posted
No,slander is spoken. Libel is printed. A distinction both Rakeesh and Ryan are unaware of. And the President and SC Justices are public figures, so for them even libel has a high bar. Opinion about public figures is not libel, generally.
edit:Rakeesh, are you still whining about one word from yesterday? Get over it, and get a life.
posted
Although I used a word with a legalistic definition, that of course does not mean I think you should be prosecuted for it, as I think you're aware.
quote:...is partisan slander. Or libel. Whatever.
Yeah, I sure wasn't aware of it. Jackass.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a semi-related note, I tend to view Internet forum conversations as 'talking' rather than 'writing'. In my head, at least. When I read something addressed to me I put it in the same category as though they were vocalizing to me personally, in my head anyway.
Obviously I recognize the distinction, that it's not really talking, but it's an instinct I possess to regard it that way. I wonder how many other people if any have that instinct?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you say that's not what you're saying, I'll believe you. But it sure sounds like it when you divide the entire population into two groups like that
Thanks. It's not what I intended to say, at any rate.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. I probably reacted more strongly than your post standing alone warranted. You caught the reaction to several other persons' posts, which wasn't fair to you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually tend to try to stay away from these discussions, but what the heck.
In my opinion, the best way to describe Bush and his actions is said by this figure of speech.
quote:The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Personally, I don't think we're on the road to Hell, but I think in a figurative way, it fits quite nicely.
Warrentless wiretapping, datamining, what have you. Yes, it does go against the constitution, which is horrible in its own right, but I think that Bush has a good intention through it. Do you seriously think Bush is trying to just violate our privacy because it would make him feel warm and tingly inside? There's a reason for it, he wants to try to keep our security higher, and to do so he is willing to forgo some of our rights.
In the end, a good intention, but I also believe what Benjamin Franklin said.
quote:Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. --Benjamin Franklin
I in no way support the warrantless searches, but I do think it's a bit low to say he has no concern for our protection.
As for the issue with torture.
I hate it, I dislike that we've been doing it, I dislike that he would say we aren't when it's pretty clear we do. I watched a little news report that had a CIA official showing an "interregation technique" that he claimed wasn't torture. Basically you'd slip a bag on the person's head and put their head underneath a running stream of water. This tricks the person into thinking they're drowning and begins to flail uselessly. Now if that's not psychological torture, I don't know what is.
Torturing is useless, as Senator John McCain said about the issue. It gives you no usable information. He was held and tortured in the airforce at one time, and they tortured him just to know the names of the others in his group. There was no point to knowing the names, it won't help you find them sooner. People eventually just start saying things just to make the torture stop.
Now, I don't think we should torture at all. Do I dislike Bush for allowing it? Yes, but I also see that again, it's a 'good intention'.
Onto indefinate detainment. It goes pretty nicely against my morals and I see it as illegal, especially when it's of our own citizens. Considering that we're supposed to get core due process garuntees it bothers me to no end that we'd stop allowing people this basic right. The people being detained like that, at least shouldn't have their status as "Enemy Combatant" but give them the simple rights and protections of POW. We are holding (At least some) innocent people with no justification on why. (At least, not with formal charges.) And it presses one of my buttons.
But yet again, it is a 'good intention'. He wishes to have us safe by removing a bit of liberty. Look to what I said with Benjamin Franklin to understand my feelings here.
Finally, I wish to analyze the 'making a dictatorship' argument. Bush has been using a document known as the AUMF(Authorization for the Use of Military Force) to justify most of his actions. That in a time of war, he is able to go past certain liberties and try to protect us. Does this make him a dictator? Heavens no. Congress passed the AUMF shortly after 9/11. Congress maintains the authority to stop Bush in all of his actions by simply repealing that document. (Dagonee, if I'm wrong here, please correct me.) We still have a control point, he still has to answer to both Congress and the Supreme Court.
To conclude. Do I respect the man, Bush? No. I don't, his actions are just too horrible for me to respect him as a person. But do I respect his intentions? Yes, he really does want to give protection, it's just his methods of doing so is bad.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RyanINPnet: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Orincoro: You just say stuff like this for attention, and frankly it disgusts me. He is your President. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, or agree with him. He is still YOUR President. Respect him. That is all.
I'm curious Ryan, did your say this sort of thing when Rush Limbaugh was accusing Bill Clinton of murder?
Perhaps you did, but an awfully lot of right wing American's who are now saying that left wingers should respect Bush because he is OUR president, are the exact same people who were extraordinarily disrespectful of Clinton.
From where I stand, you are very naive to believe that Bush has the best interests of the all Americans in mind.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB] I'm going to cherry-pick the easiest distortions from your list Tatiania:
quote:He thinks it's okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, or any oversight at all.
