Jon, I think you are falling into the trap of an ad hominem argument without even realizing it.
I said that the argument on one side was flawed because it ignored the "public danger" aspect of the U.S. Constitution. One who is a thinking person would recognize that I am correct and therefore would at least re-do the argument to address the real constitutional question, namely whether the current events do or do not amount to a "public danger" as either contemplated by the framers or as understood by modern society in a living, breathing document sense.
Your response was somewhat along those lines, in the sense that you provided absurd statistical analyses to suggest that errorism is not a "public danger" as intended. I responded that I thought this analysis to be wildly flawed and illogical, from my way of looking at this.
You then noted that people are "cowards" and "sheep" and that my mind seeks "comfort" while yours seeks "truth."
I responded that your actual comfort makes you think things are better than they are, because you are not recognizing the effect of the man on the wall, kind of like how a person who takes a vaccine never sees it work because they don't get sick and might conclude that they would have never gotten sick anyway. I also noted that my willingness to ask dark questions and consider dark solutions was based on what I [erceive to be a real view of the world and not this cushioned rosey view.
So, after this, what is your response? You attack George Bush. You also attack a lot of things that George Bush did, with which you disagree.
First of all, how can my position that "public danger" needs to be defined be in any way translated as "I agree with everything George Bush did?" Just because George Bush, who by the way to my knowledge never had the brains to mention "public danger" as his justification -- apparently relying on the same "act of war" nonsense that has everyone responding to it only, happened to conclude with his particular world view that some act was justified does not mean that the act was or was not justified by any other world view OR that the debate must be argued using his terms.
That last part is worth repeating. Why are you giving George Bush some sort of intellectual authority on this issue? Why do you insist on arguing the matter from some absurd Counter-Bush perspective rather than from an intelligent perspective?
I mean, there seems to be at least four possible theories:
- This was an act of war, and they neither wore uniforms nor carried flags, so we can do whatever we want to do (George Bush's Theory)
- This was not an act of war, and George Bush is playing semantics games, and George Bush is a stooge with nuclear capabilities, so whatever George Bush thinks is right must be wrong(your view)
- This seems to be a "public danger," such that perhaps certain procedural rights are in fact suspended(intelligent possible view in favor of certain acts accidentally done right by Bush), or
- This does not seem to qualify for the "public danger" exception, for such-and-such reason(intelligent view, almost adopted by you until you reverted to the anti-Bush argument)
Here's my view of your argument so far, then. You dabble with the idea of actually debating "public danger" until you see reasoned arguments that might actually justify what Bush did, at least at times. Knowing that Bush did these things for the wrong reasons, and not willing to let your view of his motives and lack of intelligence off the hook, you cannot stand the idea of an intellectual argument that seems pro-Bush, even if the argument accidentally favors the actual act but not the stated justification. So, lacking persuasive firepower on the intellectual debate, you attack that which you emotionally feel -- Bush is Evil. Using that as your first principle, you conclude that any reasoned argument that leads anyone to the same end result as George Bush, even on one issue, must also be evil, or at least wrong because it just cannot be.
The problem is that the real debate that should have occurred and that should now occur leaves an honest man with no confident answers. Global terrorism is different. It is not something anyone could have predicted in the 1700's. Suicide bombings would never even enter their minds. The closest parallel to a gigantic non-national network would have been the trade companies, but these were rich people seeking profits, not crazy people trying to blow stuff and people up. Hence, unfortunately we have to draw upon imperfect parallels and unclear, competing principles to reach answers. Unfortunately, no answer is obvious. Reasonable people (if any actually debate this honestly) can disagree.
That sucks, because it takes away that which you really want. You want George Bush and his cronies to rot in Hell.
By the way, if you carefully read through what I have posted, I have not stated anything that could pin me down on an end position. The fact that I assess the world from a self-proclaimed "real politik" perspective does not mean that I endorse whatever Kissinger would have done, either. I merely mention the debate as one that should occur in a real world with honest review of the actual words of the Constitution and not in an emoptional, irrational, political world.
As a criminal defense attorney, I side on procedural protections. Hence, I actually would vote against relieving due process under these circumstances, if I was given a vote. But, I cannot proclaim any argument like what has been made so far, and I believe that I might be off base in my weighting of interests. I myself consider this an extremely close call, as far as the due process issue is concerned.
So, please quit attacking me on the basis of "my mistakes" by citing what George Bush did. And, your answer is simple -- yours is the mushy mind.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
Help
