|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 7, 2014 10:38:45 GMT
I am not quite sure why you would imagine that an increase in taxes is required to bring in more revenue to the federal government. Although there is a point, beyond which, the continued lowering of taxes could, indeed, result in diminished revenues, the same is true of the continued raising of taxes. For instance, if the current 39.6 percent rate on top earners were reduced to, say, just five percent, that would surely result in less government revenue. But if it were increased to 90 percent--as was once the case--that, too, would result in decreased government revenue. The trick is to find the optimum balance. One need not march in lockstep with the Libertarian Party in order to be a small-"L" libertarian. (Even as regarding the Libertarian party, per se, it should probably be noted that Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket in 1988--just one year after having resigned from the Republican Party. But he has once again attached himself to the Republican Party--presumably, for entirely pragmatic reasons.)
A balanced budget requires that the revenues fund the authorized expenditures and our authorized expenditures exceed the revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. There is enough gross personal income in the United States to fund all of the authorized expenditures but the tax codes to not collect enough of the income to fund those expenditures and the primary reason for that is that those that can afford to pay the taxes are being taxed less than those that can't afford to pay the taxes. While we do have a 39.6% tax rate on "earned income" for the top 1% of income earners that only addresses some of those at the bottom of the 1% in income levels that starts at roughly $400,000/yr/household. Only about 1/2 of those with a $400,000/yr income have "earned income" and virtually no one with over $1 million/yr is deriving it from working but instead it's from investment taxed as "unearned income" at less than 1/2 that rate. Below are to attachments that show where the problem exists.
If all income was currently taxed the same we would probably have surplus revenues today as opposed to deficits but the truth is that the highest income households pay much lower tax rates because they have "unearned income" when compared to working Americans subjected to "earned income" tax rates.
Many politicans have many "libertarian" political beliefs and if we compared Sen Rand Paul with President Obama we'd probably find that President Obama holds more "libertarian" beliefs than Rand Paul. Yes, Ron Paul did temporarily leave the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian as did Bob Barr in 2008 but neither were actually "Libertarians" based upon a fundamental belief in the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. The differences I cited between Rand Paul's position on the issues are significant and not minor differences when it comes to libertarian political ideology. It is one thing to "agree in principle" but "oppose specific proposals" such as I noted in my comments on a couple of issues and to "oppose in principle" which is what Rand Paul's position represents.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 16:28:53 GMT
To assert that international courts are not "more objective or justice-prone" than American courts are, but that they are "certainly less bias[ed]," strikes me as an inherent contradiction. It may be true that International Law has set up the category of "illegal combatants." But I believe the US should consider terrorists precisely that, and act accordingly--irrespective of any establishment by "International Law." Some things that may have a good effect may arise from something that is not especially good. But I simply do not believe that the end justifies the means--ever. And I certainly do not believe that bin Laden should have been tried in an American court. I am not much of a fan of President Obama--and his continual crowing during the 2012 presidential campaign that "General Motors is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run"--became rather tedious, to say the least. But I am still very glad that bin Laden was killed.
You know I'm long-winded but I would ask you to read the following carefully as it addresses a serious matter worthy of concern related to the Constitution and laws of the United States and when the International Court of Criminal Justice should intervene.
There are cases of justice where a change of venue is necessary because a person cannot receive a fair trial or is not being prosecuted for a criminal offense. That can occur at the international level just as it can occur at the local level. Generally the jurisdiction of a nation's court take precendent but there are exceptions where the nation refuses to prosecute under it's own laws. That was the case with former President Bush that I will use as a case study but I would also note that I would address President Obama under the same criteria.
*****************************************
The Bush adminstration authorized the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" all of which violated Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113C › § 2340.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
All of the enhanced interrogation techniques were specifically designed to inflict severe pain and suffering that was outside of "pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" and were, by legal definition, forms of torture. While many state that "waterboarding" did not lead to death (ignoring that the US had convicted people of torture for waterboarding historically) they ignored that over 40 people had died subsequent to being subjected to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" and that eight of those cases were classified as homocides (i.e. murder) based upon the autopsy.
