Historical context applied to Current Events

Forums: Politics, History, Historical-Context, American-Politics, U S-Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Thomas asked for a new thread to debate this issue, sparked by Thomas comment about "grownup" Republicans again taking charge and returning to "civil government" as practiced in the previous 224 years prior to the George Bush presidency, as explained in the following posts.

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Good. I hope this will help the grownup Republicans take charge and make their party attractive again.

Whats that supposed to mean, Thomas? Does it include abortion sanctioned and paid for by government is hunky dory?

No, but it definitely includes quitting to appoint ideologically connected incompetents; it includes not firing staffers for telling politically incorrect truths; it includes a restoration of habeas corpus, stopping torture instead of inventing nicer names for it, and stopping illegal wiretaps. When this is done, I'd be willing to negotiate about all the other points. But in my comment about the grown-up Republicans, I was mostly thinking about a return to conventions of civil government as practiced -- by Democrats and Republicans -- during the 224 years before Bush. If this takes a devastating Republican loss in 2008, I can live with that.

I took this to mean that government was always more civil than now, so I think it is appropriate to ask Thomas a few questions. Rather than making it too long, I summarized it with less questions.

Quote:

Quote:
Whats that supposed to mean, Thomas? Does it include abortion sanctioned and paid for by government is hunky dory?

No, but it definitely includes quitting to appoint ideologically connected incompetents; it includes not firing staffers for telling politically incorrect truths;

Can you name names?

Quote:

it includes a restoration of habeas corpus, stopping torture instead of inventing nicer names for it,

Can you provide any evidence that Bush authorized torture. Do terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq deserve the same rights as a civilian criminal?

Quote:

and stopping illegal wiretaps. When this is done, I'd be willing to negotiate about all the other points.

Can you provide any evidence that wiretaps and monitoring of mail and other communications have not been done in other wars? Do you believe the president has no authority whatsoever in this regard to protect the country?

Quote:

But in my comment about the grown-up Republicans, I was mostly thinking about a return to conventions of civil government as practiced -- by Democrats and Republicans -- during the 224 years before Bush. If this takes a devastating Republican loss in 2008, I can live with that.

Please explain what you mean by civil government.
If you apply some simple historical context here, perhaps you can explain what you mean.

For example, please explain why you must believe FDR's rounding up of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and placing them in concentration camps 50 years ago was more civil than now.

Please explain why you believe JFK wiretapping Martin Luther King was more civil than wiretapping terrorist suspects to protect the country against another attack, which Bush has apparently done now.

And explain why the FBI routinely doing such was more civil than now, such as FDR, JFK, and LBJ wiretapping their political enemies was more civil than now.

Please explain why you apparently believe slavery as a policy over 150 years ago was more civil than now.

Please explain why Abraham Lincoln placing people under arrest for sedition who criticized the government was more civil than now, wherein leftists now routinely deface property and call Bush a Nazi and worse, including wishing him dead, and openly sympathize with terrorists.

Please explain how earlier methods of capital punishment for things like killing chickens or horses and the like was more civil than now, which is now predominantly reserved for heinous acts of brutal murder, etc.

Please explain why denying women or blacks the right to vote was more civil than now.

Oh, by the way, please explain how Janet Reno ordering tanks into Waco and ultimately causing the horrific burning to death of innocent women and children was more civil than now. All because the guy in charge had some illegal firearms. He could have been arrested in town.

Please realize I could provide many, many more examples beyond the above, but for brevity sake, I have restricted it to the above. So please explain why you believe the previous 224 years were more civil than now. Please provide convincing historical evidence that government was civil prior to George W. Bush, but now it is uncivil and needs to be returned to "civil government." I am not convinced yet.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,358 • Replies: 110

No top replies

Hi Okie --

That's a lot of questions. I'll take some time to reply because I have a rather large pile of work in front of me in real life. But I'll try to break the questions up into smaller chunks and reply in several posts.

0 Replies

Sounds good, Thomas. I apologize for blasting with both barrels on this. I really do not see how you can spin your way out of the fact that your claims were a bit exaggerated. I think it would be easier if you would simply retract your statement that was obviously flawed, and save us both alot of angst and unnecessary arguments. I have made hasty and overextended claims from time to time, in my effort to pound home a point, so I would also be willing to chalk your comments up to that as well, and by doing so I think you would retain more credibility in the future. I have always viewed your opinions as reasonably informed and balanced, even though I often disagree, and I would hate to see you stray too far from that course in an effort to defend a claim that really is not well supported by history.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

okie wrote:

Can you provide any evidence that Bush authorized torture. Do terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq deserve the same rights as a civilian criminal?

