11 and how you don't want to lose anyone like that again. Fine, who does? But what about all the other things that cost lives in our world? Would you throw beef producers in jails and throw away the key? Would you throw the managers and owners of pharmaceuticals in jails and throw away the key? There are many ways to kill a person other than flying airplanes at them and some deaths can take a long, long time - does that make it any the less "murder"?

The problem with so many is that they believe there are people who are evil and that there are people who are good. Hence all - ALL - the misery and suffering throughout history. And all I see is that it will never stop.

First of all, hard cases make bad laws. That's an old legal maxim and a very important one. The purpose of our habeas corpus laws is not to protect criminals and terrorists - it's to protect YOU and ME. Perhaps you personally think mankind has truly advanced and cannot imagine the kinds of things happening in the USA that have happened everywhere on the planet through history (and even in the USA - if you were an Indian or black, you could certainly imagine such things in the USA), but I do not. People have been trying to peel away the protections of the Bill of Rights for decades, centuries, with arguments like your's and I'm not having any of it. Perhaps you are naive and do not see how things would develop over years and decades.

Just remember that - hard cases make bad laws.

Before I proceed to my second point, I want to add something else. You are blending into your argument a case for jails. I didn't make any arguments against the existence of jails or the need to protect society against the deeds of criminals. Don't imply that I did and don't pretend that your irrelevant side point bolsters the argument that "suspects" don't deserve the entirety of due process.

My second point is that what you are arguing goes against everything the founding fathers stood for. I think that makes YOU treasonous, unAmerican, and an America-hater. Frankly, I think all right wingers are America-haters and traitors, but there you are.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin

I think Ole' Ben sums it up pretty much with that pearl. Sorry it off the original topic but it follows the previous threads quite nicely.

__________________
It's hard to be successful if you don't make something somebody doesn't want to buy.
George W. Bush