Smurf said:Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.
I was merely pointing out that, on a non-US centered scale, no American president could ever be considered liberal or left-wing.loseyourname said:You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not someone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"
Smurf said:Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."
Yes. I am aware. I mean that, on a global scale, the US is among the most right-leaning nations in the world - passed mostly (or maybe exclusively) by dictatorships and developing nations.loseyourname said:You should be smart enough to know that that isn't the way the term is used in contemporary politics. If we went by the definition of classical liberalism, then Jefferson is the most liberal president we've ever had. In the US, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to denote people who are either left-leaning or right-leaning, with respect to what constitutes the center for the country, with "center" simply being the average political stance. It is something that changes with time, and it is also something that is a nation-specific definition.
Smurf said:Yes. I am aware. I mean that, on a global scale, the US is among the most right-leaning nations in the world - passed mostly (or maybe exclusively) by dictatorships and developing nations.
I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia... (except the "passed by dictatorships" part)
I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia
But then no argument would convince a Leftist, since his/her view of freedom is the ability to impose subjective judgements on others through government coercion.
Anttech said:Not true... Again you seem to think that if you believe in social justice, rather than "corporate Justice" then you are a communist..
That isn't to say that your position is wrong (I am assuming that you do believe social justice should be imposed by the government
Actually, America is the most liberal nation that has ever existed, the only country founded on the principles of individual liberty and the free pursuit of happiness.
I can. The UK. But only if you're forrun-lookin. That's not the law; that's just the practise. You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it. The UK is also not averse to renditioning prisoners to countries where torture is allowed to extract information, or keep them out of the way, just like (though not to the extent of) the US. In fact, one of those countries is... the US!Anttech said:I can't think of any other country in the EU that has... a clause that allows people to be detained indefinetly without a hearing or trial.
Total nonsence...I can. The UK. But only if you're forrun-lookin. That's not the law; that's just the practise. You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it. The UK is also not averse to renditioning prisoners to countries where torture is allowed to extract information, or keep them out of the way, just like (though not to the extent of) the US. In fact, one of those countries is... the US!
yes it looks like it, since the Brazilian got shot but legally they cannot do such thingsYou can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it.
The 2001 Anti-Terrorist act allowed the UK to, among other things, detain foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorist acts or plans without charge indefinitely, and this act has been called upon a number of times. Yes, this is against the European Convention on Human Rights. So how did Blair get around that? He... uh... opted the UK out of that part (article 5). Did you know any of this? The legislation to which you refer is not what I could possibly have been talking about, since it has not been implemented yet.Anttech said:The government of the UK is Trying to pass legislations to hold people without trail for 3 months (not indefinetly), which I doubt will get through!
... and subsequently forgot about. There's two separate issues here:Anttech said:It however Cannot currently deport people back to countries that have bad human rights records! This is government of EU Human Rights Law that the UK signed...
The home office and the met beg to differ. They maintain it IS legal.Anttech said:yes it looks like it, since the Brazilian got shot but legally they cannot do such things
UK Legislation
After much debate, the UK Parliament passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in December 2001.
The Act was intended to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to track terrorist funds and share information.
Most controversially, the Act grants the home secretary the power to detain suspected international terrorists without trial if deportation is not possible because it would endanger the suspects’ lives.
Since this provision violates Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, the home secretary had to assert that the UK is in a 'state of public emergency.' Article 5 guarantees the right to liberty and grants protection against detention without charge of trial.
In addition, communications companies will now have the power to retain information on calls and emails made by their customers, though they will not be able to retain their contents.
Liberty, a human rights group, legally challenged Britain's anti-terror laws in July 2002, claiming they breach human rights. Amnesty International has similarly asserted that the new laws breach fundamental human rights.
In total, 17 men have been arrested and held without trial in the UK under the new laws. Of these, 11 are still being detained.
Most are being held at Belmarsh Prison in London, which some human rights groups have termed “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay.”
Home Secretary David Blunkett has admitted that the situation is not ideal, but argues that it is necessary and “the best and most workable way to address the particular problems we face.” But in August, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights called for an alternative to be found to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act’s internment powers, and said suspected terrorists should be charged and face trial rather than left in legal limbo.
However, just two detainees have so far successfully challenged their detention, with three Appeal Court judges deciding in August the government was legally entitled to hold 10 other men who appealed. Solicitors are currently attempting to overturn this decision in the House Of Lords.
Anttech said:Actually I believe that the Legal system should "impose" this, not the "government" The two are not the same...
Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and government have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...
In a two party system like yours maybe...The modern-day liberal position is the opposite; it states that government should intervene in just about everything.
What country has a judiciary that is not part of the government?
What's brought out the threat of the presidential ax is recent legislation stating clearly that U.S. soldiers must not torture prisoners. The overwhelming (90-9) passage by the Senate of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's sponsored amendment says clearly that the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense was to be prohibited. The potential clash between the administration and Congress has received attention overseas - and was recently reported in the British paper, The Telegraph. According to the story, White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned that, "We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language [as has already been passed by the Senate]."
Anttech said:Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and government have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...
Anttech said:In a two party system like yours maybe...
Is your congress the government?
Social Justice not ethereal, its quite apartent if don't choose to ignore it... If the USA doesn't believe in "Social Justise" (Which to be honest I think the majorty of people in the US do) then does your nation believe in? Freedom to exploit at will?The very concept that government should be pursuing something as ethereal, vague, and ill-defined as "social justice" is anathema to the very principles of personal freedom (and responsibility) that the US stands for.
In Europe you operate basically under the opposite premise, thinking that the government can (and should) remedy every problem (real or imagined), and thus should be given ample authority to play around with citizens' lives as they see fit. A short name for that arrangement is authoritarianism (however democratic it may be).
Of course Europe is nothing but a long history of such projects, from pogroms, to state religions, to socialism, but America was founded by men fleeing from a government that would trample them for the pursuit of a "higher good".
pattylou said:McClellan makes it sound like Bush will actually veto this thing. OMG.
[In order to secure basic human rights], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security --
Anttech said:So the democrates who have been elected into congress, have no say in the legislation process? Thats what you are implying isn't it?
In the UK the government is the Labour party as they have the most seats in the house of commons. But all Bills, to become law have to pass through the above mention house. This is to say that the government does not MAKE laws, they propose Bills, then EVERYONE in the house votes on wheather they believe in the Bill or dont, Yah or Nah!
So to say that the government "imposed" Laws is not true...
Ivan Seeking said:I think it's time to start talking about impeachment. Conspiracy to commit torture is a high crime by any standard. I hope that most Americans would still agree.
ron damon said:would you have impeached Roosevelt for bombing Dresden?
Ivan Seeking said:I would have impeached Roosevelt or any President for instituting or refusing to deny torture as a policy of the US.
Worthless nonsense, besides being rather dishonest of your own attitude to torture.ron damon said:You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.
Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Would you rather have thousands of civilians die than subject some terrorist rat to torture?
arildno said:Worthless nonsense, besides being rather dishonest of your own attitude to torture.
In fact, you find it rather heartening that we now may start to inflict torture on the "bad guys", don't you? Or, should we perhaps, change that to hardening?