Inaccurate to say the least.
quote:He thinks it's okay to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them forever with no charges, no public notification that he's doing it, and no representation.
It should be noted that every single person on the Supreme Court except Scalia and Stevens supports the ability of the President to hold American citizens seized on U.S. soil indefinitely (not forever - another nice little distortion there, by the way) without criminal charges being filed. This includes Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Dag, Do your really think you've rebutted this statements. As best I can tell, all you've done is cry they are not true.
Let's start with the first statement.
quote:He thinks it's okay to spy on American citizens without a warrant, or any oversight at all.
What is inaccurate about that statement? Give me some specifics. As best I can tell from the reports, this statement is completely factual. Wiretaps are a forming of spying. US citizens communicating with foreign nationals are being wiretapped without warrants, or court or congressional oversight. Bush and other members of his administration have confirmed these facts and said that this program is both legal and ethical. Where is the inaccuracy?
Now let's look at the second point.
quote:He thinks it's okay to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them forever with no charges, no public notification that he's doing it, and no representation.
All you've done is given a list of other people who support this position. The support of supreme court justicies, doesn't change the fact that this is Bush's stance.
Then you argue that "indefinite" is not the same as "forever". According to the OED, indefinite means without definition or limitation. Indefinite is not the same as forever, but since indefinite means there are no limits it must include forever. Unless we are doing some sort of legal hair splitting, its hard to see any distortion in Tatiana's original statement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course there was oversight. There may not have been adequate oversight, or oversight by the right people - I tend to think there wasn't - but there was oversight.
Why do you say of course there was oversight? By whom. I listened to the congressional hearing and AG said nothing about oversight. All he would said is that these were good people and should be trusted.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do your really think you've rebutted this statements.
Do you really think Tatiania supported her statements? She alleged something. I alleged it wasn't true (although you seem to think I made that allegation regarding points which I did not claim to be untrue). When pressed, I explained more fully - which, unless I missed a post, is something Tatiania hasn't bothered to do.
You seem to be holding me to a standard you're not holding Tatiania too. Which isn't very surprising, really.
quote:What is inaccurate about that statement? Give me some specifics. As best I can tell from the reports, this statement is completely factual. Wiretaps are a forming of spying. US citizens communicating with foreign nationals are being wiretapped without warrants, or court or congressional oversight. Bush and other members of his administration have confirmed these facts and said that this program is both legal and ethical. Where is the inaccuracy?
quote:Why do you say of course there was oversight? By whom. I listened to the congressional hearing and AG said nothing about oversight. All he would said is that these were good people and should be trusted.
As already stated, there is oversight. Just not much. If you care to respond to my several posts on the subject, feel free. You've gotten part of the way there already. Perhaps it will help you to understand if I reiterate that I never said there was individualized oversight.
quote:All you've done is given a list of other people who support this position. The support of supreme court justicies, doesn't change the fact that this is Bush's stance.
Could you please point to where I said this wasn't Bush's stance? Because you're not actually refuting anything I've said here. You're just saying, "What you've said doesn't prove doesn't hold this belief." I didn't say Bush doesn't hold this belief (with the exception of the indefinite v. forever dispute, which I deal with below).
However, when the most liberal justices on the Court essentially agree with the administration about the detention - providing one additional and incredibly minor procedural safeguard - it's not credible to argue that this is evidence that Bush is setting up a dictatorship. After all, Bush modified his policy in response to the Court's decision.
quote:Then you argue that "indefinite" is not the same as "forever". According to the OED, indefinite means without definition or limitation. Indefinite is not the same as forever, but since indefinite means there are no limits it must include forever. Unless we are doing some sort of legal hair splitting, its hard to see any distortion in Tatiana's original statement.
Because neither Bush nor the Court's opinion happens to allow for the possibility of "forever." Both rely on the authorization of force as being a partial suspension of habeas corpus - a fairly ridiculous argument, but one that our fabulous Supreme Court has now made the law of the land.
The overall point, of course, is that Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus during times of insurrection and invasion. The Court has read the authorization for use of force as such a suspension. Both the President and the Court have acknowledged that such detention is only allowed during the time Congress has suspended the writ and during the time invasion exists (which is the prong SCOTUS has said exists right now). And the President has acknowledged that either Congress or the Court could stop the detentions and he couldn't do anything about it (except maybe veto it, which Congress could override).
By the way, if were splitting legal hairs, I'd have pointed out that neither Hamdi nor Padilla was "arrested." However, that distinction doesn't matter.
Indefinite v. forever does matter, which is why the distinction was made.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