We must also note that Title 18 goes on to address that if a US national commits an act of torture anywhere on Earth that leads to death it is a capital offense that can warrant life in prison or the death penalty and that those that "conspire to commit" an act of torture are subject to the same punishment for the crime except they cannot be put to death.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340A
All of those that used the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were "US nationals" (e.g. CIA agents and/or members of the US military) and the President that authorized them (and the chain of command below him) were in violation of Title 18's prohibitions against the use of torture and all were acting "under the color of law" when they violated this statute. As noted in this statute it applied to offenses committed by US nationals outside of the United States and all of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were committed outside of the United States.
The problem was that it's the Department of Justice's responsibility to prosecute offenses under Title 18 but the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was a co-conspirator in the violation of the law. When the DOJ failed to prosecute there was recourse because the Congress has the authority to address "High Crimes and Misdomeanors" under the US Constitution but it failed to exercise jurisdiction to enforce the laws of the United States that were violated by the President and his subordinates.
A crime of the highest possible nature (i.e. murder caused by torture) that violated US statutory law and the United States failed to prosecute under the law. This same offense is a violation of International Law and only because the US failed to prosecute would the jurisdiction transfer to the International Court of Criminal Justice. Unfortunately for "criminal justice" the United States has veto power over that International Court of Justice that operates under the authority of the United Nations Security Council so justice has been denied to the victims of those that suffered torture and the few that were murdered by acts of torture committed at the order of the President of the United States.
You may disagree personally but the fact is that under US law torture was authorized by President Bush and murder was committed and justice has not been served.
BTW - In my opinion some of the greatest unsung heros of the War on Terrorism are those CIA agents that refused to employ the "enhanced interrogation techniques" because they violated US statutory law and the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. The orders they were given were "unlawful orders" and they had an obligation to refuse to comply with them. Instead of being raised to the highest level of honor for exemplifying the finest standards of conduct their careers have generally been destroyed because they followed the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Final Note: No, I don't believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al in the White House or the CIA agents that engaged in committing acts of torture, excluding those who's direct actions lead to murder, should have necessarily been sent to prison but instead they should have been convicted and their sentences commuted.
*****************************************
As for the prosecution of terrorists always remember that regardless of allegations and even when a criminal indictment exists there is always the presumption of innocense. We all "believe" that Osama bin Ladin was a "terrorist" but he was never convicted of any act of terrorism and, at best, we can only claim he was a "suspected terrorist" based upon allegations and the indictment. I'm not claiming he wasn't but only that it was never established based upon the Rule of Law where evidence establishes that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. There will always remain doubt as to whether bin Ladin actually violated any laws related to acts of terrorism as all we have is the "prosecutions" arguments. We do not assume guilt based upon allegations or indictments.
You mentioned that you didn't believe that bin Ladin should be tried in a US Criminal Court so where should he have been prosecuted for alleged acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism? I will note that I oppose the prosecution of suspected terrorists by a military tribunal at GITMO because members of the US military have an inherent bias. They are not representatives of the "average American" and do not represent a "jury of one's peers" that I believe is necessary for justice. Based upon comments from a top former FBI agent on Bill Mahar's show last year the FBI has successfully prosecuted about 200 terrorists in criminal courts since 2001 and there is no reason why terrorists cannot be prosecuted successfully in a US criminal court.
