[extropy-chat] Tyranny in place

[Samantha Atkins]

On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Personally I find all this talk about "tyranny" to be little more  
> than hyperbole.
>
> 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.
>

Read the rules and think through the implications.  That should be  
enough.  If it isn't then nothing I or anyone else says is likely to  
reach you.

> 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  
> government. Not an unconstitutional suspension of rights of American  
> citizens (nothing in the article originally referenced supports the  
> notion that ordinary Americans can be detained under this bill as  
> far as I can tell).
>

Actually this bill allows anyone at all, including you and I, to be  
declared an "enemy combatant" by government fiat and many of our  
rights and protections removed simply on that basis.   This is leaving  
the barn door wide open to unspeakable abuse.

> 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. 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 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.
>

There is no invasion.  9/11 was no invasion.  There is no limit in  
this bill that will cause it to only pertain to those who join actual  
terrorist groups.    It is an open and shut no.   The Bush  
administration has admitted to acting outside the rule of law and now  
seeks (and gets) retroactive law approving those illegal acts such as  
mass warrantless wiretaps.   The administration has no been given new  
laws that allow it to do more of what it pleases outside of judicial  
review or any meaningful constraints.  Do you not see this as dangerous?


> 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 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 stifle  
> forever the Transhumanist dream, if only

How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen?  Bush  
ossibly over-zealous but nothing more?  I am rendered speechless.   We  
are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to  
dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few  
nutcase terrorist groups.  If you care about preserving our way of  
life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also.


> incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the  
> 13th Century.
>

Sheesh.  All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the  
world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing.   
But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of  
religion based politics may destroy our way of life.

> 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.
>


What a silly fantasy this is.  Besides, in this most powerful nation  
on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all  
to live under Old Testament law.

- samantha



> Joseph
>
> spike wrote:
>>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
>>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There should be massive demonstrations over this. Why isn't there?!
>>>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Those who don't care about impeaching a criminal don't care
>>> about their country turned into a dictatorship...
>>>
>> My understanding is that it was congress that did this, not the  
>> executive
>> branch.  I would interpret it as empty electioneering: the  
>> congressmonsters
>> do not want to appear soft on terrorism right before the election.
>> Legislative branch grandstanding is done all the time, but it is  
>> still
>> meaningless.  What counts is if the supreme court upholds it.  I  
>> predict
>> that the court will knock it down without a second thought.
>>
>> Regarding massive demonstrations, we have congressional elections  
>> in a few
>> weeks.  We will see what happens there.
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061001/be1c3745/attachment.html>