Just off the top of my head, i find this one ridiculously easy. You beg the question. How do you know any person taken into custody is a "terrorist?" This question is particularly relevant in Afghanistan, where bounties were offered for "Taliban" fighters. Does it not occur to you that in an impoverished country there would be quite a lure to denounce someone for cash, especially if you felt fairly sure there were no family members who would react with a blood feud? (The possibility of blood feuds was about the only thing which kept one half of the male population from turning in the other half.)

What part of innocent until proven guilty do you have a problem with? Do American concepts of freedom and justice stop a the water's edge?

0 Replies

From an MSNBC story, which you can read here.

Quote:

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified before military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

0 Replies

http://www.emergency.com/capshoot.htm

Quote:

In the 1800s, Vice President Martin Van Buren carried pistols in the Senate and one lawmaker used a cane to beat another unconscious. In later years, there have been bombings and shootings as well as fistfights and an attack by one lawmaker on another with a cane.

0 Replies

Also, let us not forget when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande17.html

And just yesterday, it was the Democrats bringing civility to Capitol Hill, with Senator Jim Webb's staffer being caught trying to bring a loaded gun, probably Webb's, into the Senate Office Building. I don't think they can accuse Bush's staff of packing heat around Capitol Hill yet, as Webb's people apparently are trying to do.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261583,00.html

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

Setanta wrote:

okie wrote:
Can you provide any evidence that Bush authorized torture. Do terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq deserve the same rights as a civilian criminal?

Just off the top of my head, i find this one ridiculously easy. You beg the question. How do you know any person taken into custody is a "terrorist?" This question is particularly relevant in Afghanistan, where bounties were offered for "Taliban" fighters. Does it not occur to you that in an impoverished country there would be quite a lure to denounce someone for cash, especially if you felt fairly sure there were no family members who would react with a blood feud? (The possibility of blood feuds was about the only thing which kept one half of the male population from turning in the other half.)

What part of innocent until proven guilty do you have a problem with? Do American concepts of freedom and justice stop a the water's edge?

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

And in any or all wars, how did we know that every single person captured was an enemy combatant?

0 Replies

Try reading this page okie.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

okie wrote:

thomas wrote:
No, but it definitely includes quitting to appoint ideologically connected incompetents; it includes not firing staffers for telling politically incorrect truths;

Can you name names?

Notable Ideologically connected incompetents: Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, "Heckuvajob Brownie" Brown for head of FEMA. Admittedly, there were some grown-up Republicans ready to shoot Miers down. I'm grateful to them.

okie wrote:

thomas wrote:
it includes a restoration of habeas corpus, stopping torture instead of inventing nicer names for it,

Can you provide any evidence that Bush authorized torture. Do terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq deserve the same rights as a civilian criminal?

(1) No I can't, but there is evidence that Bush failed to control it in Abu Gharib and elsewhere abroad. There is evidence that the Bush administration systematically lobbied Congress to define torture down, and to allow testimony obtained under torture from third parties.

(2) Terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq aren't the only ones denied habeas corpus. Under the military commissions act, Bush can declare any non-citizen of the US an enemy combattant -- including all non-citizen residents of the United states. There is no reason at all to deny them habeas corpus.

okie wrote:

Thomas wrote:
and stopping illegal wiretaps. When this is done, I'd be willing to negotiate about all the other points.

Can you provide any evidence that wiretaps and monitoring of mail and other communications have not been done in other wars? Do you believe the president has no authority whatsoever in this regard to protect the country?

He has the authority to use any legal means to protect the country. The wiretaps that happened without a warrant from the FISA court were illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Bush had no rightful authority to order them.

Okie wrote:

Thomas wrote:
But in my comment about the grown-up Republicans, I was mostly thinking about a return to conventions of civil government as practiced -- by Democrats and Republicans -- during the 224 years before Bush. If this takes a devastating Republican loss in 2008, I can live with that.

Please explain what you mean by civil government.

It means the way a republic conventionally ought to be government. Compare Locke's Essay on Civil Government.

okie wrote:

For example, please explain why you must believe FDR's rounding up of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and placing them in concentration camps 50 years ago was more civil than now.

This counterexample, and the following ones, convinces me that I have overstated my case. There have indeed been previous examples of ungrownupness in presidents that stunk to high heaven. So let me rephrase my sentence: "I was mostly thinking about a return to conventions of civil government as practiced -- by Democrats and Republicans -- during most of the 224 years before Bush."

