The Morality of Revolution

[Droopy]

Why can you not quote the message you're responding to? It's really not that difficult.

What did every dictator and petty god say?

Lehi

Huh?

[Droopy]

STS quoted mbh, to which I then responded. I was not at the time concerned regarding who replied.

[Droopy]

Droopy:

So said every dictator, and petty god that has ever benighted this planet.

Yes they have. But this is fairly irrelevant to this point, is it not? Might did, indeed, make right in the case of Hitler and Tojo. If you came home to find your wife or daughter being brutally raped, and you did serious violence to the perpetrator in order to stop the assault, would not might be making right in this case?

[thesometimesaint]

Droopy:

Such an action on my part would still be a wrong. However by law it is justifiable.

All the wrongs in the world combined can not make a correct statement.

[LeSellers]

Huh?

"thesometimessaint" never uses the "quote" feature of the board, preferring to confuse us by prepending the name of the author to whom he is responding, without any introduction to the material he posts.

It is most unsatisfactory. It often takes a lot of time and a great deal of effort to determine what the blue blazes he is talking about.

The message to which I responded, asking him what he was referring to was but an extreme example of the arcane style employed by our statist brother.

I quoted his use of your screen name because, when most of us mere mortals post, we don't have to explicitly identify the person to whom we respond (the quote frame header does that for us), he must, as he did there by typing out your name, assuming, I must suppose, that he is adequately connecting his answer to the original statement.

His method is even worse than that of those who merely manually enter the quote frame tags and paste the text in between them. At least then we can read the idea to which the following words are in answer, even if we cannot tell who wrote them and where they are.

Both create a high level of tension and confusion in the reader, especially this one.

Lehi

[notHagoth7]

That response was to this statement:

When a gov't nixes civil rights and spends trillions of dollars in response to a handful of terrorists.

This represents complete intellectual vacuity, in my view, and is insulting to any educated person of average intelligence. I have then chosen not to engage you any further on this subject (as it will end, I guarantee, in a locked thread).

Then don't engage.

But intellectual vacuity? I will certainly engage with such an enticing claim - in an issue as important as just government.

Problem #1: Questioning one's government somehow equates to intellectual vacuity. ??

(Captain Moroni sure didn't have qualms doing such a thing. If memory serves, his letter to Pahoran was pretty scathing.)

Problem #2) Meanwhile, one is supposed to simply sit back and be OK with a preemptive war, torture, holding prisoners for years without trial, offshore prison camps, military tribunals, trillions of dollars spent, and searching domestic homes and systems without either reasonable cause OR search warrants. ??

Those two foundation stones somehow hand you the intellectual high ground. ??

Or wrapping yourself in a flag somehow does likewise?

Seriously. How can one call either of those two approaches the beginning of responsible citizenry?

Or, if you don't want to engage on those points, feel free to explain why a supposedly representative gov't felt justified forcing taxpayers to pay for a mountain of immunizations they don't want and won't use. (To date, the French have said no thank you to over 94% of the immunizations their gov't purchased for them. [And that percentage isn't going to change much, since many of those immunizations have a January expiration date.])

[frankenstein]

If a "born again type" wants to pray over a school PA system at school games, if the local school system is OK with that, and if a majority of the kids there do not object, that's constitutionally their business,...

so according to your standard states should be able to force religion on others in violation of that persons conscience. that is exactly what the LDS scriptures speak against. The United States constitution was intended to prevent religion by force of government. as you would have it, the constitution is nothing more than ink on cow hide.

and praise God Almighty that I a nor anyone else is force to pray to a god they do not believe in...so say we all.

[Droopy]

Problem #2) Meanwhile, one is supposed to simply sit back and be OK with a preemptive war,

Hardly a new concept. Churchill advocated for it against Hitler in the mid-thrities before he became a fully mature threat.

torture,

Pure fantasy. Nothing approaching what any reasonable person would understand as "torture" ever occurred in our interrogation of terrorists taken on the battlefield or in the process of planning terrorist operations. Not a single incident has yet emerged justifying this claim.

holding prisoners for years without trial, offshore prison camps, military tribunals,

Perfectly legal and strategically necessary in time of war. Foreign nationals engaging in war and terrorism against another country, in this case, ours, have no legal rights whatsoever. Holding natural born citizens who commit crimes without trial would be a breach of the constitution. Holding foreign born enemy combatants (and terrorists aren't even that) under the same conditions has no connection to the former, as foreign combatants have neither legal standing in American criminal courts nor any of the legal protections offered by the Constitution to American civilian criminals.

searching domestic homes and systems without either reasonable cause OR search warrants. ??

