If George W. Bush Started Arresting Peace Activists. . (1 Viewer)

[FinnMacCool]

Suppose it was discovered that President Bush was arresting peace activists and holding them in the name of counter terrorism without trial. Would you still support him?

 

[jamesrage]

Suppose it was discovered that President Bush was arresting peace activists and holding them in the name of counter terrorism without trial. Would you still support him?

Yes I think The U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act of 1917 should be re-enacted. I do not know about no trial it would proably be easier to have a trial and sentence them to twenty years.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Suppose it was discovered that President Bush was arresting peace activists and holding them in the name of counter terrorism without trial. Would you still support him?

Of course not (but I don't support him now, so maybe I'm not qualified to answer).

To protest the status quo is treason! Down with the dissidents! That school of thought really bothers me, and it seems the only justification for this sort of thing (considering how vaguely defined the scenario is, anyway; I assume they're being arrested simply because of what they are rather than for some specific crime they have committed).

Regardless of the circumstances, unless they're well and truly "enemy combatants" (a thing I'd hardly expect peace activists to be and one which, if true, would simply make them POW's rather than arrestees), it is totally unlawful to hold them without trial. No again. And again for good measure.

 

[MSgt]

Suppose it was discovered that President Bush was arresting peace activists and holding them in the name of counter terrorism without trial. Would you still support him?

Sure. Just like this whole exxagerated spy network, there would be a reason for it. I have a hard time believing that any President would just arbitrarily go around and arrest up and phone tap people with the draw of a straw. Could you be attemptiong to blur the line between captive Terror criminals who are not up for trials and a hypothetical American hippie incarceration?

Besides that..most "peace activists" are full of ****. I can say this because many of the politicians that voted to go to war against Saddam were "peace activists" during Vietnam.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Suppose it was discovered that President Bush was arresting peace activists and holding them in the name of counter terrorism without trial. Would you still support him?

No, everyone deserves a fair trial, we start becoming what we are fighting against if we start locking people up without trial, and because of their views. Though people have been locked up before fo their views, but usually had a trial, not saying they were fair though...... But people need an actual crime to commit, not just anti-terror crap.

But maybe its just because I dislike this president.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Sure. Just like this whole exxagerated spy network, there would be a reason for it. I have a hard time believing that any President would just arbitrarily go around and arrest up and phone tap people with the draw of a straw.

With all due respect, might not this attitude be a little too trusting? There was no reason for, say, Nixon's buggings, right? That proves that presidents are fully capable of doing illegal things that do not in any way benefit the American public, surely? And for the exact opposite reason of "for the common good."

Besides that..most "peace activists" are full of ****. I can say this because many of the politicians that voted to go to war against Saddam were "peace activists" during Vietnam.

Does a peace activist have to be a "militant pacifist?" Can not he be opposed to only one particular war? I am against what we are doing in Iraq, but I readily admit that armed conflict will sometimes, under other circumstances, be necessary.

Too, why does the sincerity of peace activists matter? They have a right to protest war whether they really believe it is wrong or not.

 

[MSgt]

With all due respect, might not this attitude be a little too trusting? There was no reason for, say, Nixon's buggings, right? That proves that presidents are fully capable of doing illegal things that do not in any way benefit the American public, surely? And for the exact opposite reason of "for the common good."

It definately can be. I'm kind of sitting at an advantage point.

Does a peace activist have to be a "militant pacifist?" Can not he be opposed to only one particular war? I am against what we are doing in Iraq, but I readily admit that armed conflict will sometimes, under other circumstances, be necessary.

No. Many pretend to be and use hypocritical slogans as their cries. I call them dishonest protesters.

Too, why does the sincerity of peace activists matter? They have a right to protest war whether they really believe it is wrong or not.

It matters a great deal. Would you say the sincerity of a voter matters? What if he doesn't even care, but casts a vote for a rival politician merely because that's what his friend wanted him to do? Does his sincerity matter now? We see this in Colleges across the nation. Kids protesting for the sake of protesting, yet haven't a clue what they are talkng about. More "dishonest" protesters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Suppose it was discovered that President Bush was arresting peace activists and holding them in the name of counter terrorism without trial. Would you still support him?

