Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[Hermit]

The government may have enough credible evidence that an individual has sworn allegiance to ISIS (or some other clear indication of being a committed jihadist), without having enough evidence to obtain a conviction.

If the evidence is credible, there is enough of it to obtain a conviction. At best you are attempting to redefine the meaning of 'credible evidence'. Alternatively you are advocating extra-judicial incarceration. Both are rather right wing for someone who describes himself as a political moderate.

That's where preventive detention (which could well save future lives) is a reasonable option, as long as it is subject to judicial oversight and review...

You totally misunderstand the role of the judiciary, which is to ensure adherence to the laws that politicians make. Do you realise that the law is that people who are suspected of knowingly or unknowingly interacting with terrorists can be imprisoned, held incommunicado, and need not be told why they are held? The judiciary can only say "Yes, that person is being dealt with according to the law."

[NineBerry]

How can you say that!? If you cannot call JimC a moderate, then surely you couldn't call Erdogan a moderate either! And he is the democratically elected president of a moderate democratic republic!

[JimC]

The government may have enough credible evidence that an individual has sworn allegiance to ISIS (or some other clear indication of being a committed jihadist), without having enough evidence to obtain a conviction. That's where preventive detention (which could well save future lives) is a reasonable option, as long as it is subject to judicial oversight and review...

If the evidence is credible, there is enough of it to obtain a conviction. At best you are attempting to redefine the meaning of 'credible evidence'. Alternatively you are advocating extra-judicial incarceration. Both are rather right wing for someone who describes himself as a political moderate.

Finding the balance between defending against the attack of extremist terrorists and defending "liberties for all" calls for discernment, not automatic allegiance to politically correct leftist sentiment.

As long as Seth is calling me a marxist, I'm OK...

[Hermit]

How can you say that!? If you cannot call JimC a moderate, then surely you couldn't call Erdogan a moderate either! And he is the democratically elected president of a moderate democratic republic!

Please quote where I called Erdogan a moderate, or where I called Turkey a moderate republic.

[Hermit]

The government may have enough credible evidence that an individual has sworn allegiance to ISIS (or some other clear indication of being a committed jihadist), without having enough evidence to obtain a conviction. That's where preventive detention (which could well save future lives) is a reasonable option, as long as it is subject to judicial oversight and review...

If the evidence is credible, there is enough of it to obtain a conviction. At best you are attempting to redefine the meaning of 'credible evidence'. Alternatively you are advocating extra-judicial incarceration. Both are rather right wing for someone who describes himself as a political moderate.

Finding the balance between defending against the attack of extremist terrorists and defending "liberties for all" calls for discernment, not automatic allegiance to politically correct leftist sentiment.

Please check the edit to the post you are replying to.

[JimC]

Sorry, that doesn't worry me one bit. I can and will live with potential terrorists being inconvenienced, if it saves lives.

[Hermit]

Sorry, that doesn't worry me one bit.

I know. It's why your repeated assertions that you are politically a moderate are worth as much as similar assertions of all so-called centrists. When it comes down to tin tacks the lot of you can be relied on to side with the right.

[NineBerry]

Everyone is a potential terrorist. So the only chance to be safe is to kill all of us fuckers.

[Seth]

I mean, that pimply-faced juvenile chucking a wheelie at the traffic lights must be a prime suspect for wanting to kill an innocent mum pushing a pram to the corner shop, even though we can't prove it right at the moment. Let's throw him into a cell, tell him we can keep him there for as long as we like, don't let him have any access to lawyers or family and don't say why he is being held. Sooner or later he'll confess and we may have saved the lives of two law-abiding citizens. History proves it works all the fucking time.

I'm all for that when it comes to traffic scofflaws who endanger others. Even if it doesn't teach them anything, as a matter of public safety and sanitation they need to be removed from society.

"Libertarian"

"Marxist"

You don't even understand the logic of what's going on. You claim to be a libertarian, that's why I put it in air quotes. I don't claim to be a Marxist, so your reply is a total non sequitur, as is not infrequently the case with your replies.

