----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: Re: Technique
> Dan wrote: > > > "If you accept what he writes as fact about Bush, would you also accept > > accusations about Clinton as fact?" > > It depends on weather or not what he writes is consistent with what we > already know about the person. I see a problem in this. The model of Bush that you have serves as a data filter. The filtered data is then used to support the model. > But lets examine what we know about the president and his attitude > towards the constitution, specifically the bill of rights and by > extension, human rights in general. Besides the Patriot Act whose > constitutionality is certainly questionable, There may be constitutional questions involved in the Patriot act, as well as Bush's overall action in response to 9-11, but the Supreme Court has yet to really weigh in on them. They have been given opportunities to weigh in strongly on the accuracy of Bush's interpretation of the Constitution and have deliberately treaded lightly. It is clear that there is some sentiment on the court that Bush has overstated his case, but it appears to me that the high court has indicated a preference that most of these issues be settled between the other two branches of government. This is in contrast to Richard Nixon and his claim of executive immunity concerning his secret tapes. The Supreme Court ruled quickly and decisively in that case. They have been dancing around Bush's actions including Gitmo and labling a citizen an enemy combantant. > wiretapping without a warrant, and his attempt to label citizens as enemy > combatants in order to deny them their rights. The wiretapping, from what I read, pushes executive power beyond it's real bounds and will probably end up being restrained by either Congress or the Supreme Court. >Concerning human rights we > have his propensity to authorize torture and to deport people to countries > where they can be tortured more vigorously and we have Guantanimo Bay > where he has imprisoned hundreds without the basic rights we afford our > own citizens. How does this affect one's view of the Constitution. > This all points to an unhealthy contempt for the constitution and the > rights of the people and makes the "piece of Paper" statement entirely > consistent with what we already know. > As for Clinton, we all know that his moral compas was a bit warped too. > Not consistantly pointing south, like the Bush version, but certianly a > tendancy to point west northwest on occaision. So again, if his sourced > accusations were consistant with what I _know_ about him then I would > assume that they are probably true. I see real difficulty with this. One has a model that is used to check the data. Data that matches the model are then used to support the model. Those data that contradict it are rejected as unreliable. That tends to immunize a model against falsification. Now, I realize we are not talking about something quite as black and white as the previous paragraph might indicate. Not all data are rejected because they don't fit the model. But, when data comes from uncertain sources, what you write indicates that you tend to check the data against your model as a means of accepting/rejecting the data. >From my perspective, this has a number of difficulties associated with it. First, I don't agree with the reasoning you give when you conclude that Bush doesn't care for the constitution. From other conversations, I think that there are underlying assumptions that are part of your model that are the source of our disagreement. I'm replying a bit disjointedly because I see things that are tied together in different parts of your post. So, let me reply at the end in one piece. Let me first address Clinton vs. Bush. Both practiced rendition. According to the ACLU, http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html <quote> Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition." The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. <end quote> This give at least some historical context to rendition, which I think is important. Indeed, when I look at statements that I've seen here describing Bush's actions as a horrendous danger to the nation, if not an unprecedented one, I think of historical precedents. Besides the Clinton example, we have: Massive spying within the US during the Cold War until Watergate. I know this was done under Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy, and I'm almost positive it was done under Eisenhower. Truman's attempt to single handedly nationalize the steel industry to prevent a strike during the Korean War. The internment of >100k Japanese-Americans in camps by FDR during WWII. The criminalization of criticism of the US during WWI. The massive infringements of liberties by Lincoln. I think that, in order to make a good comparison, one would have to make a reasonable assessment of the internal risks to the US in each of these instances (for example, I think the internal risks faced by Lincoln far outweighed all the others put together). Given such a calibration, we can then turn to historians understanding of the Constitutional views of these various presidents. The second context is contemporary: how do Bush's actions compare with the views of others. For example, do Americans consider his wiretapping to be justified or unjustified? Do Constitutional scholars and judges consider his views crazy, overstated, a little off but fairly accurate, or right on the money? My personal argument is that his administration does not represent a virtually unparallel attack on our Constitutional liberties. Rather, like other presidents before him, he has over-reacted and overstated the Constitutional authority of the executive. I differ with him on a number of points, but do not consider him a greater risk to the US than Iran, North Korea or AQ. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
