Habeas Corpus, R.I.P.

More video commentary here, here and here.

Interesting written commentary here and here.

posted by disinter
  • Derrick

    So, I’m gonna go on record as being against the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

  • Getreal

    I saw this some time ago at a blog which is not on your recommended list but ought to be as it hard core libertarian and one of the most active blogs around, often with several new articles per day. It is “Classically Liberal” at http://www.freestudents.blogspot.com.

  • Timothy West

    average voter = habeas corpus = sounds like dead lawyer in latin = GOOD! Bush approval rating goes up 61 points.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    We’re talking terrorists here. Why should we give them any rights at all? The only right a terrorist should have, well two, actually, is to choose his last meal – chicken or pork, and choose his manner of execution – rusty knife sawing off your neck or smothered and trampled by pigs in a pig pen and then buried wrapped in bacon.

  • http://www.freetalklive.com Slim

    How long will it be before we are labeled enemy combatants just for disagreeing with the government?

  • paulie cannoli

    If you don’t want to be trampled by pigs, don’t get accused as a terrorist by the regime. We all know that if it were not true, you would never be accused. The government is perfect and never makes mistakes, especially when determining who allegedly commited a crime. So, why bother with “technicalities” like lawyers, charges, phone calls, trials, or not engaing in war crimes against detainees? The only reason to even have detainees rather than kill them on the spot is to have some fun torturing them.

    We all know that information obtained by torture is highly reliable, too.

    If you oppose any of this, the same regime that passed this abomination has already said repeatedly that you are one of the enemy. The domestic internment camps are already built and the roundup plans already drawn up. Now it’s “legal”. And yet, we still have some people who think it’s hyperbole to compare Dubai-ya to Hitler (another friend of the Bush Family, like Bin Laden).

  • Daniel

    Yeah, Eric, you’re right. Let’s not worry about that middle step called “figuring out who _actually is_ a terrorist.” Accusation is good enough for me.

  • Stephen VanDyke

    Olbermann, you’re sooooooo getting disappeared. And consider your WH Press dinner invitation revoked!

  • http://www.freestateproject.org Keith

    Indeed, good stuff. The Free State Project even blogged on this stuff.

    http://blog.myspace.com/freestateproject

  • paulie cannoli

    It would be fitting, once the Bush Crime Family is convicted of crimes against humanity, to put them all in one of their own dungeons, such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, and turn their keep over to former inmates there who were found to be falsely accused.

  • Zander C

    “It would be fitting, once the Bush Crime Family is convicted of crimes against humanity, to put them all in one of their own dungeons, such as Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, and turn their keep over to former inmates there who were found to be falsely accused.”

    Not possible. Check out the rest of the text of the passed bill. Bush and his cronies are given immunity from prosecution for violations for the War Crimes act in compliance with Geneva Conventions (felonies, many punishable by death):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ljmbJOfaE

  • HippyChimp

    so many things wrong with the MCA. First of all, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. In the section defining an unlawful enemy combatant it says “(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006…” ummm, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the retroactive language there makes this an ex post facto law. yet, it still passed…

    second point I’d like to make, especially to Eric, is this: How in the hell are you supposed to prove you’re NOT an unlawful enemy combatant if you’re locked up and kept incommunicado for a period of time and without means to defend yourself?

    third point, possibly the most important one, is this power to summarily determine that an individual is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant that Bush is granting himself, will be transfered to our next president, and to the one after that, ad nauseum. How’d you like Hillary empowered to knock down doors and abduct people, citizens even, as she sees fit?

  • Timothy West

    makes this an ex post facto law. yet, it still passed”¦

    they knowingly pass unconstitutional laws all the time. They say they’ll leave it up to the judges to fix it. I expect this will be the first legal challenge to the law, that it is ex post facto.

  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    average voter = habeas corpus = hocus pocus = this is my body = they are trying to suspend communion in church.

  • http://www.myspace.com/10forliberty Mitchell Port

    Olbermann is the shit! Wish more news anchors were like him.

  • paulie cannoli

    Zander: you’re right.

    Now we can only hope that the next president (if Bush does not suspend the election or steal it yet again) declares him and his gang to be enemy combatants themselves.

  • Michael

    But if we allow such radical liberal notions like habeas corpus exist, the terrorists win!

