Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery

[MrFun]

[David Floyd]

I'd wager all of my bonus points that you don't even know.

Winston Churchill, IIRC.

[David Floyd]

And, no, the fascists were anything but Libertarian in terms of social/economic policy.

[Berzerker]

Libertarian foreign policy = weak defense, open pickings for dictators. Think: Neville Chamberlain/appeasement.

Chamberlain opened England up for Hitler? I dont think so... Now look at a map and the 2nd Amendment and tell me what dictator from outside the country would invade a heavily armed population of 300 million backed by nukes. Our dictator will come from within and the right wing hawks will either support him or lay the groundwork ala Patriot Act etc.

[David Floyd]

Chamberlain opened England up for Hitler? I dont think so...

You're right. Stanley Baldwin did a pretty good job, as well, of ensuring England was weak and non-interventionist. Pre WWII is pretty much the quintessential example of how a non-Libertarian foreign policy (ie, preventive war) could have prevented a much larger war.

Now look at a map and the 2nd Amendment and tell me what dictator from outside the country would invade a heavily armed population of 300 million backed by nukes. Our dictator will come from within and the right wing hawks will either support him or lay the groundwork ala Patriot Act etc.

It's not a dictator wanting to invade the US that worries me. The US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812, and has never been successfully invaded. The 2nd Amendment is meaningless when it comes to Americans successfully resisting invasion - after all, shotguns and handguns and such don't do much to stop tanks, and untrained militia (ie, the general public) hasn't any chance at all against an organized army. But I won't even go down this road with you, because it's so utterly fantastic that it's not even worth discussing.

The point I would rather make, is that the people who worry me are the tinpot dictators who don't give a damn, the tinpot dictators who miscalculate and think they can win, and the religious nutters who just don't care either way about living or dying, as long as they strike a blow for Allah. A Libertarian foreign policy, or, as it's better known, appeasement and isolationism, doesn't work against these opponents.

And before you say that we are only a target of religious extremists because of things we do like stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, etc., that line of argument has virtually zero credibility and is not taken seriously by national security experts, national intelligence agencies, or those who study radical Islam. And if you can point out a source who does, it's sorta akin to pointing out a scientist who believes in Young Earth Creationism. Yeah, they exist, but they don't really help your argument. Not trying to argue a Strawman here - although I suppose that's exactly what I just did, and if that isn't your argument I apologize.

[David Floyd]

As to your point about an internal dictator, I suppose that's a possibility, but that also pre-supposes that things like the Patriot Act were some nefarious plot to put a dictator for life into power. That just isn't the case, and I would further argue that the Patriot Act has likely prevented terror attacks in the US since 9/11, given the fact that there, well, haven't been any, at least not in the US. I'm not arguing that security > liberty, but I do wonder what the Patriot Act has done to in any way constrain your personal liberty? Because it's done absolutely jack **** to mine, or to anyone else's that I personally know.

Now, can you argue that this laid the groundwork for a dictator? Well, sure, if the argument goes something like this:
Step 1)Patriot Act
Steps 2-99)???
Step 100)Dictator

There have been much more onerous laws throughout US history than the Patriot Act - read up on some of the laws Wilson got passed during WW1, for an example. You'll notice that 90 years later, and, the damnedest thing, still no dictator.

[notyoueither]

I think the point of the opinion quoted in the OP is that the US is getting dangerously close to a legal environment that could be make totalitarianism possible.

I think he imagines things like the Patriot Act combined with the SCOTUS approval of denying any recourse to identified enemies of the state as being very dangerous if the wrong people got their hands on the levers of these new found powers.

[David Floyd]

Sure it's dangerous, but if we survived the much MORE intrusive and blatantly illegal laws passed during WW1 to suppress dissent, then the Patriot Act, which isn't even close to the same thing, is no problem.

Again, though, the Patriot Act hasn't done diddly **** to me, and I doubt it has to berz or anyone else either. There's nothing, after all, the PA prevents me from doing that wouldn't have been otherwise illegal before the PA, and if that's the case, I'm not gonna worry a whole lot about being the focus of warrantless wiretapping. If I'm not associated with militant Muslim groups or anti-government groups in general, I don't think I'll be hassled.