I see you have not the remotest idea what you are talking about regarding the legal or practical aspects of the Patriot act and the warrentless information gathering program intended to prevent further 9/11s from happening on our own soil, so again, I'll just move on, as educating you here on the subject would doubtless be utterly futile.

Those two foundation stones somehow hand you the intellectual high ground. ??

Or wrapping yourself in a flag somehow does likewise?

Seriously. How can one call either of those two approaches the beginning of responsible citizenry?

The 9/11 truthers and anti-American leftists from whom you have derived your bizarre beliefs regarding the war on terrorism are not responsible citizens, but reckless, irresponsible demagogues and intellectual poseurs seeking the destruction of America and its political, social, and economic foundations.

Or, if you don't want to engage on those points, feel free to explain why a supposedly representative gov't felt justified forcing taxpayers to pay for a mountain of immunizations they don't want and

won't use. ]

One more time: the H1N1 scare was spread by the media and government, not by pharmaceutical companies.

[notHagoth7]

Amen to that. Is a republic really possible in such a large and factionalized empire?

Yes.

But in the age of technology, is there a good reason why legislators can't reside in (and telecommute out of) the district that elected them...the district whose will they're supposed to be representing?

[frankenstein]

Foreign nationals engaging in war and terrorism against another country, in this case, ours, have no legal rights whatsoever.

"We hold these to truths to be self evident THAT ALL..." any nation which based its foundation on the equality of all, yet selective applies it laws, is a nation of hypocrites destined for failure.and most certainly gleefully denying due process to these person is done primarily for two for the reason that there is insufficient evidence to convict the person for the crime they are accused of, second to engage in otherwise illegal activities and to instill a sentiment of less than human in the minds of the capture.

[Droopy]

"We hold these to truths to be self evident THAT ALL..."

The constitution, not the Declaration, is the supreme law of the land, and sets the legal parameters of our understanding of such matters as the treatment of civilian criminals and prisoners of war.

any nation which based its foundation on the equality of all, yet selective applies it laws, is a nation of hypocrites destined for failure.

We're not selectively applying them. Foreign enemy combatants have no legal standing in civilian courts and no constitutional rights at all. Those that we allow them are by our good graces, not by constitutional necessity.

and most certainly gleefully denying due process to these person

By logical and legal definition, foreign combatants have no due process rights, and never have previously.

is done primarily for two for the reason that there is insufficient evidence to convict the person for the crime they are accused of, second to engage in otherwise illegal activities and to instill a sentiment of less than human in the minds of the capture.

Foreign terrorists are not criminals, they are combatants engaged in war against the civilian population of another country.

I'm afraid your thought processes here are much, much too convoluted for any productive discussion to continue. Or, you and notHagoth7 could both just admit up front that you are philosophically speaking, on the side of our enemies, and do not wish to see your own country defend itself against them.

You believe they have a point and think that we have gotten what we deserve.

Coming clean always makes one feel better in the morning, trust me.

[frankenstein]

I believe that no matter how horrible a persons actions are they are still entitled to due process of law of the United States so long as the United States holds them in captivity. No amount of legal wrangling by a byu Law school graduate will change that.

on a different note since you feel it is appropriate for one religion to oppress another religion so long as a "majority" of the oppressors agree to it, there really is not longer any reason to engage you in this thread.

[notHagoth7]

Pure fantasy.

Depends on one's perspective.

Try being imprisoned indefinitely, without trial, unable to see family or friends for years on end, and see if that doesn't fit the general definition.

But I don't want to dwell too much on how a nation deals with its [alleged] enemies.

The thread is more about domestic issues.

One more time: the H1N1 scare was spread by the media and government, not by pharmaceutical companies.

Hmmm. The description of the tail wagging the dog apparently didn't make sense.

I'm guessing we disagree what it is that lobbyists do. What marketing funds go towards. And what executives of media conglomerates will accept payment for.

[thesometimesaint]

Droopy:

Yes, and the Constitution demands speedy and public trials for all defendants.

Fortunately the Supreme Court said they are entitled to their day in US court.