  • paulie cannoli

    They’ve already won.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    “The domestic internment camps are already built and the roundup plans already drawn up…”

    Let’s just hope something rational gets done, or else Mrs. Bill Clinton will put every non-Democrat* on HER personal shit list and have ‘em hauled off to those camps.

    OTOH, how many Constitutional rights do we grant to non-citizens? The 2nd Amendment might be a bit problematical, and I’m not fond of my tax dollars going to pay for public defenders for the terrorists.

    What’s the solution?

    And, maybe, not just a few disloyal Democrats who don’t properly pay tribute to the Borg Queen.

  • paulie cannoli

    That’s if Mrs. Clinton even gets to have an election.

    Why would natural rights, such as self defense, not apply to non-citizens?

    Accused terrorists should have the same rights as all accused criminals. You don’t really believe they are guilty just because the regime says they are, do you?

  • Sandra Kallander

    The Constitution prohibits the government of depriving the people of their rights. You don’t have to be a citizen to hold the government to the Constitution. Due process is an inalienable right, even if you are an alien.

  • TerryP

    Olberman is not a liberatarian by a long shot, but man he comes up with some powerful, truthful stuff everyonce in a while.

    Tim, you expect this to be challenged by the courts. By who? Remember they get no true legal representation and it is not handled in our court system but rather a military tribunal. If they have no access to our court system how in the world will it be challenged within our court system?

  • Timothy West

    It will get challenged outside the military becuase at some point, they will be attempting to extend it to anyone. – what I am worried about is that the judges will say eh, who cares?

  • Bill

    Eric Dondilldo rules! Lieberman Dondilldo 2008!

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    No, paulie, but I’m not one of those who define torture as “an insufficient application of hot cocoa, fluffy pillows, and politely-asked interrogation questions”, either.

    All I’m saying is, if we’d had this kind of hand-wringing during WWII, and we’d done today’s-style hand-wringing over how to treat Japanese or German troops, we might still be holding trials for them today.

    Sandra… call me selfish, but I see Constitutional rights as something solely for American citizens. HUMAN rights, that’s another thing, to be applied (in theory) beyond our borders. In practice, though, I’m not so sure how far we should bend over in the nice-guy department. Sure, we shouldn’t beat the dog squeeze out of detainees, but even that would be a hell of a lot more than OUR detainees get.

  • Andy

    “third point, possibly the most important one, is this power to summarily determine that an individual is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant that Bush is granting himself, will be transfered to our next president, and to the one after that, ad nauseum. How’d you like Hillary empowered to knock down doors and abduct people, citizens even, as she sees fit?”

    Excellent point that Bush supporters need to keep in mind. Even if you agree with the current regime, these new powers that Bush is claiming will be used by future presidents, and these could be people whom you do not support and one day these laws that Bush has signed could come back to haunt you.

  • Peter Borah

    Libertarian Guy, we prosecuted people in WWII for waterboarding. The Bush administration supports waterboarding. Seems like we’re getting less sensitive, not more.

  • Andy

    “they knowingly pass unconstitutional laws all the time.”

    They get away with this because the average person is ignorant about the Constitution, and is either too apathetic or too distracted to care. They’ll be sorry one day.

  • http://www.pnar.org/ Tom Blanton

    It is amusing that these tough guys – manly men whose penises drag the ground and whose shoulders are ear level – can be so wimpish.

    Torture and killing is no problem to these guys and they certainly don’t mind a swaggering redneck cretin who assumes the role of dictator by the decree of a pansy ass cabal of political punks. But, the very thought of a wingnut Muslim with a Kalishnakov 5,000 miles away makes them tremble in fear. Even worse, the thought of Hillary Clinton makes them wet their panties.

    Cowboy W tears up the Constitution and these macho men applaud because they don’t want to be thought of as weak. Yet, these manly patriots reveal their total impotence and weakness as they bend over and let Cowboy W (former Anodover cheerleader & frat boy with Kerry) insert his pinky in their collectivist behinds.

    How unfortunate these fair weather “libertarians” don’t even have testicles large enough to whisper the word “impeach” for fear of alienating their locker room pals.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com Dave Miller

    I was wondering how long it would take before HoT, the foremost word on Libertarian ideals, would blog something, just something about Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus was tied to the stake on Sept. 6 and no word. The Military Commissions Act was passed just 3 weeks later. No word from HoT – actually one mention, in August. K.O., a raging liberal, has been on top of all the constitutional wrong doings by this president, not just habeas corpus.