Thats depends entirely on the circumstances.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

It definately can be. I'm kind of sitting at an advantage point.

Disadvantages have to be weighed too, though. Are you willing to assume that all politicians (or at least all who win the presidency) are honest?

It matters a great deal. Would you say the sincerity of a voter matters? What if he doesn't even care, but casts a vote for a rival politician merely because that's what his friend wanted him to do? Does his sincerity matter now? We see this in Colleges across the nation. Kids protesting for the sake of protesting, yet haven't a clue what they are talkng about. More "dishonest" protesters.

To cast the vote is his right, and his motive matters not. Likewise protesting. If proper motive becomes a prerequisite for the exercising of a right, suddenly it is not a right anymore. How can you justify stripping people of their freedoms? In many ways, but never by saying you disagree with the reason for their actions. To call that a legitimate argument is to call even the most essential liberties not freedoms but the indulgences of the majority or the ruling class, things of no real importance because they have no permanence (i.e., they can be taken away at will, destroyed if they are used in a disagreeable way).

Too, I think maybe you give college students too little credit. I could be wrong, but there it is.

 

[Navy Pride]

If they break the law then arrest them..Otherwise ignore them and like Cindy Sheehan they will go away...........

 

[MSgt]

Disadvantages have to be weighed too, though. Are you willing to assume that all politicians (or at least all who win the presidency) are honest?

They're as honest as the next guy, but sometimes, doing what is necessary doesn't always involve complete honesty. Nor does it always involve "right and wrong." This is life and this is government. Protecting your "rights" involve less than honorable means at times.

To cast the vote is his right, and his motive matters not. Likewise protesting. If proper motive becomes a prerequisite for the exercising of a right, suddenly it is not a right anymore. How can you justify stripping people of their freedoms? In many ways, but never by saying you disagree with the reason for their actions. To call that a legitimate argument is to call even the most essential liberties not freedoms but the indulgences of the majority or the ruling class, things of no real importance because they have no permanence (i.e., they can be taken away at will, destroyed if they are used in a disagreeable way).

Who said anything about stripping freedoms? You do realize you are attempting to grandstand on an hypothetical, extreme situation and are mostly speaking common sense gibberish?

Too, I think maybe you give college students too little credit. I could be wrong, but there it is.

Most College kids would rally to save the "Pink Talking Snail" if that was the fad. Were it not for Iraq, they would protest something else. Colleges are notorious for fabricated dissention.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

They're as honest as the next guy, but sometimes, doing what is necessary doesn't always involve complete honesty. Nor does it always involve "right and wrong." This is life and this is government. Protecting your "rights" involve less than honorable means at times.

My whole point was that sometimes the actions of the president- of government in general- have nothing to do with the rights of Joe Citizen save for infringing upon them. Sometimes government just wants to be more powerful. I understand the necessity of negotiating compromises with your own values, as Golda Meir put it, but this is far too big a concession to make. Absolute trust in the president? In all presidents? I think not.

To cast the vote is his right, and his motive matters not. Likewise protesting. If proper motive becomes a prerequisite for the exercising of a right, suddenly it is not a right anymore. How can you justify stripping people of their freedoms? In many ways, but never by saying you disagree with the reason for their actions. To call that a legitimate argument is to call even the most essential liberties not freedoms but the indulgences of the majority or the ruling class, things of no real importance because they have no permanence (i.e., they can be taken away at will, destroyed if they are used in a disagreeable way).

Who said anything about stripping freedoms? You do realize you are attempting to grandstand on an hypothetical, extreme situation and are mostly speaking common sense gibberish?

All due respect, but I do not think that I am grandstanding at all. Peaceful assembly is a constitutional right; freedom of speech and fair trial likewise. To imprison peace activists solely because of what they are (as I suggested, in writing, to be the reason for the arrests in my earlier post) and to not give them trial directly denies three constitutionally-given rights; the only quibble can be over the defining of "strip" as "take away." The bit on voters was merely me running with the metaphor you put forward; if it is common sense, how can you disagree with it? What you quoted me as saying was a refutation of your argument, was it not?