Even if you believe that former President George W. Bush and his subordinates were war criminals--a sentiment that I certainly do not share--why would you wish to subordinate American justice to an international tribunal? (I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see America compromise its sovereignty, irrespective of the rationale for it.) Yes, terrorists may be "successfully prosecuted" in American courts; but why should one desire this? To do so sends the signal that we believe these terrorists are mere criminals; and I believe no such thing. They are illegal combatants, engaged in warfare; and should be treated accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 16:40:41 GMT
I am not quite sure why you would imagine that an increase in taxes is required to bring in more revenue to the federal government. Although there is a point, beyond which, the continued lowering of taxes could, indeed, result in diminished revenues, the same is true of the continued raising of taxes. For instance, if the current 39.6 percent rate on top earners were reduced to, say, just five percent, that would surely result in less government revenue. But if it were increased to 90 percent--as was once the case--that, too, would result in decreased government revenue. The trick is to find the optimum balance. One need not march in lockstep with the Libertarian Party in order to be a small-"L" libertarian. (Even as regarding the Libertarian party, per se, it should probably be noted that Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket in 1988--just one year after having resigned from the Republican Party. But he has once again attached himself to the Republican Party--presumably, for entirely pragmatic reasons.)
A balanced budget requires that the revenues fund the authorized expenditures and our authorized expenditures exceed the revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. There is enough gross personal income in the United States to fund all of the authorized expenditures but the tax codes to not collect enough of the income to fund those expenditures and the primary reason for that is that those that can afford to pay the taxes are being taxed less than those that can't afford to pay the taxes. While we do have a 39.6% tax rate on "earned income" for the top 1% of income earners that only addresses some of those at the bottom of the 1% in income levels that starts at roughly $400,000/yr/household. Only about 1/2 of those with a $400,000/yr income have "earned income" and virtually no one with over $1 million/yr is deriving it from working but instead it's from investment taxed as "unearned income" at less than 1/2 that rate. Below are to attachments that show where the problem exists.
If all income was currently taxed the same we would probably have surplus revenues today as opposed to deficits but the truth is that the highest income households pay much lower tax rates because they have "unearned income" when compared to working Americans subjected to "earned income" tax rates.
Many politicans have many "libertarian" political beliefs and if we compared Sen Rand Paul with President Obama we'd probably find that President Obama holds more "libertarian" beliefs than Rand Paul. Yes, Ron Paul did temporarily leave the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian as did Bob Barr in 2008 but neither were actually "Libertarians" based upon a fundamental belief in the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. The differences I cited between Rand Paul's position on the issues are significant and not minor differences when it comes to libertarian political ideology. It is one thing to "agree in principle" but "oppose specific proposals" such as I noted in my comments on a couple of issues and to "oppose in principle" which is what Rand Paul's position represents.
If you would prefer to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income, that is certainly a discussion we could have; and I am not at all sure that I would disagree with you here (although I would prefer to see all marginal tax rates lowered a bit, as a tradeoff for our doing this, so that it would be revenue-neutral). How, exactly, does Rand Paul "oppose in principle" fundamental "libertarian political ideology"? And what has the Libertarian Party ever said about "the Inalienable Right of...the Person"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 8, 2014 10:56:52 GMT
Even if you believe that former President George W. Bush and his subordinates were war criminals--a sentiment that I certainly do not share--why would you wish to subordinate American justice to an international tribunal? (I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see America compromise its sovereignty, irrespective of the rationale for it.) Yes, terrorists may be "successfully prosecuted" in American courts; but why should one desire this? To do so sends the signal that we believe these terrorists are mere criminals; and I believe no such thing. They are illegal combatants, engaged in warfare; and should be treated accordingly.
I would prefer to not subject any US citizen to prosecution by the International Court of Criminal Justice and that can be avoided by simply prosecuting criminal offenses under US law in US courts. As noted the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture based upon the definition of torture under Title 18 but no indictments were issued and the US Courts did not prosecute. I believe in "justice" and if the United States government refuses the enforce US statutory law when it comes to it's international actions then it must be prosecuted by another court and the only other court is the International Court of Criminal Justice.
Don't you believe that those that were tortured and/or the families of those who's family member was murdered by acts of torture in violation of both US law and International Law should be entitled to see those responsible brought to justice and prosecuted. Does "justice" only exist for Americans and for no other people in the world?