    The Democratic Party is not taking up the charge being led by K.O., again, a raging liberal and the LP is amazingly silent.

    The Constitution is what the LP hangs it’s hat on, yet nothing about this issue. K.O. has been talking about this for two weeks, alone and I think that is sad.

    I wont say Libertarians need to run around screaming impeach, but we better start doing something. The Constitution is on life support and we are its protectors right?

  • paul i.e. cannoli

    No, paulie, but I’m not one of those who define torture as “an insufficient application of hot cocoa, fluffy pillows, and politely-asked interrogation questions”, either.

    Several detainees have actually died in US custody.

    Here are pics of what you call “an insufficient application of hot cocoa, fluffy pillows, and politely-asked interrogation questions”

    http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

    If you think this is acceptable, you are one sick puppy, and deserve to be treated this way yourself.

    Oh, by the way, the vast majority of the detainees are innocent.

    Tom Blanton…

    yep, you got that right.

    Dave Miller…

    I’ve mentioned it numerous times.

  • paul i.e. cannoli

    LG

    Where does the Bill of Rights say that it applies solely to citizens? It is in fact a statement of human rights which pre-existed the document, as can be easily understood from reading the debates surrounding their passage.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    paulie,

    If the Founders had had some foresight, they would’ve fixed that and maybe one or two other problems before signing it…

    I’m saying, there are some who think “torture” means “being mean to detainees”, period. That’s too wimpy and politically-correct. ACTUAL torture, I’m not on board with that, so don’t misconstrue my stance on that issue.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    My personal theory:

    All this stuff being done, is groundwork being laid for a future administration to use against US. And I’ve always suspected that, if we ever do wind up living in a police state, it will be under a Democrat-led administration.

    Especially one under the bootheel of Hillary. She’d love to get her hooves on the Patriot Act. That creature has an enemies’ list that would make Richard Nixon hot and sweaty.

  • Brian S

    Now we know how much Mr. Dondero is really committed to liberty and the rule of law. No votes for any republicans, ever, anymore.

  • paulie cannoli

    If the Founders had had some foresight, they would’ve fixed that and maybe one or two other problems before signing it”¦

    Such “fixing” would be invalid. The Rights protected by the BOR are fundamental human rights which we all have by virtue of our humanity. If a government denies these rights to anyone in its jurisdiction (which includes POWs in foreign wars and detainees) it is that government which thus makes itself illegitimate.

    I’m saying, there are some who think “torture” means “being mean to detainees”, period.

    It’s actually torture which the US regime is currently practicing.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    “Being mean” is “torture”? Just making sure I’m not misunderstanding your stance, paulie.

    Because, if so, then my theory of having Jackie Mason tell “your momma’s so fat…” jokes to Muslim detainees while he cradles a baby piglet in his arms, would be considered “cruel and unusual” because you have a Jew and a pig in the vicinity of someone who considers BOTH lifeforms to be beneath contempt and worthy of slaughter.

    The ACLU would probably consider the above “torture”, and some greasy-suited attorney would try to get millions for pain and suffering. And it’s not like Jackie Mason isn’t funny, even…

    Seriously – in my view, waterboarding is “torture”; making a Muslim wear undies on his noggin, isn’t.

  • Bobbi Corn

    It is important to remember that those being held or tortured have not been convicted of anything and that a good many of them have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The premise that a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise is fundemental to our way of life. Those who were tortured or who witnessed torture will forever hate the U.S. as will those in their family and their community. We should not be in the business of making enemies in that part of the world.

  • disinter

    It is important to remember that those being held or tortured have not been convicted of anything and that a good many of them have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I can attest to that. I was talking to a security officer the other day and he told me that he had been to Afghanistan and Iraq until he was shot and stabbed in Iraq. I asked him what he did in Afghanistan and he said “rounded up terrorists in caves and took them to Cuba”. I asked him how he knew they were terrorists. He answered “They looked like terrorists and they were shooting at us”. I asked what a terrorists looks like and he said “muslim looking”. I then asked if he would not be shooting at a foreign invader coming to take him away for no reason. He said “well, yeah”.

    I am not sure anyone in Guantanamo actually deserves to be there.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    Bobbi, some of those people hated us LONG before the 9/11 fiasco. Nothing will make them *like* us.