The whole situation (reasonless imprisonment of peace activists) is by its very nature extreme (for today). Forgive me, but I don't think I went any further "out there" than the original hypothetical itself goes.

Most College kids would rally to save the "Pink Talking Snail" if that was the fad. Were it not for Iraq, they would protest something else. Colleges are notorious for fabricated dissention.

War in Iraq is a fad? Freedom of speech is a fad? Are you saying that, save for the problems in Iraq, people should just be content with the world? Should not try to change it?

If the founding fathers had taken that view, there would never have been a Revolution. "Ah, it's just taxes, Mr. Henry. Deal with it."

 

[Billo_Really]

Why don't he just collect them all at Kent State and.......

 

[MSgt]

My whole point was that sometimes the actions of the president- of government in general- have nothing to do with the rights of Joe Citizen save for infringing upon them. Sometimes government just wants to be more powerful. I understand the necessity of negotiating compromises with your own values, as Golda Meir put it, but this is far too big a concession to make. Absolute trust in the president? In all presidents? I think not.

Who's claiming otherwise?

All due respect, but I do not think that I am grandstanding at all. Peaceful assembly is a constitutional right; freedom of speech and fair trial likewise. To imprison peace activists solely because of what they are (as I suggested, in writing, to be the reason for the arrests in my earlier post) and to not give them trial directly denies three constitutionally-given rights; the only quibble can be over the defining of "strip" as "take away." The bit on voters was merely me running with the metaphor you put forward; if it is common sense, how can you disagree with it? What you quoted me as saying was a refutation of your argument, was it not?

I didn't disagree with it.

War in Iraq is a fad? Freedom of speech is a fad? Are you saying that, save for the problems in Iraq, people should just be content with the world? Should not try to change it?

For many in College, protesting is a fad...no matter what the subject.

If the founding fathers had taken that view, there would never have been a Revolution. "Ah, it's just taxes, Mr. Henry. Deal with it."

The difference being a "Revolution" versus some College kids enjoying their college moment.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Who's claiming otherwise?

You, no? You said:

sometimes, doing what is necessary doesn't always involve complete honesty.

That makes no allowances for people in government disregarding their duty to Joe Citizen entirely for the sake of their own personal advancement, so I made the assumption that you didn't think it was an issue. You agree with me, then? Sorry I misunderstood.

--

I didn't disagree with it.

Er... I think you did, actually:

Who said anything about stripping freedoms? You do realize you are attempting to grandstand on an hypothetical, extreme situation and are mostly speaking common sense gibberish?

--

For many in College, protesting is a fad...no matter what the subject.

And do you think those who just want to rebel have the gumption and the drive to organize the protests, take care of the administrative work, draw up the legal documents, and pass around petitions? Some yell at each other in loud, righteously indignant voices without meaning to do anything, yes. But if they are all so shallow and shiftless, how does the serious work get done?

--

The difference being a "Revolution" versus some College kids enjoying their college moment.

Come on, now. Is protesting, say, the growth of governmental power any less serious than protesting its existence in final, "tyrannical" form? Does the situation have to be irreversibly screwed up before we can complain?

I don't deny that some are being morons, seeking attention. But some of them really are concerned, and in many case I'd say with good cause.

 

[MSgt]

You, no? You said:



That makes no allowances for people in government disregarding their duty to Joe Citizen entirely for the sake of their own personal advancement, so I made the assumption that you didn't think it was an issue. You agree with me, then? Sorry I misunderstood.

--



Er... I think you did, actually:



--



And do you think those who just want to rebel have the gumption and the drive to organize the protests, take care of the administrative work, draw up the legal documents, and pass around petitions? Some yell at each other in loud, righteously indignant voices without meaning to do anything, yes. But if they are all so shallow and shiftless, how does the serious work get done?

--



Come on, now. Is protesting, say, the growth of governmental power any less serious than protesting its existence in final, "tyrannical" form? Does the situation have to be irreversibly screwed up before we can complain?

I don't deny that some are being morons, seeking attention. But some of them really are concerned, and in many case I'd say with good cause.

1) So you equate me saying that "doing what is necessary does not always allow for complete honesty" to it's OK to arbritarily infringe upon rights? Laughable.