While there are some flaws in the actual practices related to our criminal justice system I would argue that it is still one of the best in the world. The people of the world respect that fact for the most part. Even I have a problem with the few suspected terrorists being prosecuted by a military tribunal at GITMO because I know that, try as they might, a military tribunal is inherently biased.
Whether I agree or disagree with the verdict of the "people" I accept it. I can understand why OJ was acquited of murder for example. It wasn't that he was innocent but instead it was because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On the flip side I will always be suspicious of any "guilty" verdict of guilty by a military tribunal prosecuting terrorism because I know that military tribunals are inherently bias regardless of every attempt by them to be unbiased.
If I question the validity of a conviction by a US military tribunal then certainly people in other nations have every reason to question such a conviction as well. There should be no such inherent doubt in the legitimacy of the conviction but it does exist outside of a criminal court system.
The 5th Amendment addresses crimes committed duting times of war where limited exceptions can be made related to the provisions and protections of the accused under the 5th Amendment. There are no such Constitutionally authorized exceptions related to the 4th, 6th, or 8th Amendments.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 8, 2014 11:08:30 GMT
If you would prefer to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income, that is certainly a discussion we could have; and I am not at all sure that I would disagree with you here (although I would prefer to see all marginal tax rates lowered a bit, as a tradeoff for our doing this, so that it would be revenue-neutral). How, exactly, does Rand Paul "oppose in principle" fundamental "libertarian political ideology"? And what has the Libertarian Party ever said about "the Inalienable Right of...the Person"?
I have addressed the federal taxation of all income the same in the following thread:
worldpf.com/thread/274/on-federal-taxation-united-states
The discussion of Rand Paul (and Ron Paul) takes us off topic but I will state again that Rand Paul is not a libertarian.
The word "libertarian" is based upon the root word "liberty" that relates to the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. If we want a clear cut example of why Rand Paul isn't a "libertarian" it's because Rand Paul opposes the Right of Liberty of the Woman related to abortion. A libertarian can oppose abortion but they must still support the Right of the Woman to make her own decisions related to abortion. I don't actually know any libertarians that are "pro-abortion" and instead we're all "pro-life/pro-choice" which is not a contradiction. We oppose the government violating the Right of Liberty of the Woman to make up her own mind when it comes to abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 8, 2014 23:53:01 GMT
Even if you believe that former President George W. Bush and his subordinates were war criminals--a sentiment that I certainly do not share--why would you wish to subordinate American justice to an international tribunal? (I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see America compromise its sovereignty, irrespective of the rationale for it.) Yes, terrorists may be "successfully prosecuted" in American courts; but why should one desire this? To do so sends the signal that we believe these terrorists are mere criminals; and I believe no such thing. They are illegal combatants, engaged in warfare; and should be treated accordingly.
I would prefer to not subject any US citizen to prosecution by the International Court of Criminal Justice and that can be avoided by simply prosecuting criminal offenses under US law in US courts. As noted the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture based upon the definition of torture under Title 18 but no indictments were issued and the US Courts did not prosecute. I believe in "justice" and if the United States government refuses the enforce US statutory law when it comes to it's international actions then it must be prosecuted by another court and the only other court is the International Court of Criminal Justice.
Don't you believe that those that were tortured and/or the families of those who's family member was murdered by acts of torture in violation of both US law and International Law should be entitled to see those responsible brought to justice and prosecuted. Does "justice" only exist for Americans and for no other people in the world?
While there are some flaws in the actual practices related to our criminal justice system I would argue that it is still one of the best in the world. The people of the world respect that fact for the most part. Even I have a problem with the few suspected terrorists being prosecuted by a military tribunal at GITMO because I know that, try as they might, a military tribunal is inherently biased.
