[extropy-chat] Tyranny in place

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 09:01:02PM -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> 
>    Personally I find all this talk about "tyranny" to be little more than
>    hyperbole.

Yet. But the legislation is there. As far as the law is concerned,
U.S. can now be a tyranny.

>    The Supreme Court said that Congress needed to establish the rules for
>    treatment of terrorist suspects being detained by the United States,
>    and so Congress did.

The Congress rubberstamped a president's bill. One they probably didn't
even read before -- this happens quite often recently. One Conservative
opposed it, and some 32 Democrats. If your representative did not
oppose this bill, you might want to make your displeasure heard.
It would be even better if you would protest in the streets. Fat chance.

>    It was not tyranny when thousands of Japanese and Germans (yes,
>    Germans too) were interred during World War II. Was it illegal and
>    misguided? Arguably so. But not tyranny. Not a usurpation of the

Have you read the bill? It doesn't say anything about terrorists.
As stated, it could apply to *everybody*. Read it. Who's eligible
is completely open to interpretation. 

>    The right of Habeus Corpus, according to the Constitution, cannot be
>    suspended except in times of invasion or insurrection. We have seen
>    both of those things. Foreign terrorists attacking our shores on 9-11.

The U.S. has been invaded? There is an insurrection? You can't honestly
believe this. 

>    Americans going to join their cause in armed militancy supporting Al
>    Quaeda and the Taliban. I think there's a case to be made that the

*Where*? Are you nuts? The U.S. is not Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran.

>    conditions for the suspension of Habeus Corpus have been met. Others
>    may disagree, but it's hardly the case that it's an open-and-shut
>    "no." If the Bush administration were determined to overthrow the rule
>    of law, they would have started with the first Supreme Court ruling
>    that said the military tribunals as originally composed were illegal.
>    Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the
>    White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more than

Now that would be a little bit too late then, don't you think. And
don't get hung up on a particular person, you need to get Habeas Corpus
reinstated lickety-split, or you're playing sitting duck for anyone that
chooses to exploit that gaping hole.

>    a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still
>    well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy
>    which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process

Poppycock. The enemy you describe is entirely fabricated. The threat
is only in your mind.

>    stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only incidentally as a part
>    of its attempt to drag the world back to the 13th Century.
>    The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of
>    humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be avoided
>    at all costs.

Are you truly believing what you're writing?

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061001/72d291f1/attachment.bin>