  • paulie cannoli

    non-LG,

    ““Being mean” is “torture”? Just making sure I’m not misunderstanding your stance, paulie.”

    How is this a response to:

    “It’s actually torture which the US regime is currently practicing.”

    Do you believe that the US regime is merely “being mean”?

    Is that what you call threatening people with dogs, forcing them to simulate homsexual sex acts in photographs, and actually beating several people to death as the US regime has done?

  • paulie cannoli

    Bobbi, some of those people hated us LONG before the 9/11 fiasco. Nothing will make them *like* us.

    The actions of the US regime are making it a lot worse.

    Most of the people in Guantanamo are not terrorists. They were people rounded up by various militia factions for a cash bounty; these groups have gang and tribal hatreds and they simply collected money for calling their gang/tribal enemies “terrorists”.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    “Beating people to death” IS torture, paulie. “Threatening them with dogs” is just being mean, and playing on their irrational fears… as is “simulating homosexual sex acts”. Playing mind-games like those does not, IMO, equate to actual torture. I was in high school, and got about the same level of abuse from the idiot jock bullies. Where were MY human rights? (Most of those thugs either died or have done prison time, so I had the last laugh.)

    BTW, why are you turning this into a litmus test by calling me “non-LG”? I don’t want us in Iraq, either. Nothing much either of us can do about it, though. But if you’re expecting me to be a doctrinaire, 100-percenter… nobody is. At least, not that I’ve met.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    I’m not in favor of “torture”. I’ve been trying to point out that *some* people think “putting womens’ panties on a Muslim’s head” *IS* “torture”, and how that’s going too far in the “we have to be kind to them” department. Beating or other physical harm is real, physical “torture”.

    The mental “torture” stuff: Unless the “humiliating and degrading” behavior winds up being the kind that leaves a detainee curled up in a fetal position and insane, I don’t call it “torture”.

    I didn’t vote for Bush or his war, nor did I vote for that horse-faced socialist or his aging trophy wife/meal ticket. I vote for and/or support all Libertarian candidates, at least in spirit if not in person.

    So, paulie, let’s not go down the road of “you’re not pure enough”; I personally helped keep a white supremacist from running on our ticket, and am proud of it. He would’ve denied rights to American blacks, Jews, Jews, Hispanics, Jews… you get the idea. So, it’s not like I don’t care about anyone else.

  • Andy

    Here’s a Wikipedia entry about the American military torturing people in Iraq.

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:1enDwgaXrh8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse+detainees+death+us+torture&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

    Here are some of the forms of torture from the article.

    Jumping on detainee’s leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
    Continuing by pounding detainee’s wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
    Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
    Sodomization of detainees with a baton

  • Andy

    From the Wikipedia article..

    “Two inmates in December 2002 were tortured and beaten to death in cells down the hall from her office. ‘Hung by their arms from the ceiling and beaten so severely that, according to a report by Army investigators later leaked to the Baltimore Sun, their legs would have needed to be amputated had they lived. The Army’s Criminal Investigation command launched an inquiry, but few people outside Afghanistan took notice.’”

    “It was discovered that one prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, died as a result of abuse, a death that was ruled a homicide by the military. One detainee has also made charges of rape under supervision of the soldiers.”

  • Andy

    More from the Wikipedia article..

    “Death certificates repeatedly stated that prisoners had died “during sleep”, and of “natural reasons”. Iraqi doctors are not allowed to investigate even when death certificates are obviously forged. No reports of investigations against U.S. military doctors who forged death certificates have been reported.”

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    Beating, sodomizing, pouring acid, hanging by the arms… all torture, all wrong.

    Womens’ undies on the head… just irritating.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    I often find that bigots informed by fascist talk radio entertainers think torture is humorous. Through endless repetition of propaganda designed to promote war, these witless buffoons come to believe that they are the victims being persecuted by the tortured. They believe they are about to be subjected to an imaginary caliphate of murderous terrorist unless these hobgoblins are tortured into revealing the ticking timebomb that is about to propel them into cultural chaos.

    It is a sad state of affairs when so many are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction – even sadder they are willing to destroy the last remnant of liberty to assuage their paranoia.

    To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the terrorists and they is us.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    The talk of women’s undies on the head is merely a distraction used by apologist shills for the Bush regime to distract attention from the real issue – torture. Nobody has said women’s undies on the head is torture. What people have said is that women’s undies on the head is humiliation. Under the Geneva Accords, humiliating prisoners is prohibited. Violating the Geneva Conventions is a crime under US law – the War Crimes Act.

