Collective rights

Originally posted by whodey
Feel free to hijack my thread FMF by making this all about Whodey

It was you who attempted to make it about me at the top of page 3 with your facile comments about large sodas and me supposedly wanting to increase government power and deprive you of due process when detained.

Originally posted by whodey
If a civilian court were to prove that he was engaged with foreign powers to attack the citizenry, then they have a point. I think that actively engaging in war against the citizenry would be a basis for revoking ones citizenship.

I thought you were against removing due process?

I am not an expert, but isn't revoking citizenship under these circumstances forbidden by your 14th Amendment?

Originally posted by FMF
I thought you were against removing due process?

I am not an expert, but isn't revoking citizenship under these circumstances forbidden by your 14th Amendment?

I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that if you are actively engaged in war against the country then the legalities change a bit.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that if you are actively engaged in war against the country then the legalities change a bit.

The 14th Amendment mentions only two circumstances in which citizenship can be revoked and committing what are seen as treacherous crimes is not one of them. It's interesting to note how your instincts and off the cuff assumptions appear to overlap to some degree with the thinking of the authors of the NDAA. Then again, you only changed your mind in 2008. Perhaps it takes a while to get familiar with what your post-2008 fundamental principles actually are.

Originally posted by FMF
The 14th Amendment mentions only two circumstances in which citizenship can be revoked and committing what are seen as treacherous crimes is not one of them. It's interesting to note how your instincts and off the cuff assumptions appear to overlap to some degree with the thinking of the authors of the NDAA. Then again, you only changed your mind in 2008. Perhap ...[text shortened]... it takes a while to get familiar with what your post-2008 fundamental principles actually are.

My principles are just fine. It sure beats the progressive icon FDR who locked up innocent Japanese Americans or Obama who is willing to forgo due process for those he assumingly represents. As I said, if citizens have joined enemies of the US and are actively fighting against them, then they obviously no longer recognize the US government as being an authority over them.

Moreover, if I were placed in a position of authority to determine the fate of such individuals, I would uphold their Constitutional rights, no matter my opinions on such matters, instead of either being willfully ignorant of their Constitional rights or willfully violating my oath to uphold the Constitution as FDR and Obama did.

Now crawl back under your progressive rock FMF.

Originally posted by whodey
Now crawl back under your progressive rock FMF.

Like I said, I condemned these powers we've been discussing long before you did and continue to condemn them now that they have been codified. If this support of mine for individual rights is "progressive" to you, then that is a matter for you and your personal terminology. If you think people who were condemning something that you did not start condemning until 2008 come from under "a rock" of some kind, then I suppose you have to call it how you see it.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said, if citizens have joined enemies of the US and are actively fighting against them, then they obviously no longer recognize the US government as being an authority over them.

You sound like you would have fitted in nicely with the people drafting the NDAA provisions. When did you start objecting to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2? Did you start objecting to it in 2008 like this other stuff?

Originally posted by FMF
You sound like you would have fitted in nicely with the people drafting the NDAA provisions. When did you start objecting to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2? Did you start objecting to it in 2008 like this other stuff?

Would you think that changing one's mind if wrong is a good thing?

Originally posted by normbenign
Would you think that changing one's mind if wrong is a good thing?

Of course. I welcome whodey's change of mind in this matter. And he can try to issue his swaggering little insults all he likes; it won't disguise the fact that he started a thread with a spiel about 'diminishing individual rights' and it turns out he'd instinctively diminish one of the key ones himself - one that he apparently didn't even realize Americans had. 🙂

Originally posted by normbenign
Would you think that changing one's mind if wrong is a good thing?

Staying open minded is very important. The only way out of the divisive two party system will require people to think for themselves, seek out truth, and be willing to be open minded.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course. I welcome whodey's change of mind in this matter. And he can try to issue his swaggering little insults all he likes; it won't disguise the fact that he started a thread with a spiel about 'diminishing individual rights' and it turns out he'd instinctively diminish one of the key ones himself - one that he apparently didn't even realize Americans had. 🙂

Clearly I don't like the insults. This is a small enough community, that though we may disagree on most things, we don't have to be disagreeable.

The matter of collective vs. individual rights is a ticklish, but important concept. I believe that every collective "right" violates the individual rights of some individuals. How could it be otherwise? Every collective is somewhat limited by whatever it takes to be a member. Those not members must suffer discrimination by not enjoying the same rights as members.

If everyone is a member, then the right can just as well be individual. That is everyone has it.

Originally posted by normbenign
Clearly I don't like the insults. This is a small enough community, that though we may disagree on most things, we don't have to be disagreeable.

whodey: "It sure beats the progressive icon FDR who locked up innocent Japanese Americans [...] Now crawl back under your progressive rock FMF."

I have thought the locking up of Japanese Americans during WW2 was wrong since I first heard about it and first started to think about such things for myself. So that's decades ago. Am I a "progressive" in this matter or "not a progressive"? whodey only changed his mind a few years ago. Does that make him a "progressive" pre-2008 in this matter or "not a progressive"? You're an American and you've said in the past you are impressed by whodey's posting. Maybe you can answer. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
whodey: [b]"It sure beats the progressive icon FDR who locked up innocent Japanese Americans [...] Now crawl back under your progressive rock FMF."

I have thought the locking up of Japanese Americans during WW2 was wrong since I first heard about it and first started to think about such things for myself. So that's decades ago. Am I a "progressive" in thi ...[text shortened]... e said in the past you are impressed by whodey's posting. Maybe you can answer. 🙂[/b]

I think the interment of Japanese Americans was and is scandalous.

I think I agree with some of whodey's view points, but not all of them. I frankly don't consider "progressive" to be very complimentary. The policies of American progressives included imperialism and racial determinism just to name a couple.

I would summarize whodey's general position as similar to my own, but we don't line up on every question. We both see some faults in both major political parties, and the system as generally broken. We both tend to be a bit contrarian, and to fight commonly accepted "truths" as we perceive them to be falsehoods. Whodey and I both tend to take flack from both sides because of this, and sometimes dish out criticism of each other.

Originally posted by normbenign
I think the interment of Japanese Americans was and is scandalous.

I think I agree with some of whodey's view points, but not all of them. I frankly don't consider "progressive" to be very complimentary. The policies of American progressives included imperialism and racial determinism just to name a couple.

I would summarize whodey's general posit ...[text shortened]... e flack from both sides because of this, and sometimes dish out criticism of each other.

So the locking up of Japanese Americans during WW2 was "progressive"?

Originally posted by FMF
So the locking up of Japanese Americans during WW2 was "progressive"?

It was done by a US President widely viewed as a "Progressive", FDR. Hardly progressive action, in my book. Evil and unnecessary, as pure a violation of civil rights as we have in the modern era. Probably worse than the original institution of slavery in the US, given the time and place.