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

okie wrote:

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

Can you cite any instance in American history where our government built a special prison, neither on American soil nor on the battlefield, specially for prisoners for whom the only criteria for imprisonment was that they were not American citizens and that our government had declared them enemy combatants, and for whom we all but declared were not protected from cruel and inhuman treatment by either the Geneva conventions or US law? Can you name any previous American war where the battlefield was defined as the entire world and the enemy defined not by nationality or allegiance or region but by an elusive characterization which presupposes guilt by its very utterance? If you can, can you tell me whether those other instances were at all acceptable to a free society?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Try reading this page okie.

Key phrases in your reference are:

Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as "unlawful combatants" or "non-privileged combatants, " although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions.

To date the United States has released little information on the persons captured in Afghanistan, except to say they come from 25 countries. The United States has labeled all persons in its custody captured in Afghanistan as "unlawful combatants," "battlefield detainees," or "illegal combatants," and has indicated that while they may be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, there is no obligation that the United States so treat them. For instance, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on January 11, 2001 that those held were "unlawful combatants" and that "unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate."

More recently, the Bush Administration has suggested that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war against terrorism, that the government can decide that captured combatants are not POWs with a determination before a competent tribunal, and that treating the detainees as POWs would prevent them from being questioned for alleged criminal offenses.

I agree with Don Rumsfeld.

Questions for detractors of our policy, is this a normal problem clearly defined by historical precedent? And who invented the methods and tactics of terrorism? In other words, who is to blame for the problem? Another question, is this a problem that is easily sorted out? Another question, is this our fault, or are we simply reacting to and working through the process of determining the most reasonable course of dealing with the problem?

Final question, if you were president, how would you approach this problem?

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

Can you cite any instance in American history where our government built a special prison, neither on American soil nor on the battlefield, specially for prisoners for whom the only criteria for imprisonment was that they were not American citizens and that our government had declared them enemy combatants, and for whom we all but declared were not protected from cruel and inhuman treatment by either the Geneva conventions or US law? Can you name any previous American war where the battlefield was defined as the entire world and the enemy defined not by nationality or allegiance or region but by an elusive characterization which presupposes guilt by its very utterance? If you can, can you tell me whether those other instances were at all acceptable to a free society?

I didn't know it was proper to answer a question with a question.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:

thomas wrote:
No, but it definitely includes quitting to appoint ideologically connected incompetents; it includes not firing staffers for telling politically incorrect truths;

Can you name names?

Notable Ideologically connected incompetents: Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, "Heckuvajob Brownie" Brown for head of FEMA. Admittedly, there were some grown-up Republicans ready to shoot Miers down. I'm grateful to them.

I agree Miers was a terrible choice for Supreme Court. I don't know about Brownie, personally, but that issue was wrongly reported. The authorities responsible for evacuating New Orleans were the mayor and the governor, and finally Bush had to call the governor and tell her to evacuate. Although Nagin was totally, totally, totally imcompetent, he was re-elected. The job of FEMA is to come in afterward and clean up, which they did. Brown was simply a scapegoat, nothing more. He could have done better, but the mayor and governor not only could have done better, they were utter failures.

Quote:

okie wrote:
thomas wrote:
it includes a restoration of habeas corpus, stopping torture instead of inventing nicer names for it,

Can you provide any evidence that Bush authorized torture. Do terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq deserve the same rights as a civilian criminal?

(1) No I can't, but there is evidence that Bush failed to control it in Abu Gharib and elsewhere abroad. There is evidence that the Bush administration systematically lobbied Congress to define torture down, and to allow testimony obtained under torture from third parties.

When the administration became aware of the problems at Abu Gharib, they took measures to stop it. I remember they were the ones that first provided information about it and began to investigate. Thomas, can you assert this is the first war that some soldiers did not act appropriately?

Quote:

(2) Terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan or Iraq aren't the only ones denied habeas corpus. Under the military commissions act, Bush can declare any non-citizen of the US an enemy combattant -- including all non-citizen residents of the United states. There is no reason at all to deny them habeas corpus.

I disagree. In the war on terror, if there is information the person is an agent of a foreign terrorist group, and they are not a citizen of the U.S., I think they can be considered enemy combatants. What if during WWII, a few Germans were caught on the beaches of California, after swimming ashore from a small boat, would they have received full benefits of a civilian criminal justice system?

Quote:

okie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
and stopping illegal wiretaps. When this is done, I'd be willing to negotiate about all the other points.

Can you provide any evidence that wiretaps and monitoring of mail and other communications have not been done in other wars? Do you believe the president has no authority whatsoever in this regard to protect the country?

He has the authority to use any legal means to protect the country. The wiretaps that happened without a warrant from the FISA court were illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Bush had no rightful authority to order them.