Whether I agree or disagree with the verdict of the "people" I accept it. I can understand why OJ was acquited of murder for example. It wasn't that he was innocent but instead it was because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On the flip side I will always be suspicious of any "guilty" verdict of guilty by a military tribunal prosecuting terrorism because I know that military tribunals are inherently bias regardless of every attempt by them to be unbiased.
If I question the validity of a conviction by a US military tribunal then certainly people in other nations have every reason to question such a conviction as well. There should be no such inherent doubt in the legitimacy of the conviction but it does exist outside of a criminal court system.
The 5th Amendment addresses crimes committed duting times of war where limited exceptions can be made related to the provisions and protections of the accused under the 5th Amendment. There are no such Constitutionally authorized exceptions related to the 4th, 6th, or 8th Amendments.
Perhaps the reason that "no indictments were issued and the US courts did not prosecute" George W. Bush and his subordinates is because those in a position to do so did not agree with you that there is a compelling case against them. Moreover, the ICC would not be prosecuting these people on the basis of American law and the US Constitution, but on the basis of so-called "International Law"; and I would never wish to see the US submit to any such thing as that, regardless of the rationale behind it. And I do not share your view that any military tribunal is "inherently biased," in a way that any other court would not be. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 8, 2014 23:56:56 GMT
If you would prefer to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income, that is certainly a discussion we could have; and I am not at all sure that I would disagree with you here (although I would prefer to see all marginal tax rates lowered a bit, as a tradeoff for our doing this, so that it would be revenue-neutral). How, exactly, does Rand Paul "oppose in principle" fundamental "libertarian political ideology"? And what has the Libertarian Party ever said about "the Inalienable Right of...the Person"?
I have addressed the federal taxation of all income the same in the following thread:
worldpf.com/thread/274/on-federal-taxation-united-states
The discussion of Rand Paul (and Ron Paul) takes us off topic but I will state again that Rand Paul is not a libertarian.
The word "libertarian" is based upon the root word "liberty" that relates to the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. If we want a clear cut example of why Rand Paul isn't a "libertarian" it's because Rand Paul opposes the Right of Liberty of the Woman related to abortion. A libertarian can oppose abortion but they must still support the Right of the Woman to make her own decisions related to abortion. I don't actually know any libertarians that are "pro-abortion" and instead we're all "pro-life/pro-choice" which is not a contradiction. We oppose the government violating the Right of Liberty of the Woman to make up her own mind when it comes to abortion.
Why would you consider it anti-libertarian for one to support the right of an individual human being to continue living, instead of society's allowing another to "make her own decisions" as regarding whether or not to kill that human? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 9, 2014 10:51:49 GMT
Why would you consider it anti-libertarian for one to support the right of an individual human being to continue living, instead of society's allowing another to "make her own decisions" as regarding whether or not to kill that human?
"Original Intent"
As the founders established in the US Constitution all Rights were inherent in the "Person" (people) as embodied in the text of the US Constitution. There are no references to the "Rights of Human Beings" nor have any Rights been assumed to exist prior to birth or after death.
As a "libertarian" I have often proposed considering a change to the legal precedent that "personhood" begins at birth but that must also address a paradox. The "Rights" of two persons cannot be in conflict as the Right of one Person cannot violate the Right of another person and that creates an inherent paradox when addressing the "preborn" that occupies the woman's body.
The "preborn" does not have a "Right" to the nourishment provided by the woman nor does it have a Right to remain in the woman's body nor does it have a Right to medical procedures that would sustain it outside of the body of the woman.
By way of analogy an "infant/child" has an Inalienable Right to Eat but it does not have a "Right to be Fed" by another person. As a compassionate society we do require under law that the "infant/child" be fed and cared for but that is based upon the "voluntary" willingness of the adult to be the guardian of the child. Even the biological mother of a child can refuse to be the "voluntary guardian" of their own child by simply leaving it at the hospital after it's born.