2) So you equate me saying that "most College Protesting is mere fad" as me saying that we should strip their rights to enjoy such fad? Laughable.

3) So you equate me saying that "most protesters in colleges are following a fad" to "all" protesters in College is following a fad? Laughable.

Not too good at this are you? I think you're just argumentative. Shall I make assumptions now too?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Look. I like laughing as much as the next guy, but I'm not laughing about this. I'm perfectly serious.

1) So you equate me saying that "doing what is necessary does not always allow for complete honesty" to it's OK to arbritarily infringe upon rights? Laughable.

I said that you did not accout for the president acting on other motives than the betterment of the American people. I did not mean that I thought you were for the creation of a dictatorship; I meant that you did not, so it appeared to me, consider the possibility of abuse of power. I fail to see the humor in that.

2) So you equate me saying that "most College Protesting is mere fad" as me saying that we should strip their rights to enjoy such fad? Laughable.

You dismiss what you describe as fad; I merely defended it and those who are responsible for it in suggesting that there are enough doing work that those who aren't need not necessarily be the "most" to which you referred. My defense does not mean you are for the abolition of the thing, does it? You said it, not I. In this, too, I fail to find any humor.

3) So you equate me saying that "most protesters in colleges are following a fad" to "all" protesters in College is following a fad? Laughable.

No. But you dismissed protesting itself as a fad, did you not? It takes itself seriously, as do those who make it tick. Sorry, but I'm not really laughing at this, either. Maybe my sense of humor is off?

Not too good at this are you? I think you're just argumentative. Shall I make assumptions now too?

I never claimed to be good at this; you have already made that assumption. That I am argumentative, I would call an assumption as well... but being as I'm no good at this debating thing, I would hate to have to argue the point with you.

 

[MSgt]

Look. I like laughing as much as the next guy, but I'm not laughing about this. I'm perfectly serious.



I said that you did not accout for the president acting on other motives than the betterment of the American people. I did not mean that I thought you were for the creation of a dictatorship; I meant that you did not, so it appeared to me, consider the possibility of abuse of power. I fail to see the humor in that.



You dismiss what you describe as fad; I merely defended it and those who are responsible for it in suggesting that there are enough doing work that those who aren't need not necessarily be the "most" to which you referred. My defense does not mean you are for the abolition of the thing, does it? You said it, not I. In this, too, I fail to find any humor.



No. But you dismissed protesting itself as a fad, did you not? It takes itself seriously, as do those who make it tick. Sorry, but I'm not really laughing at this, either. Maybe my sense of humor is off?



I never claimed to be good at this; you have already made that assumption. That I am argumentative, I would call an assumption as well... but being as I'm no good at this debating thing, I would hate to have to argue the point with you.

What's laughable is your ability to assume three completely different viewpoints as opposed to simply accepting what is written. Here is an example of one....

I said......
"Most College kids would rally to save the "Pink Talking Snail" if that was the fad. Were it not for Iraq, they would protest something else. Colleges are notorious for fabricated dissention."

You replied.....
"War in Iraq is a fad? Freedom of speech is a fad?"

Where did I say that "War is a fad" and where did I say that "freedom of speech is a fad?" You're being argumentative. Best to quit while you're ahead.

 

[FinnMacCool]

If protesting is a fad, then fighting terrorism is certainly a fad! Just look at all those college kids who want to nuke the middle east and throw Arabs into prison camps!

 

[MSgt]

If protesting is a fad, then fighting terrorism is certainly a fad! Just look at all those college kids who want to nuke the middle east and throw Arabs into prison camps!

Uh-oh. Another one.

Honest protesting is not a fad. Dishonest protesting is. College campuses are notorious for dishonest protest. For many of them, protesting, is a fad.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Uh-oh. Another one.

Honest protesting is not a fad. Dishonest protesting is. College campuses are notorious for dishonest protest. For many of them, protesting, is a fad.

Wow have you spoken to any college students recently? HAve they said, "Hey guys, lets go to the big protest today! Should be fun!"

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

What's laughable is your ability to assume three completely different viewpoints as opposed to simply accepting what is written. Here is an example of one....