    So, these are two separate issues. However, if your world view is informed by the likes of Neal Boortz, the issues blur into one – women’s undies on the head is not torture, so therefore no torture has taken place. This is called propaganda, or more plainly, muddled thinking, or even more plainly, bullshit.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    “Threatening them with dogs” is just being mean, and playing on their irrational fears”¦

    Really, why is it irrational? How would they know if the dogs would be set loose? When you are being held naked and the vicious dog is growling at you wouldn’t you be terrified?

    as is “simulating homosexual sex acts”. Playing mind-games like those does not, IMO, equate to actual torture.

    Being photographed in simulated gay sex acts and threatened with having them released in your village? That’s messed up. We’re talking about a culture which is not exactly accepting of gay sex, transvestism or porn.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    LG,

    You admitted that some of the tactics used by the US regime are actual torture. so,

    ““Being mean” is “torture”? Just making sure I’m not misunderstanding your stance, paulie.”

    How is this a response to:

    “It’s actually torture which the US regime is currently practicing.”

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    paulie, I’ve already delineated between “torture” and “being mean”. I don’t know what you want me to say… should we be NICE to them? Ask them polite questions, respect their “personal space”, and give them milk and cookies?

    DID we “set the dogs loose”? IF we did, that’s wrong. But scaring the shit out of ‘em with the dogs, isn’t.

    ***

    Tom, I’m no shill, I didn’t vote for nor do I even like Bush. But “Nobody has said women’s undies on the head is torture”? I remember the yelping from the Dems when this little nugget hit the wires… you’d think a noggin with bloomers on was the equivalent of jumper cables on the nipples. It isn’t, and the “humiliating treatment” part of Geneva is just weenie-stuff. I’m surprised that part wasn’t written in this, the era of political correctedness.

    Let’s review: Torture = bad = punish the perpetrators. Being mean to them = not so bad = maybe probation or community service.

    I don’t know how else to put it: I’m not pro-torture.

  • paulie

    Hmmmm is this complicated?

    Let’s leave aside the discussion of whether psychological torture is real torture or not. I think it is, you think it isn’t, fine.

    We’ve both agreed that some of the practices that the US regime has used against detainees are in fact torture, or do you deny that the US regime has done these things?

    Assuming you do not deny these widely reported events, when I say “It’s actually torture which the US regime is currently practicing.”

    why would you respond ““Being mean” is “torture”? Just making sure I’m not misunderstanding your stance, paulie.”

    Regardless of whether some of the things done to detainees are torture or not, others unquestionably are; and you have said so yourself.

    So do you deny that these events have taken place?

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    No, I’m not denying it, and am still perplexed as to why you’re misunderstanding what I said, which you cut-and-pasted three times now. My argument is “what constitutes torture?”; you seem to be saying “it’s ALL torture”.

    Scenario: Detainee gets mushy peas with his meal, claims “emotional distress”. ACLU attorney wrings hands in front of judge, weeps unconsolably, wins big settlement for detainee.

    Another one: Detainee CLAIMS he was mistreated; trial takes forever, may get tossed out even if he wasn’t so much as looked at sideways by a guard.

    They’re going to milk the legal system, and hope for acquitals based on “The guard, he said mean things to me, I want to sue the bastard” arguments.

    Meanwhile, we should be focusing on the guards, etc. who ARE engaging in acutal torture.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    OK.

    Last try.

    We’ve now established that you agree the US regime is in fact engaging in at least some practices which you recognize as in fact being torture.

    Let’s completely ignore those practices on which we disagree. Bottom line:

    We agree that the US government is torturing people.

    Which is all I originally said.

    And your response was that I was calling being mean to people torture.

    Full circle!

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    I think LG is almost ready for his own talk radio show. His 3 strawman scenarios demonstrate great promise. He could give Hannity a run for his money with some more practice.

    Meanwhile, we should be focusing on Yoo, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld and Bush who authorized actual torture. Then after we hold accountable all the Republicrats who went along with this crap, we could focus on why picking up innocent civilians, detaining them, humiliating them, threatening them, and then releasing them is a bad way to win the hearts and minds of people who we claim to be helping.