So when it comes to "abortion" in practice the umbilical cord can be cut and the "preborn" surgically removed from the woman's body where it would die naturally without any violation of the "preborn's" Rights even if "personhood" is granted to it by a Constitutional Amendment.
At best, even with the granting of "personhood" to the preborn based upon a Constitutional amendment, which is the only way it can be done, we end up with virtually the identical criteria that we have under Roe v Wade. At natural viability the "preborn" can be removed from the womb and be expected to survive without assistance based upon the "voluntary guardianship" by society (paid for with our tax dollars) of the "child" outside of the womb.
The woman will always have the Inalienable Right to an "abortion" because the "preborn" cannot impose any obligation upon her as that would violate her "Inalienable Rights as a Person" but it could change the surgical procedures where the "preborn" might have to be removed intact that in the vast majority of cases (i.e. prior to viability) wouldn't result in the preborn surviving but would increase the risks to the woman. Does it make any real sense to increase the dangers to the woman when the "preborn" is going to die once removed from her body?
It is a tough issue because of the paradox but the fact will always remain that the woman does not have any obligation to continue the pregnancy if she chooses not to based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Rand Paul opposes the "Inalienable Rights of the Woman" when addressing abortion and that is anti-libertarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 9, 2014 11:06:33 GMT
Perhaps the reason that "no indictments were issued and the US courts did not prosecute" George W. Bush and his subordinates is because those in a position to do so did not agree with you that there is a compelling case against them. Moreover, the ICC would not be prosecuting these people on the basis of American law and the US Constitution, but on the basis of so-called "International Law"; and I would never wish to see the US submit to any such thing as that, regardless of the rationale behind it. And I do not share your view that any military tribunal is "inherently biased," in a way that any other court would not be.
Any grand jury would have indicted former President Bush and those that authorized and engaged in using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" had the case been brought before them as they clearly violated the statutory definition of "torture" under Title 18.
Do you really believe that the leaders and the agents of government should be exempted from facing justice when they are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Should the world have ignored the war crimes and crimes agianst humanity committed by the Nazis that were prosecuted under international laws at the Nuremberg trials?
Having served in the US military I can attest to the fact that those in the US military are biased when it comes to "war" as "brainwashing" of those serving to ensure they support the "mission" is absolutely necessary for the "mission" to succeed. The US military is very biased and must be for it's mission to succeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 9, 2014 11:17:14 GMT
House Speaker John Boehner has already called for another "committee" to investigate Benghazi even though opinion polls show that the American People are basically over it and want to move forward as opposed to looking back. I'm not a fan of continuing to waste the taxpayer dollars and Congressional time where the House should be addressing issues like tax reform to eliminate inequities and rewriting the immigrantion laws if this will be the LAST committee and if it isn't just another Republican witch hunt then let it proceed.The Democrats had threatened to simply boycott the committee but there has been a breakthrough apparently. The stumbling block now appears that Republicans might not want an unbiased investigation.
news.yahoo.com/dems-open-door-participating-benghazi-probe-134621231--politics.html
So I guess the question I'd put forward is whether the investigation should be bipartisan to eliminate any perception of it being nothing more than another Republican witch hunt?
Returning to the topic this post was not addressed. The Republicans are moving forward with another ad hoc committee to investigate Benghazi so the question still exists as to whether it should be an unbiased bipartisan investigation or a politically motivated Republican dog and pony show?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 10, 2014 1:45:16 GMT
Why would you consider it anti-libertarian for one to support the right of an individual human being to continue living, instead of society's allowing another to "make her own decisions" as regarding whether or not to kill that human?
"Original Intent"
As the founders established in the US Constitution all Rights were inherent in the "Person" (people) as embodied in the text of the US Constitution. There are no references to the "Rights of Human Beings" nor have any Rights been assumed to exist prior to birth or after death.
