GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=CM]Very well. If you recall my earlier posts i said that the US defacto accepted the Soviet Union's territorial integrity after a short period. Personally the US accepted the Soviet Unions de facto territorial integrity when it accepted the Soviet Union's seat on the UN. Very well lets address that as long as you promise to address the role of the US. Because you have been dodging that since i posted in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Actually, you've been addressing nothing but the US role in your pursuit of the Great Satan since you started commenting, Fas. I'd love to have you address the Soviet Union's part in the last century. I'm sure hearing your comments about the holocaust it caused will be most instructive. So feel free to do so. Anytime. Like now.

Tangent and not all on subject. But very well. It has nothing to do with the Soviet Union as that is not the subject of discussion. The fact is as follows. The US accepted the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union as establishing multilateral and bilateral negotiations. That is the basis of any diplomatic connection.

Ah ah ah, changing context, again. Remember, you started this discussion, not as a means of ascertaining who had diplomatic recognition for committing international atrocities (by redefining them as domestic), but who actually committed them. Let's hear from some of your more angry, inaccurate statements attacking the US for its unethical activities as a military hegemony:

The US is the only democracy on the planet that has attacked more countries in the current century. Communist dictatorships do not compare to the extreme use of the US military.

Demonstrably wrong.

I mean the atrocities commited in Vietnam are just as bad as those in Chechnya.

As above.

The US govt has since the end of the world war II considered itself the new "ruler" of the world and they have violated every single international law they felt like to do so. This is not new to the Bush administration. It is a continuation of the past 60 years.

As above. (Unless, of course, you know every single international law the US has felt like violating, and which of that lot it has actually chosen to violate. Inside information of yours, no doubt. )

Quite a few errors, there. But the emphasis in any case was a wholesale ethical attack of the US for its abuse of its military hegemony (which, by the way, I feel should be shown 12 hours a day on US televisions, until the citizenry began to understand what their nation has done). Against that, we have the following grandiose denunciation of the Sovet's extraordinarily horrific history as a conquering dictatorship of monstrous proportions:

As you can see i have commented 4 times that i agree with you that the Soviet Regime was repressive.

Pardon me for saying this, Fas, but I think your sense of balance has slipped rather mightily on this whole issue. While I'm sure it's appreciated that you find the Soviet Union "repressive," considering that it invaded more than two dozen nations, and killed tens of millions of people in its efforts to extend and maintain a military hegemony, the lack of--depth, perhaps--in your willingness can only be considered striking.

The fact is as follows. The US accepted the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union as establishing multilateral and bilateral negotiations. That is the basis of any diplomatic connection.

Oh, but where did we say this was all about diplomatic connections? I remember you writing about specific US actions you condemned with righteous indication that:

So far in the past 60 years (since 1945) the US has done the most damage to the world than any other country.

And...

Additionally even if other hegemonic powers have done it, it does not make it right.

So, our discussion is ethical in framework, by your own statements. We are not considering merely what nations were forced, by the weight of superpowers, to acnknowledge as being in existence. We're acknowledging the Soviet Union, an international, military hegemony that conquered--but you've heard it already. And saying that the Soviet Union's extension after killing all those people was passed over by the UN--well, that does not make it right, correct? And we're all about right, here. And damage. The UN has not condemned the US invasion of Iraq, but that doesn''t make it right. And the UN didn't condemn the invasion and occupation by the Soviet of all those nations, or all those deaths--

but that doesn't make tens of millions of deaths right. Or the military occupation of such nations as Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania by Soviet forces.

Fable please don't troll, it is not becoming.

I'm positive you're mistaken; please be much more careful in making such accusations, Fas. Reread my remarks. They were meant solicitously, and in your best interests. You really can't expect your remarks to be taken seriously, if you show ignorance of historical facts under discussion. Much less other matters, such as your repeated inaccuracies about US history. This is a simple statement of fact. I don't comment about Pakistani history, and wouldn't, without researching it. I think you should seriously consider doing the same about US history.

Fable again i can not be held responsible for your inaccurate reading my very clear statements. If Sytze says there is one hegemony, its an opinion. If silur says the US is the only hegemony its ok. But if i make that comment now I am being biased? Care to explain that to me fable?

This is interesting. I'll keep your advice about what I'm supposed to say, and whom I'm supposed to address, in mind for the future.

I have spent half of my posts discussing the soviet union and topics you want to discuss. We have to yet discuss indepth any of the US actions.

Not at all! You have spent most of the time saying, repeatedly, by your own acknowledgement, such things as:

We all know that the Soviet Union was a domestically repressive regime. We all know what happened in 1989 in China.