I will leave it to lawyers to figure out, but I do not think all lawyers agree with you on this, obviously, and furthermore it is totally wrong to assert that presidents have not wiretapped or opened mail, plus alot more, previous to the presidency of George Bush. I am one citizen that welcomes the prudent use of presidential powers in this regard to protect the citizenry. This is far from being unprecedented, far far from it, and everybody knows it. The Democrats are crying wolf on this one, all for political spin, nothing more. Even Clinton violated the law, if interpreted as you are doing.

Quote:

Okie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
But in my comment about the grown-up Republicans, I was mostly thinking about a return to conventions of civil government as practiced -- by Democrats and Republicans -- during the 224 years before Bush. If this takes a devastating Republican loss in 2008, I can live with that.

Please explain what you mean by civil government.

It means the way a republic conventionally ought to be government. Compare Locke's Essay on Civil Government.

okie wrote:
For example, please explain why you must believe FDR's rounding up of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and placing them in concentration camps 50 years ago was more civil than now.

This counterexample, and the following ones, convinces me that I have overstated my case. There have indeed been previous examples of ungrownupness in presidents that stunk to high heaven. So let me rephrase my sentence: "I was mostly thinking about a return to conventions of civil government as practiced -- by Democrats and Republicans -- during most of the 224 years before Bush."

Thanks, Thomas for the revision.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

Can you cite any instance in American history where our government built a special prison, neither on American soil nor on the battlefield, specially for prisoners for whom the only criteria for imprisonment was that they were not American citizens and that our government had declared them enemy combatants, and for whom we all but declared were not protected from cruel and inhuman treatment by either the Geneva conventions or US law? Can you name any previous American war where the battlefield was defined as the entire world and the enemy defined not by nationality or allegiance or region but by an elusive characterization which presupposes guilt by its very utterance? If you can, can you tell me whether those other instances were at all acceptable to a free society?

Can you cite instances in history where the U.S. has had to deal with the problem of terrorism?

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

okie wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
okie wrote:

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

Can you cite any instance in American history where our government built a special prison, neither on American soil nor on the battlefield, specially for prisoners for whom the only criteria for imprisonment was that they were not American citizens and that our government had declared them enemy combatants, and for whom we all but declared were not protected from cruel and inhuman treatment by either the Geneva conventions or US law? Can you name any previous American war where the battlefield was defined as the entire world and the enemy defined not by nationality or allegiance or region but by an elusive characterization which presupposes guilt by its very utterance? If you can, can you tell me whether those other instances were at all acceptable to a free society?

Can you cite instances in history where the U.S. has had to deal with the problem of terrorism?

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/09/18/history.terrorism/index.html

Your turn.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

okie wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
okie wrote:

Can you cite any instance in American history where prisoners captured in foreign battle areas have ever been granted the same rights as civilians under the U.S. criminal justice system as standard procedure?

Can you cite any instance in American history where our government built a special prison, neither on American soil nor on the battlefield, specially for prisoners for whom the only criteria for imprisonment was that they were not American citizens and that our government had declared them enemy combatants, and for whom we all but declared were not protected from cruel and inhuman treatment by either the Geneva conventions or US law? Can you name any previous American war where the battlefield was defined as the entire world and the enemy defined not by nationality or allegiance or region but by an elusive characterization which presupposes guilt by its very utterance? If you can, can you tell me whether those other instances were at all acceptable to a free society?

Can you cite instances in history where the U.S. has had to deal with the problem of terrorism?

The USA had a huge problem with terrorism around the turn of the century - the last one, 1900. It was Anarchists and Communists who were behind a lot of it. Lots of nail bombs and the like. Nasty.

You will note that America got through this time without resorting to changing our laws, or building special prisons.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

How about the Civil War. The terroists were all U.S. american both north and south.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

FreeDuck wrote:

Can you cite instances in history where the U.S. has had to deal with the problem of terrorism?

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/09/18/history.terrorism/index.html

Your turn.[/quote]

Very, very weak cases or examples cited. Not really applicable as a rebuttal. I obviously conclude the examples do not compare in scope or exact type of problem that we are now confronted with. Further, we live in a day of the availability of WMD, which also adds gravity to the potential destruction possible. We are not confronted with a case of a few anarchists wanting to shoot a person or a few people.

0 Replies

Re: Historical context applied to Current Events

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Can you cite instances in history where the U.S. has had to deal with the problem of terrorism?

The USA had a huge problem with terrorism around the turn of the century - the last one, 1900. It was Anarchists and Communists who were behind a lot of it. Lots of nail bombs and the like. Nasty.

You will note that America got through this time without resorting to changing our laws, or building special prisons.

Cycloptichorn

If it was that huge, how come we don't hear about it more often. I don't think it was that huge; you need to provide evidence, cyclops. There weren't enough people involved to build extra prisons, and were those people citizens?

0 Replies

Historical context applied to Current Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know