Not true we've successfully tried hundreds of thousands of foreign criminals in US courts.

A fiction perpetrated by the Bush Administration. They wanted a legal black hole to hide their criminal and disgusting behavior.

The US fought then tried in civilian criminal court the NAZI'S, and the thugs that controlled Imperial Japan, executing some and giving long prison sentences to others. We have over 300 convicted terrorists sitting in prison today, with not chance of escape or release any time soon, But YOU want to throw out centuries of American, and English legal tradition because 19 idiots with box cutters scared you.

[notHagoth7]

...feel free to explain why a supposedly representative gov't felt justified forcing taxpayers to pay for a mountain of immunizations they don't want and won't use.

I'm thinking of creating a product or service, and then lobbying Congress (and bringing the media in as a very vocal partner) to make a case for the gov't to buy every man, woman, and child at least one of my gizmos.

I'll print up hundreds and thousands of fliers and distribute them to schools and gov't entities, so they can post them on their walls as part of my marketing plan.

Better yet, I'll get the gov't to do all that printing/shipping for me.

Mebbe I'll call the firm Gaddeeandom Inc.

And mebbe each shipment will come with a nice flag, so people can wrap themselves in it to assure themselves that everything's peachy keen in the land of the free.

Better yet, I'll just ship to regional gov't centers - and then the people will have to come get the product and the flag for themselves. (That will save me a boatload of shipping money.)

Add: Oh, and as part of the spin, I'll make it seem so patriotic that everyone who denounces my rollout will be deemed unpatriotic.

And every mom and dad who speaks out against it will be denounced as irresponsible parents who don't love and care for their children.

[/tongue in cheek]

[notHagoth7]

Or, you and notHagoth7 could both just admit up front that you are philosophically speaking, on the side of our enemies, and do not wish to see your own country defend itself against them.

Balderdash.

Just continue snuggling up in that fleece flag.

And, for the record, I'm Canadian.

[handys003]

handys003 this is just an off handed question and I'm sorry it derails the thread. I know very little about Polynesian history. Someone told me the polynesians came from Asia. They don't look anything like Asians to me. I understand the founder effect associated with island populations but it still seems like a very interesting genetic story if we could ever unravel it.

Okay here you go I'm cuttin and pastin from MS works so the cat doesn't have a chance to sabotage again.

Okay so now your getting into a subject that is getting in heated debates throughout the Pacific. The views I express are from my Hawaiian relatives. One who is an anthropologist and a relative from a great , great, great grandfather who was a whaling Captain and married a local Hawaiian Alii

[rodheadlee]

Hey handy it only makes sense to me the migration followed the tradewinds. thanks for that post

[Droopy]

And, for the record, I'm Canadian

Oh, well that explains it...

[Droopy]

Yes, and the Constitution demands speedy and public trials for all defendants.

Yes, for American citizens who commit crimes in this country. Roll the dice gain STS.

Fortunately the Supreme Court said they are entitled to their day in US court.

As I suspected, you believe that what a few individuals in black robes thoroughly insulated from democratic accountability say the consititution says, must therefore be what the constitution says. I so suppose that it would be utterly futile to point out that the fact that this decision itself has no constitutional basis renders it ironic, to say the least, in any discussion of the general protections of domestic criminals who are American citizens within the Constitution (not to mention its terrifying idiocy).

Not true we've successfully tried hundreds of thousands of foreign criminals in US courts.

CFR, and, again, foreign terrorists have no constitutional, legal access to the American criminal justices system because first, they are not American citizens, and two, they are enemy combatants, not criminals. They are at war with us, not engaged in criminal activity.

A fiction perpetrated by the Bush Administration. They wanted a legal black hole to hide their criminal and disgusting behavior.

This kind of assertion is very frankly so devoid of intellectual seriousness as to literally scare me into near catatonia. This is terrifying for all those who love liberty, individual freedom, and peace. If a critical mass of the American people actually ever come to accept these kinds of navel gazing fantasies as legitimate, our days as a free, self governing, constitutional republic are at an end.

The US fought then tried in civilian criminal court the NAZI'S, and the thugs that controlled Imperial Japan, executing some and giving long prison sentences to others. We have over 300 convicted terrorists sitting in prison today, with not chance of escape or release any time soon, But YOU want to throw out centuries of American, and English legal tradition because 19 idiots with box cutters scared you.