...Only, the Soviet Union *wasn't* just a domestically repressive regime. My, how you twirl around to avoid ever acknowledging the truth! But to do so, would of course mean that the US wasn't the worst, most unethical military hegemony in the world. It was only, why, second or third in the last century! We can't have that! Again, I can only suggest what I did before, and with the best of intent: read history. Your condemnation of US administrations, credible in itself, loses much weight becuase you commit logical tautologies to ignore an hegemonic bogeyman of the last 60 years who was far worse on an international scale.

Thread reopened. Please keep the debate at a healthy level =).

I'd like to propose a return to Silur's original questions:

Now, my knowledge of the US judicial system is rather limited, but I would think that since the Patriot act was considered by many to be unconstitutional before, it must certainly be even more so now. Aren't, for instance, secret subpoenas in direct violation of the Miranda act?

This is not fuel to fire up the US vs rest of world pie-tossing contest either. It is a dangerous precedent, and like many others I expect to see similar ideas coming up in the EU or EU states in the near future. Sofar the US has been a few years ahead in restricting the rights of its populace, but other so called democratic states are getting quicker at following suit. The UK now has its "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders", which can force anyone who is the least bit uncomfortable for his neighbours, the police or perhaps the government to shut up and stay away (like a restraining order, sort of) without trial. For more details, check in with the good ol' BBC.

Silur, this touches on changes made to the US government during the War Between the States, and specifically by Lincoln (1862). He argued that a state of emergency furnished by war required the suspension of commonly accepted laws, the most notable of which was habeus corpus. (It's little known that Jefferson Davis in the Confederate States also argued for this, though at a later point, but he got what he needed too late to make use of it.) In his defense, Lincoln was hardly the first national leader to do this: most European nations have, at some point or other. (Some went pretty far. Churchill even demanded during WWII that his cabinet destroy in his presence all the private notes they'd been keeping of their joint meetings. He failed to tell them that he wouldn't, and published his own accounts, after the war.) But it was the first occasion this was done under American law--or rather, against it.

From this, I would suggest that a very cynical modern regime has established a no-war situation as a "war on terror" that therefore requires emergency measures. Considering that the Reagan administration packed the Supreme Court with legal conservatives (and Clinton only brought in moderates), it's probable (though not certain) that any challenge to such measures will be rejected.

There is also a very long wait for cases going before the Supreme Court, and the Court has to be vetted, first, to accept any case being submitted for its attention. The American Civil Liberties Union currently has some challenges to the Patriot Act pending: here's one. But you will note that it deals with individual clauses of a voluminous act, rather than with the constitutionality of the act, itself. That's because of Lincoln's precedent, which was certainly never meant to cover a later president claiming anything was a war that he wanted it to be.

[QUOTE=fable]
There is also a very long wait for cases going before the Supreme Court, and the Court has to be vetted, first, to accept any case being submitted for its attention. The American Civil Liberties Union currently has some challenges to the Patriot Act pending: here's one. But you will note that it deals with individual clauses of a voluminous act, rather than with the constitutionality of the act, itself. That's because of Lincoln's precedent, which was certainly never meant to cover a later president claiming anything was a war that he wanted it to be.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't the supreme court somewhat defeat it's own purpose if it takes more than 3-4 years for them to comment on a law that has already been passed? I would think that it would be better if laws were checked for their conformance with the constitution before they are passed - at least on a rudimentary level. Considering that the Patriot act was an "emergency measure", it would warrant "emergency focus" from the judicial branch of the government, since historically, most shifts towards totalitarianism and dictatorship have been to avert some urgent threat - real or otherwise.

As for war, "war against terror" is as much a war according to the generally accepted definitions in international law as the "war on drugs" - that is, not a war at all. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is, though, so I guess Shrub still gets away with it.

[QUOTE=Silur]Doesn't the supreme court somewhat defeat it's own purpose if it takes more than 3-4 years for them to comment on a law that has already been passed?[/quote]

The highest court in any land is (often) the court of last resort, so all important cases get appealed up the legal system to it. The US Supreme Court is actually one of the more efficient bodies. My understanding is that some European courts have a backlog of over a decade.

I would think that it would be better if laws were checked for their conformance with the constitution before they are passed - at least on a rudimentary level.

There are competing laws in the US that can adduced to either side of many cases. Where the Patriot Act is concerned, the Constitution was never designed to handle this kind of issue. Even the relatively expansionist Federalists of the Northeastern US in its early period never envisioned situations that would require a government to possess emergency powers. So, like monotheistic dogma, the Constitution will be examined and reinterpreted to the needs of each party.