One insulting non sequitur deserves another, "Marxist".

[Seth]

Now you're just being silly...

Reductio ad absurdem...

Yes, I was, but there is a valid point underlying the silliness: Terrorist menaces do not justify giving up human rights and freedoms, especially given the small scale of terrorism in western democracies.

They justify removing all human rights protections from the terrorists and their co-conspirators and enablers. It's called "the law of warfare."

How do you know they are terrorists if there hasn't been a trial?

By their actions. You see, when someone shouts "Allah ackbar" and starts waving a knife around or pulls a gun that identifies them as a terrorist, at which point the quickest person on the draw of the many in the vicinity who should be armed gets to shoot them dead. If you don't want to get shot dead, don't do stuff that leads people to a reasonable belief that their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm...like the numbnutz who walked into a bar with a backpack, climbed up on the bar and shouted "Allah ackbar", causing everyone to panic because they thought he was a suicide bomber. He wasn't, he was just a stupid fuck, but he should have, and legally could have been shot dead instantly by anyone with a gun.

If you act like a terrorist you get treated like a terrorist. Pretty simple really. As for co-conspirators and enablers, if you don't want to get a Hellfire stuffed up your ass, don't hang out with terrorists.

As I keep saying: "Libertarian". You are a massive Statist.

And you're a Marxist.

Your misunderstanding of Libertarianism is legendary. Nothing in Libertarianism prohibits Libertarians from using force in self defense. Indeed, Libertarians are encouraged to deal with initiations of force immediately and personally, thus saving time, trouble and money. That's why it's a bad idea to initiate force or fraud against a Libertarian. We don't wait around for the police to show up.

[Seth]

The government may have enough credible evidence that an individual has sworn allegiance to ISIS (or some other clear indication of being a committed jihadist), without having enough evidence to obtain a conviction. That's where preventive detention (which could well save future lives) is a reasonable option, as long as it is subject to judicial oversight and review...

I prefer preventive dispersion.

[Forty Two]

Obama and Hillary have no problem determining who a terrorist is without trial. Just ask them.

[Seth]

That's definitely an argument that can be had by non-ideological people. But when an alleged libertarian keeps siding with the state over the individual, all one can do is point out the hypocrisy with a "Libertarian"...

Except all you ever do is point out your willful ignorance and propagandistic mischaracterizations of Libertarianism.

And I'm not supporting the state over the individual, I'm advocating individuals dealing with instances of the initiation of force against them by Islamic terrorists themselves, immediately, without even expecting assistance from the state, so you're just wrong. The state can come clean up the mess.

[pErvinalia]

As I keep saying: "Libertarian". You are a massive Statist.

And you're a Marxist.

Wrong, as usual.

Your misunderstanding of Libertarianism is legendary. Nothing in Libertarianism prohibits Libertarians from using force in self defense. Indeed, Libertarians are encouraged to deal with initiations of force immediately and personally, thus saving time, trouble and money. That's why it's a bad idea to initiate force or fraud against a Libertarian. We don't wait around for the police to show up.

As usual, you can't seem to follow the flow of a thread. The conversation you barged in on with your uninformed wibble was discussing the State removing civil liberties. You either didn't follow what was going on (which is usually the case), or you did and you have been shown (yet again) to be sucking on the cock of the State over basic individual rights, something no libertarian would support.

[pErvinalia]

That's definitely an argument that can be had by non-ideological people. But when an alleged libertarian keeps siding with the state over the individual, all one can do is point out the hypocrisy with a "Libertarian"...

Except all you ever do is point out your willful ignorance and propagandistic mischaracterizations of Libertarianism.

And I'm not supporting the state over the individual, I'm advocating individuals dealing with instances of the initiation of force against them by Islamic terrorists themselves, immediately, without even expecting assistance from the state, so you're just wrong.

There's the answer. You can't follow the flow of a conversation. How are your remedial reading lessons going, chief? You might want to ask for a refund..