understand, prior to George W. Bush's dictator-style power grab cloaked in his "War on Terror", national security didn't revolve around naked international aggression and the destruction of our Constitutional Rights. National Security meant having a well trained,commanded and deployed Armed Services and a Security network of CIA and FBI along with local enforcement, National Guard (deployed in the USA) and a civilian government properly on mark to defend our shores. It does not include running torture camps for civilians. If Bush had not perverted the words National Security to mean whatever horrors he can dream up, we wouldn't be faced with asking our candidates to choose between keeping us safe and imprisoning us, uncharged, with no counsel, and torturing us.
Posted by T2 at November 20, 2007 11:43 AMAnd to be fair, Barack Obama did a good job calling Wolf Blitzer out for asking the question the way he did.
Posted by Ken Camp at November 20, 2007 03:10 PMTwo more quotes in the Constitution....
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
and
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Any chance you can point to a clause in the Constitution that makes redistribution of wealth a power of the federal government?
Posted by Jay at November 20, 2007 04:05 PM"'The Constitution is not a suicide pact...' is a phrase that was written by Robert Jackson, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941 - 1954). Justice Jackson was also Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.
"...not expect that they might be tortured if captured?"
You ascribe to our Islamic enemies a level of decency that they do not deserve: these are people who hack people's heads off while screaming "God is great," murder children with car bombs, and delight in blowing up pizza shops.
And as to the logic of your argument....I suppose that it accurately reflects the irrational nature of the "reality-based community."
Posted by Bagley at November 20, 2007 05:25 PMI'm so glad more and more people are posting about this. I did as well on my site. Any candidate or leader that would entertain any dichotomy between the two is not fit for office.
Great post.
Posted by CitizenBoo at November 20, 2007 06:14 PM"Fortunately it still is startling, in this country, to find a person held indefinitely in executive custody without accusation of crime or judicial trial. Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Posted by Justice Jackson at November 20, 2007 06:24 PMJustice Jackson,
Bush's whims = the law of the land
Bagley,
When we start lowering the standards of conduct for the government, we become less of a nation. Just because our soldiers/citizens may be tortured if captured, does it follow that we must torture those we capture? Sounds like the typical macho, bully attitude that I see from the 7- and 8-year-olds in the neighborhood. "If you are going to kick me, I'm gonna kick you harder." It's like the whole "eye for an eye" mentality. As Ghandi said, the only thing you get from that is alot of blind people. I thought we were better than the "terrorists", guess not in Bagley's world.
Posted by the Professor at November 21, 2007 07:58 AMAlso...I guess the whole "Do unto others..." things is just a quaint saying with no real meaning to folks like Bagley?
Posted by the Professor at November 21, 2007 08:00 AMI like the way that Wolf took the question as originally asked (regarding national security vs. human rights for our allies) and turned it into an either-or national security or human rights for Americans question. They are not mutually exclusive. What good is national security if the nation we are securing is governed by a 3rd rate dictatorship? What is the "nation"? The government or the people?
Posted by the Professor at November 21, 2007 08:08 AMGreat post and great position, Ken. I imagine that people like bagley would consider it right and necessary, if the enemy engaged in rape, for our military to also engage in rape.
Posted by Julie at November 21, 2007 08:39 AMbagless bagley seems not to realize that a government that tortures is a government that can do anything it wants to anyone it wants at anytime
it is a government of men and not laws, the absolute opposite of what our Founding Fathers left us
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 21, 2007 10:11 AMCivil Rights are the only ‘National Security’ that matters. The whole purpose of National Security is to protect those Civil Rights.
Without Civil Rights, there is no National Security; just another evil regime.
Posted by Kuni at November 22, 2007 11:00 AM