Considering that the Patriot act was an "emergency measure", it would warrant "emergency focus" from the judicial branch of the government, since historically, most shifts towards totalitarianism and dictatorship have been to avert some urgent threat - real or otherwise.

One would think so, but that's not, unfortunately, the way it works. If it "works" is a good word for it.

As for war, "war against terror" is as much a war according to the generally accepted definitions in international law as the "war on drugs" - that is, not a war at all. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is, though, so I guess Shrub still gets away with it.

Latest opinion polls show our beloved Reverend Shrub's popularity around 40%. This is the lowest its been since the underachiever's first year, and the Republicans in Congress are now scrambling to disacociate themselves from him on a range of issues. What this probably means is that the Republicans will swing to the left--meaning, to conservative. Which in the state of the US currently, will cause much mumbling in the hinterlands about "that damn liberal media," of course.

[QUOTE=Silur]As for war, "war against terror" is as much a war according to the generally accepted definitions in international law as the "war on drugs" - that is, not a war at all.[/QUOTE]
This trend of calling any political agenda a "War" and then running with it is actually a precedent that has more to do with funding than anything else. As eveyone here is well aware, the US Department of Defense budget is huge. Creative politicians (Madeline Albright being one, there are others... Fable?) who wanted access to that immense pool of resourses essentially said, "Well, we'll call the dilemma with X issue a 'War on X' and dip into the DoD budge." Because of the issues that have emerged now, this was, IMO, a very near-sighted approach to take.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]This trend of calling any political agenda a "War" and then running with it is actually a precedent that has more to do with funding than anything else. As eveyone here is well aware, the US Department of Defense budget is huge. Creative politicians (Madeline Albright being one, there are others... Fable?) who wanted access to that immense pool of resourses essentially said, "Well, we'll call the dilemma with X issue a 'War on X' and dip into the DoD budge." Because of the issues that have emerged now, this was, IMO, a very near-sighted approach to take.[/QUOTE]

I would suggest that Albright didn't originate any policies. She was just the forceful spokesperson (and a relatively effective one) for a particular US government. The idea of creating a war and declaring it a conflict is an old one, used by many European nations to get around national legal restrictions. In the US, it was applied by Johnson to avoid going through Congress when he wanted to send in the troops after the (now understood to be) deliberately provoked Gulf of Tonkin incident. And remember, Shrub's administration has had a longstanding feud with Congress over power. That's probably meat for another thread, though I've mentioned details here as far back as early 2001. Suffice to say, if it's a conflict, he only has to go to Congress for funding. If it's a war, there are a whole series of measures requiring Congressional approval, including oversight committees on the conduct of the war.

Short-sighted? How? Bush got exactly what he wanted. The neo-cons got one of the richest oil-producing nations in the world, and another MidEastern nation to provide a large number of military bases. They wanted to remove all social spending from the US budget, and did that (barring a few untouchables like Medicaire and Social Security) by ballooning the budget with an enormous military deficit. They've gotten the controls in place for overseeing the US public. All of these are points laid out before Bush was elected in the PNAC manifesto, with signatures by major players in his cabinet and personal staff.

The neo-cons now have the US government. The political conservatives of the Republican party now has a winner to help them coast over the Democrats. The nutball reactionary extremists have been encouraged to start a minor league witchhunt against "liberals" who would have been considered moderate by standards of 15 years ago. The religious far right has a stronger voice in the federal capitol than its ever had, before. If we were younger, we'd leave the country. Maybe I should have taken a friend's offer to be music director of a small Belgian radio station back in 1983.

[QUOTE=fable]Short-sighted? How? [/QUOTE]
I assume you are being at least partially facetious. Short sighted because it does not deal with the cause of the problem (excessive DoD budget) but rather the effects.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I assume you are being at least partially facetious. Short sighted because it does not deal with the cause of the problem (excessive DoD budget) but rather the effects.[/QUOTE]

No, I wasn't being facetious, because I don't believe for a moment that the neo-cons ever believed this was a problem. The huge budget was one of their goals, per PNAC, where they clearly regard the US as the paladin of the world that will guarantee global peace in this century. (I wrote as much five years ago, and was told that I was being too harsh on Bush.) Their agenda includes a policy of greatly limiting taxes on high-end corporations to stimulate national growth, thereby dealing in part with the huge deficit, and that "streamlining" (read: removing) Social Security will handle the rest. I disagree, but what does a poor fool like myself know?