If we're talking about general data mining of email and cell phones, well, didn't we already have that prior to the PA - ie, Echelon and such?

[David Floyd]

I'd also point out that if two people as diametrically opposed, politically, as Bush and Obama are can agree on something, then they might just have access to some vital bits of intelligence that the rest of us don't

[notyoueither]

I think his main concern is the principle approved by SCOTUS that people can be treated as if no law, treaty or other obligation of the government towards a human being applies.

Currently such a non-person needs to fall into fairly specific categories. How widely could those categories be expanded?

I find it interesting that you specify that you are not associated with anti-government groups. What defines an anti-government group? Do members of such groups need worry? What happens when the opposition and vocal critics among the fifth estate become defined as 'anti-government?'

I think that's the direction the OP writer is going.

[notyoueither]

I'd also point out that if two people as diametrically opposed, politically, as Bush and Obama are can agree on something, then they might just have access to some vital bits of intelligence that the rest of us don't

It's the possible effect of the legal framework being created that is the issue.

Something about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.

[David Floyd]

Well, first off, I certainly agree that we shouldn't define terrorists as people in the normal sense, nor should we extend them any rights whatsoever, unless they are US citizens caught in the United States.

Now, your point is, where do we draw the line? I don't know. I do agree one needs to be drawn, but I also think that both the Supremes and Obama, as well as Bush, were acting with the best of intentions, and to imply otherwise is completely inaccurate. As for the potential consequences of those intentions, you are simply making a slippery slope argument, and my basic counterexample is to point out WW1, in which case the laws were far more broad-reaching in scope and application, with more potential to create a dictatorship, and yet that isn't what happened.

I can't argue against what hasn't happened yet, except to shrug, point out that it may be possible, but the history in this country tends to mitigate against it. The flip side is to point out that the PA has been highly effective in stopping terror, by the simple fact that SOMETHING stopped terrorist attacks in the US after 9/11. If you have some other suggestions for the reason, then by all means go ahead, but in the meantime, it's perfectly logical to look at the facts and to say that the measures against terrorism in general, and the Patriot Act specifically, have thus far been highly successful as to their stated goals.

Finally, as for innocents getting caught up in the net, I agree this is a problem. OTOH, you can't design a perfect system, and many of these people were innocent in act but not in association. In other words, if you don't want to be swept up AS a terrorist, don't associate WITH terrorists, or even people you think might be terrorists. This means that if you're an Iraqi, attending the mosque where the imam is supportive of terrorist acts against US soldiers and is vehemently anti-US and militant is probably not a great idea.

[HalfLotus]

And before you say that we are only a target of religious extremists because of things we do like stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, etc., that line of argument has virtually zero credibility and is not taken seriously by national security experts, national intelligence agencies, or those who study radical Islam.

The concept of blowback is well known to the CIA - they coined the term following their shenanigans in Iran with the Shah which led to the US hostage situation at the Embassy. This line of thinking originated at the CIA, from a leader of the mission: CIA Clandestine Service History, "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran.

Of course you won't hear many intelligence experts say this on Fox News, which is apparently where you get your information, and your irrational fear of terr'ists.

It is much more politically expedient to exploit Americans' ignorance of history and of US intelligence activities, and the peddle this nonsensical propaganda that "they hate us for our freedoms", which is patently ridiculous.

If one can suspend one's nationalist arrogance for a moment and apply a little common sense, it's easy to understand that ****ing around in someone's backyard is going to piss them off - and one day they might come and piss in your backyard.

[Darius871]

Winston Churchill, IIRC.

Nyet, considering that Churchill was only a toddler when Justice Harlan originated the quote in the Louisville Commercial on Nov. 1, 1877. Sorry, couldn't resist.

(See Louis Filler, John M. Harlan, in 2 The Justices of the United States Supreme Court 1789 -1969: Their Lives and Major Opinions 1283 (Leon Friedman & Fred L. Israel eds., 1969); Louis Hartz, John M. Harlan in Kentucky, 1855-1877: The Story of His Pre-Court Political Career, 14 Filson Club Hist. Q. 17 (1940))

[Berzerker]

You're right. Stanley Baldwin did a pretty good job, as well, of ensuring England was weak and non-interventionist. Pre WWII is pretty much the quintessential example of how a non-Libertarian foreign policy (ie, preventive war) could have prevented a much larger war.

England declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland, we were the non interventionists. Now you think WWII could have been avoided if only the USA attacked Germany before Sept '39? We could have sat the war out if we weren't attacked.

It's not a dictator wanting to invade the US that worries me. The US hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812, and has never been successfully invaded. The 2nd Amendment is meaningless when it comes to Americans successfully resisting invasion - after all, shotguns and handguns and such don't do much to stop tanks, and untrained militia (ie, the general public) hasn't any chance at all against an organized army. But I won't even go down this road with you, because it's so utterly fantastic that it's not even worth discussing.

So some army of 2-3 million is gonna sail over here and successfully invade 300 million heavily armed people backed by nukes?

The point I would rather make, is that the people who worry me are the tinpot dictators who don't give a damn, the tinpot dictators who miscalculate and think they can win, and the religious nutters who just don't care either way about living or dying, as long as they strike a blow for Allah. A Libertarian foreign policy, or, as it's better known, appeasement and isolationism, doesn't work against these opponents.

The only "appeasement" advocated by libertarians is pulling our armies out of their countries. The right wing hawks disagree, so dont try to lay terrorism at the feet of isolationists.

And before you say that we are only a target of religious extremists because of things we do like stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, etc., that line of argument has virtually zero credibility and is not taken seriously by national security experts, national intelligence agencies, or those who study radical Islam. And if you can point out a source who does, it's sorta akin to pointing out a scientist who believes in Young Earth Creationism. Yeah, they exist, but they don't really help your argument. Not trying to argue a Strawman here - although I suppose that's exactly what I just did, and if that isn't your argument I apologize.

AQ started attacking us after Bush/Clinton refused to withdraw the troops from Saudi Arabia. Thats a fact. AQ said they were attacking us because our troops were there. And AQs spin offs have attacked countries with troops in the ME and stopped those attacks once they left. And please dont tell me AQ attacked us because we are free

As to your point about an internal dictator, I suppose that's a possibility, but that also pre-supposes that things like the Patriot Act were some nefarious plot to put a dictator for life into power.

Dont have to be a plot, just precedent.

That just isn't the case, and I would further argue that the Patriot Act has likely prevented terror attacks in the US since 9/11, given the fact that there, well, haven't been any, at least not in the US. I'm not arguing that security > liberty, but I do wonder what the Patriot Act has done to in any way constrain your personal liberty? Because it's done absolutely jack **** to mine, or to anyone else's that I personally know.

I'm sure you and your family aint slaves, does that mean slavery is okay with you? No, I'm not saying the Patriot Act = slavery. We dont know whats been done under the Patriot Act but you're missing the point, the Patriot Act and similar measures increase the authority of 1 person, and with the powers we're giving that 1 person they could cart yer ass off to jail and never answer to anyone about it. You need that to happen to you or your friends before you get concerned?

Now, can you argue that this laid the groundwork for a dictator? Well, sure, if the argument goes something like this:
Step 1)Patriot Act
Steps 2-99)???
Step 100)Dictator

There have been much more onerous laws throughout US history than the Patriot Act - read up on some of the laws Wilson got passed during WW1, for an example. You'll notice that 90 years later, and, the damnedest thing, still no dictator.

If the Prez can make you disappear legally, thats a dictatorship. I know laws in the past were bad, how does that make your point for you? If Adams had people imprisoned for criticizing him, was that dictatorial? Hell yeah... The authoritarian aholes lose power, they piss people off and get kicked out. We have the Founders to thank for giving us a framework thats hard for dictators to negate, that doesn't mean right wing hawks aren't autocratic. But you'll be the first to admit how weak the Constitution has become, the past doesn't mean a future without dictators.

Sure it's dangerous, but if we survived the much MORE intrusive and blatantly illegal laws passed during WW1 to suppress dissent, then the Patriot Act, which isn't even close to the same thing, is no problem.

I said Patriot Act etc, the grab for power doesn't end there. Jose Padilla is a US citizen and now he's insane from years of solitary confinement. Maybe he's guilty, maybe not - who knows without a trial. Are we gonna trust 1 man with the power to decide? A "benevolent" dictatorship is still a dictatorship...