I said......
"Most College kids would rally to save the "Pink Talking Snail" if that was the fad. Were it not for Iraq, they would protest something else. Colleges are notorious for fabricated dissention."

You replied.....
"War in Iraq is a fad? Freedom of speech is a fad?"


Where did I say that "War is a fad" and where did I say that "freedom of speech is a fad?" You're being argumentative. Best to quit while you're ahead.

If all I could do were to accept what you had written, any debate between us would go like this:

You: college kids will do anything for a fad, up to and including protesting [insert sleight against talking pink snails]. They really would.
Me: would not!
You: would too!
Me: would not!
[ad infinitum]

Think about the obvious implications of what you say. In any statement, there's more than simple words.

My logic, if you wist to see it:

You say that (most) college students rally 'round anything that is popular; you quote yourself in this post.
Implication: (most) protests begun by college students are frivolous activities built on the popularity of the "fad."
Information: there are ongoing college protests against many things, amongst them armed conflicts and supposed infringement on first-amendment rights. These outnumber the protests against the destruction of the habitat of pink talking snails.

Therefore, we arrive at either

Logical conclusion #1: protests against armed conflicts and supposed infringement on first-amendment rights are frivolous.
or
Logical conclusion #2: the majority of college students protest real problems.

 

[MSgt]

Wow have you spoken to any college students recently? HAve they said, "Hey guys, lets go to the big protest today! Should be fun!"

Sure. There are two campuses near here that throw keggers afterwards. My former sis-in-law loved attending any sort of protest. I guess if I had an example, then I am supossed to be right? Maybe you'll go to college soon. You'll see for yourself. make your own conclusions as I have.

 

[MSgt]

If all I could do were to accept what you had written, any debate between us would go like this:

You: college kids will do anything for a fad, up to and including protesting [insert sleight against talking pink snails]. They really would.
Me: would not!
You: would too!
Me: would not!
[ad infinitum]

Think about the obvious implications of what you say. In any statement, there's more than simple words.

My logic, if you wist to see it:

You say that (most) college students rally 'round anything that is popular; you quote yourself in this post.
Implication: (most) protests begun by college students are frivolous activities built on the popularity of the "fad."
Information: there are ongoing college protests against many things, amongst them armed conflicts and supposed infringement on first-amendment rights. These outnumber the protests against the destruction of the habitat of pink talking snails.

Therefore, we arrive at either

Logical conclusion #1: protests against armed conflicts and supposed infringement on first-amendment rights are frivolous.
or
Logical conclusion #2: the majority of college students protest real problems.

Look simpleton, I have no desire in "debating" with someone who is just merely looking for an argument. College students go where the crowd is. College students do what their friends do. College is just a step up from High School. This is a long lasting fact that has existed for decades. This is not a notion of my design and I am sorry if that knowledge broke your heart for any aspirations for joining some great wave of ideology one day that barely exists. Maybe when you get to College they will be still be protesting "Save the Whale," or "Save the Rain Forest," or "Save the garden Gnome," "Morning After Pill Plan," etc. I'm sure there will be hundreds for you to choose from. Iraq won't last forever and the fad will choose a different topic.

Enjoy a taste of what your not grasping....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895617/posts

Welcome to the real world of college protesting.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Sure. There are two campuses near here that throw keggers afterwards. My former sis-in-law loved attending any sort of protest. I guess if I had an example, then I am supossed to be right? Maybe you'll go to college soon. You'll see for yourself. make your own conclusions as I have.

I don't doubt that its true for some but your conclusions are based on how you viewed the whole thing. I don't mean to generalize but your a soldier so that should speak for itself.

In order to make change, it has always been the young people that had to do actually do something. While the older folks sat idly around, it was the college students that went to war and protested. For good or for bad, that is how its always been. Every generation has had to do something like this. It can only be done at a young age for once you get older, the idealism of youth slowly die away with time. Followers were always the face of protestors and soldiers. The leaders were perhaps the one who really cared but no light was given on them. On the whole, each and every one of them was affected by their times and, as humans are made to conform, they would choose a side.

But basically what I'm trying to say is that protesting, at its core, is generally not dishonest, even if they have followers that are idiots.