@ fable, GWB

Anyone interested in GWB's policies should read Tom Friedman's recent New York Times article- click here

Because the NYT makes it's areticles unavailable after a short period of time, I have pasted the text below in a quote box.

[QUOTE=Thomas L. Friedman]
Published: June 22, 2005
Title: George Bush has a D1ck Cheney problem.

It's not the one you think: an overbearing, archconservative vice president imposing his will and ideas on a less-seasoned president.

No, George Bush has a different V.P. problem. It is the fact that his vice president has made clear that he is not running for president after Mr. Bush's term expires in 2008. So Mr. Bush has no heir apparent. And that explains, in part, why his second term is drifting aimlessly, disconnected from the problems facing the country.

"If President Bush had a vice president, or someone who was clearly designated as heir apparent to his administration, [the president] would have a more immediate incentive to widen his political base, to offer policies that would appeal more to the center," argued Don Baer, a former senior adviser to President Clinton. But if one looks at the sorts of policies that Mr. Bush has chosen, or not chosen, for his second term, it suggests that Mr. Bush "is not thinking of the bigger implications" for three years down the road, Mr. Baer added.

For instance, the spending and tax cutting by the Bush team is ridiculously out of control. It will be a miracle if there is no market-induced implosion in the economy or the housing market in the next three years. But you can bet the farm there will have to be a huge correction after 2008 to get taxes and spending back in line. If Mr. Bush had a V.P. who was clearly anointed to succeed him, and whose success would be viewed as part of Mr. Bush's own legacy, it is hard to believe the president wouldn't be interested in a more sane fiscal policy. One thing for sure, his vice president would be.

Instead, Mr. Bush seems to be governing as though he were on a permanent campaign - much like Bill Clinton did. But Bill Clinton was on a permanent presidential campaign. Mr. Bush seems to be governing as if he were on a permanent primary campaign against John McCain in South Carolina.

So far, the second Bush term, to the extent that it has any discernible agenda, seems to be to cater to the far-right wing of his party - period. It's been urgent midnight meetings about Terri Schiavo and barely a daylight session about energy.

With gasoline prices soaring, and the biggest beneficiaries being the very Arab dictatorships who are tacitly sponsoring the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq, it is blindingly obvious that our country needs a comprehensive strategy for reducing our energy consumption and developing alternative fuel systems. The president has utterly failed in this regard.

To travel around America today is to find a country also deeply concerned about education, competition, health care and pensions. It is a country worried about how its kids are going to find jobs, retire and take care of elderly parents. But instead of focusing on a new New Deal to address the insecurities of the age of globalization, the president set off on his second term to take apart the old New Deal, trying to privatize Social Security, only feeding people's anxiety. It won't fly.

Yes, Mr. Bush has laid down a bold proposal for also fixing Social Security, but by not putting that front and center, it has gotten lost behind his private accounts obsession, which is not the country's priority. A president with a V.P. running behind him never would have let that happen.

Mr. Bush would also not be taking the head-in-sand positions he has in opposition to stem cell research, climate change, population control and evolution - positions from which centrist Republicans are now distancing themselves. Just last week, the Senate's top Republican energy-bill negotiator, Senator Pete Domenici, split from Mr. Bush and indicated that he believes the science is clear - climate change is occurring - and we need to do something about it.

If Mr. Bush's hope is to make the Republican Party into a permanent majority party and sustain his legacy, he would have picked a handful of significant proposals to widen the party's circle - especially with the Democrats so clearly out of ideas. But instead of widening and broadening, by focusing on getting things accomplished that would benefit the vast middle of the country, Mr. Bush is catering to right-wing fetishes.

If this is how he intends to use his political capital, that's his business. But if Mr. Bush had a vice president with an eye on 2008, I have to believe he or she would be saying to the president right now: "Hey boss. What are you doing? Where are you going? How am I going to get elected running on this dog's breakfast of antiscience, head-in-the-sand policies?" [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=fable]...Their agenda includes a policy of greatly limiting taxes on high-end corporations to stimulate national growth, thereby dealing in part with the huge deficit, and that "streamlining" (read: removing) Social Security will handle the rest. I disagree, but what does a poor fool like myself know?[/QUOTE]

Little steps are being taken in the agenda to make Social Security and Medicare non-existent. For example, the "Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan" that is being pushed amongst the objections of many state governors should read "The Federal Government taking money away from Medicare". Also, fiddling around with benefits maximums, putting more burdens on states to pick up the tabs for costs which they have no revenue to cover (by throwing it all on the Medicaid program, which traditionally covers what Medicare will not...but the Medicaid program doesn't have the funds to cover these costs).