    All while apologists demonize the evil ACLU for gathering this information from government reports through FOIA requests. Too bad these a-holes who deny there has been torture can’t read what the government they worship has documented regarding this issue.

    Here’s an interesting story published by the evil liberal MSM that must certainly be a lie about Club Gitmo:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458/

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    Again, no, paulie… I was asking if you INCLUDED the non-physical torture in with the *real* stuff. If you want to give them three hots and a cot, so do I, but we disagree on how nice we have to be to them. Apparently, “not beating the shit out of them” isn’t enough.

    Tom, if you don’t think frivolous lawsuits won’t be fortcoming from some of these detainees, I’d be surprised.

    You’re right here, though:

    “we should be focusing on Yoo, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld and Bush who authorized actual torture”

    No argument there. I really don’t understand why this has gotten to the point of insulting *me* by comparing me to Hannity. Again, I’m not in favor of actual TORTURE. How much clearer could I type it? I’m not denying jack shit. You and paulie, however, seem to think “humiliating” is on the *exact same level* as “getting beaten to a pulp”. That’s what the liberal Dems have been saying, and do we want to associate with that bunch? I don’t trust neo-communists, and that’s today’s Dems.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    If you want to further the Dems – the American socialist politicians – go ahead. *I* don’t want *them* in power anymore than I want the Repubs to be in charge. If I *did*, I’d be voting for them, but I don’t.

    Apparently, though, it’s not enough to be anti-RepubliCrat, anti-big-government, and anti-war… and here we criticize RepubliCrats for being in lock-step with their own power-hungry, corrupt crowds.

    Tom, I’d no sooner believe MSNBC than I would FNC. Shit is shit. Cotton candy for the mind.

    If there has to be a litmus test for our kind, who gets to determine the results? Is paulie the judge, or Tom? Or do I get hauled up before a tribunal to determine if my “libertarian level” passes a standard?

    If so, screw it. I’ll just not vote for or support ANY politician or party. Let the RepubliCrats destroy the Republic. If I have to be crammed into a box stamped “Good Libertarian – Committee Approved”, count me out.

    How many libertarians actually pass the 100% test? I’d say none.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    At least one.

    BTW your question is beside the point.

    Fuck it, I give up.

    A equals B.

    I love big W.

    There’s real torture, that is really happening, but the important thing is that there should be no frivolous lawsuits about things which are not quite torture according to some people.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    I didn’t vote for, nor do I “love”, the W of which you speak. Your insults are non-productive. Save them for the enemy: Reps and Dems.

    These days, being “anti-war” lands you in the same category as the Mother Sheehans and other unhinged idiots. Is there such a thing as a non-liberal anti-war group? Like it matters, reference above.

    But the reason I brought up the subject wasn’t to get into a “who’s more libertarian” dick-waving match slash “purity” tribunal; it was to point out that SOME people DO consider the trivial, non-physically/mentally harmful stuff *just as bad* as the traditional “torture” definition. THOSE people tend to be candy-assed, whiny liberals. I no more want to be a part of them than I want to be a part of the far-right. Neither of these groups will ever give a damn about American soverignty or our liberty.

    Dems would send troops to Darfur if they win. *Another* war. Repubs got us into *THIS* war. Nothing will change but the “where” and “who sent them there”.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    “Even worse, the thought of Hillary Clinton makes them wet their panties.”

    Jeez, Tom… the thought of a Marxist as commanderess-in-chief should make ANYONE wet their panties. And not in a good way. She’s the 180-degree version of Bush on the bad-for-America scale.

    Honestly, why are we collaborating with Democrats? All the old-school ones are either dead or out of office, leaving the socialist dregs like Schumer and Boxer and Pelosi to carry the hammer’n’sickle banner. Associating with that lot is pretty much as evil as siding with Republicans.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    These days, being “anti-war” lands you in the same category as the Mother Sheehans and other unhinged idiots. Is there such a thing as a non-liberal anti-war group? Like it matters, reference above.

    Only in the minds of knee-jerk reactionary right-wingers who support the MCA, PATRIOT Act, torture, renditions, data mining, warrantless searches, war profiteering, and the perpetual war on terror against an imaginary caliphate.

    Libertarians SHOULD have been a non-liberal anti-war group, but too many, like you LG, have the perception that to be anti-war and pro-civil rights makes you an unhinged idiot. Instead, fearful of alienating the very people who support the war and huge govt intrusions, many libertarians turned the other way.

