Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (382727)	5/5/2008 9:00:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574320

It is a fairly well known concept that if we don't aggressively protect our citizens from the government, we can very quickly find ourselves in a situation where the constitutional guarantees we have are rolled back and adulterated. It can happen with surprising swiftness, even in a country with a strong tradition of valuing human rights like the US. I guess it could happen, but even if it did (e.g., the internment of Japanese Americans), they country acknowledges it and fixes the problem within a reasonably short span. Contrast the pressure the Bush administration has been under with the Japanese American Internment; nobody could rationally argue that civil liberties were threatened today in the way they were then. The checks and balances today are far stronger. This Presidency has accrued more power to itself than many previous Presidencies, and I think we can trust this administration much much less than previous ones. It is totally reasonable that this administration has claimed more power; after all, we were attacked for the first time in modern history on our mainland. This is the time when the administration SHOULD claim more power. While you feel that you trust this administration less than previous ones, and I respect that, I don't feel that way and many others don't, either. Congress can act to stem the president's power at any moment if they believe he is out of control; yet, they have failed to do so. Bush doesn't anywhere near approach the greatness that previous Presidents have. Once again, that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is way, way premature to have a view on this subject yet. As of this time, I think the war has been badly managed, and he has been weak on fiscal responsibility. Still, on the more pressing issues (i.e., the willingness to defend the country), he has been exceptionally strong and on this issue, alone, will likely achieve greatness in the long run. So I really cringe at the idea of letting big issues like torture slide, especially with Presidents like Bush, because it can do inestimable harm to our country and our citizens, if we allow the quick or even slow erosion of our constitution. Many people use the term "torture" as though it is something going on routinely in the United States. Of course, the reality is that it is arguable whether the US has used torture at all in the recent past, and even if one thinks it has, it has been so rarely used and against only the worst characters who threatened our nation, which does matter and does mitigate its use. None of us is for torture for the hell of it, but rational people cannot oppose its use in a "Jack Bauer" moment, i.e., to oppose its use in those circumstances is not rational. I'm for a strict interpretation of the constitution. No ifs, ands, or buts. As am I -- however, interpretation is the operative term. The Constitution without interpretation is pretty meaningless. Interpretation is a necessary element to give it meaning, and by definition, different people will interpret it differently.