As we further descend into the most unutterable vacuity, I can only remark that in a land and era in which vast oceans of knowledge, information, education, and wisdom are only a mouse click or public library away for literally any American; in a land bathed in educational institutions, organizations, think tanks, libraries, book clubs, diverse (at present) news and opinion media, and the Internet, that this kind of stupefying ignorance and anti-intellectualism can brazenly make its claims in the public square with a straight face leaves me numb with a kind of gut twisting horror for the future of the greatest experiment in liberty, self government, and human dignity in the history of human civilization (leaving aside Enoch's city and the Nephite's era of righteousness immediately following the the appearance of the Savior) such that it is well nigh inexpressible.

There is, indeed, no excuse for this kind of ignorance, and I do think that, ultimately, we will be held accountable, both for crying wolf when there is none, and for crying "All is well in Zion" when all is not well, and for crying "Peace" when there is no peace.

We have all been warned.

(as a side note, the Nuremberg trials, as the name implies, did not take place in the U.S., and the NAZIs there were tried for crimes against humanity, not civilian felonies. The appropriateness of such a trial, it should be noted, has been called into question (see Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot for a short critique)).

[Adamson2]

The Doctrine and Covenants 134, while by inference speaking of many rights, list two specfic rights that governments must protect, free exercise of conscience and the right and control of property. (v2)

It goes on to say that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming or every citizen protected in their "inherent and inalienable rights."

Reason would then dictate that the loss of the right to own and control property and severe limits on the freedom of religion would justify armed rebellion.

One point on the American Revolution. It was not a revolt to gain freedom, it was a war to maintain freedom. The colonies had long enjoyed near total automony. The Declaration of Independence is a list of specfic actions taken byt the British Crown to impose new limits of the colonies.

As I heard one British wit say, "The American Revolution was a war against a German King, supported by Hessian Troops, to preserve the rights of Free Englishmen.

[notHagoth7]

And, for the record, I'm Canadian.

Oh, well that explains it...

Yep. In the late 1800's, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights somehow didn't apply, my forefathers packed up their things, sold their land, and moved north across the border.

Were it not for that minor detail, I would be a US-born native.

So it does explain quite a bit.

And I really would like to naturalize some day.

I'm genuinely looking for sufficient cause to do so.

[LeSellers]

The US fought then tried in civilian criminal court the NAZI'S, and the thugs that controlled Imperial Japan, executing some and giving long prison sentences to others.

Actually, the Nuremberg Trials were not an USmerican production (albeit USmerica did play a major role).

The Soviet Union, Britain, and France all played their part along with us. In fact, we might see that Britain had the major part, since Roosevelt had died and Truman was new on the scene, while Churchill was still (but not for long) the Prime Minister. Stalin also weighed heavily in this affair.

The name of the the court that sat for the famous among these cases (there were many of these trials held under different courts) was the International Military Tribunal. It was not in the least a civilian court.

I again ask why you refuse to use the common (and courteous) etiquette of quoting the post to which you respond. It makes tracking your thought extremely difficult.

Lehi

[Droopy]

The Soviet Union, Britain, and France all played their part along with us.

Another of history's virtually unbearable ironies. Another "hinge of fate" for the 20th century.

[frankenstein]

As I suspected, you believe that what a few individuals in black robes thoroughly insulated from democratic accountability say the consititution says, must therefore be what the constitution says.

a 3 branch government is what God set up isn't it? Did God inspire the Constitution? the more you post on these matters the more afraid I am that people might actually agree with you.

for American citizens who commit crimes in this country

and that is where you are wrong again. United States Constitutional protections are not ONLY FOR US citizens...read about the 14th and 5th amendments and Due Process of Law...you will learn something, since as you are now you only have half the truth.

scare me into near catatonia. This is terrifying for all those who love liberty, individual freedom, and peace. If a critical mass of the American people actually ever come to accept these kinds of navel gazing fantasies as legitimate, our days as a free, self governing, constitutional republic are at an end.

quite right damned be the days when Americans regard everyone as a equal, and apply the same rights to all subject the jurisdiction of the United States....those days will surely be the downfall of the US. I must say it is a very interesting dichotomy that you would hold rights so inviolate only for your self, but then "your neighbor" is offer no protections in the least. do you know who your neighbor is?