    I wonder why you, LG, think I’m collaborating with Dems as you seem to worry more about criticisms from right-wingers than right or wrong. After all, the Dems have gone along with this madness, despite the right-wing spin otherwise.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    The “purity” debate is a canard. This red herring is pulled out everytime by liberals and conservatives alike whenever somebody makes a solid libertarian argument on any issue. The problem stems from black and white thinking and the inability to see beyond “left” and “right”.

    There is a difference between libertarians, conservatives and liberals. Libertarianism is not a little conservatism plus a little liberalism. Nor is it some right-wing subculture. The LP has attempted to recruit conservatives for years on tax cuts and gun rights. Unfortunately they have had too much success because they now have large numbers of disgruntled Republicans who came to the LP because the GOP wasn’t conservative enough for them.

    This enabled the opportunists at LPHQ to pay their rent at the Watergate, but wound up transforming the LP into an incoherent hodge podge of unprincipled political nonsense.

    Oh yeah, it hasn’t won any elections either.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Finally, LG, explain to us why you support humiliating detainees. The overwhelming majority of these people have been innocent. What purpose does it serve to detain these people and abuse them? It costs time and money, it alienates people who we don’t want to become insurgents, it hurts our position politically where we are trying to win the peace, it degrades our own people, it does not produce useful information, in short, it is a waste of time and resources – plus it is counterproductive.

    It seems you support this foolishness only because some liberals oppose it. This may play well among your redneck idiot pals, but it is bad policy. Like a bully on the playground, you might find this behavior emotionally satisfying, but no serious people support humiliating prisoners. It is kid stuff. It is bigotry. It displays to the world the level to which America has sunk.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    “the perception that to be anti-war and pro-civil rights makes you an unhinged idiot”

    *I* don’t make that distinction… THEY do. And I don’t want to be associated with it, Tom. And I’m not saying you’re actively courting the liberals, but aiding them won’t help us OR get us out of Iraq a damn bit quicker. They’re like the snotty kids in the back of the station wagon – “Are we out yet? I’m hungry, gimme sumpthin’! You’re mean!” But, that’s liberals for you.

    But then you swerve right back into the silly equating of humiliation and out-and-out torture. It makes you sound like one of those whiny hand-wringers.

    If you think liberals will do US any favors if we scratch their backs, read (or re-read) Richard Poe’s “Hillary’s Secret War”. She wanted gov’t to be the Internet gateway – and if her and her kind gain power, boards like this won’t exist, and we won’t be arguing needlessly.
    Let me be clear: I don’t want us there anymore than YOU do, Tom. I won’t retype that.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    BTW, I don’t hang out with rednecks. You have to go farther south of my area to find those, and Arkansas is a comfortable 70+ miles away.

    Why don’t I give a damn about humiliation? Because it sounds like politically-correct bullshit you hear from Dems who use the phrase “it’s for the children/greater good/et cetera”. It defines REAL torture *down*, cramming them together like they were on the exact same “evilness” level.

    My compassion levels are arranged thus: My family and loved ones; my fellow American citizens; those around the world who are friendly or at least aren’t enemies. Beyond that, I give a shit. We got dragged into this war on a pretense (one of several) of “saving the world”; it’s US we need to save first. We collapse, the world rushes in and picks our bones clean.

    So, once we DO get out, we need to stay the hell home. And here YOU thought I was a war-monger.

    BTW, I’ve heard the same arguments on DU. And they are as dangerous as right-wingers. Bad juju both ways.

  • http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com The Libertarian Guy

    Almost didn’t catch this in my haste:

    “why you support humiliating detainees”

    I don’t support it OR actual torture; I make a clear distinction between the two, the latter of which I give NO support thereof.

    Now… do something constructive, Tom and paulie, and post a link to a rational anti-war group. I’d appreciate it. We could get something done, instead of dickering over semantics.

    Say, Tom… now that I catch another snag, ‘splain this:

    “they now have large numbers of disgruntled Republicans”

    Wasn’t that pretty much the genesis of the LP? I mean, I was a kid when it started, so I don’t know, but it stands to reason it wasn’t a pack of disaffected socialist Dems who founded the party…

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, my neighbor just got a French poodle, and I’m gonna go over there and humiliate him over it. Or should he get Geneva protections from that as well?