As a "libertarian" I have often proposed considering a change to the legal precedent that "personhood" begins at birth but that must also address a paradox. The "Rights" of two persons cannot be in conflict as the Right of one Person cannot violate the Right of another person and that creates an inherent paradox when addressing the "preborn" that occupies the woman's body.
The "preborn" does not have a "Right" to the nourishment provided by the woman nor does it have a Right to remain in the woman's body nor does it have a Right to medical procedures that would sustain it outside of the body of the woman.
By way of analogy an "infant/child" has an Inalienable Right to Eat but it does not have a "Right to be Fed" by another person. As a compassionate society we do require under law that the "infant/child" be fed and cared for but that is based upon the "voluntary" willingness of the adult to be the guardian of the child. Even the biological mother of a child can refuse to be the "voluntary guardian" of their own child by simply leaving it at the hospital after it's born.
So when it comes to "abortion" in practice the umbilical cord can be cut and the "preborn" surgically removed from the woman's body where it would die naturally without any violation of the "preborn's" Rights even if "personhood" is granted to it by a Constitutional Amendment.
At best, even with the granting of "personhood" to the preborn based upon a Constitutional amendment, which is the only way it can be done, we end up with virtually the identical criteria that we have under Roe v Wade. At natural viability the "preborn" can be removed from the womb and be expected to survive without assistance based upon the "voluntary guardianship" by society (paid for with our tax dollars) of the "child" outside of the womb.
The woman will always have the Inalienable Right to an "abortion" because the "preborn" cannot impose any obligation upon her as that would violate her "Inalienable Rights as a Person" but it could change the surgical procedures where the "preborn" might have to be removed intact that in the vast majority of cases (i.e. prior to viability) wouldn't result in the preborn surviving but would increase the risks to the woman. Does it make any real sense to increase the dangers to the woman when the "preborn" is going to die once removed from her body?
It is a tough issue because of the paradox but the fact will always remain that the woman does not have any obligation to continue the pregnancy if she chooses not to based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Rand Paul opposes the "Inalienable Rights of the Woman" when addressing abortion and that is anti-libertarian.
Is it an "Inalienable Right" of the mother, in your opinion--after she has taken home her infant child--to neglect that child, declining to so much as feed him (or her)? Why would a libertarian not believe in the liberty of the unborn child (or the recently born child) to continue living? Is it not anti-libertarian to believe that it would be perfectly okay to kill this child? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 10, 2014 1:56:30 GMT
Perhaps the reason that "no indictments were issued and the US courts did not prosecute" George W. Bush and his subordinates is because those in a position to do so did not agree with you that there is a compelling case against them. Moreover, the ICC would not be prosecuting these people on the basis of American law and the US Constitution, but on the basis of so-called "International Law"; and I would never wish to see the US submit to any such thing as that, regardless of the rationale behind it. And I do not share your view that any military tribunal is "inherently biased," in a way that any other court would not be.
Any grand jury would have indicted former President Bush and those that authorized and engaged in using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" had the case been brought before them as they clearly violated the statutory definition of "torture" under Title 18.
Do you really believe that the leaders and the agents of government should be exempted from facing justice when they are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Should the world have ignored the war crimes and crimes agianst humanity committed by the Nazis that were prosecuted under international laws at the Nuremberg trials?
Having served in the US military I can attest to the fact that those in the US military are biased when it comes to "war" as "brainwashing" of those serving to ensure they support the "mission" is absolutely necessary for the "mission" to succeed. The US military is very biased and must be for it's mission to succeed.
To inquire if I believe that "the leaders and agents of the US government should be exempted from facing justice when they are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity" is to beg the question. I am not at all convinced that they are guilty of any such thing. And probably no one to the right (even slightly) of Cindy Sheehan--remember her?--believes that, either. As for the Nuremberg trials: I am a bit ambivalent about those. The outcome--the successful prosecution of Nazis, and their consequential punishment--is something I very much favor. But the principle behind those trials is quite another matter. (Also, remember that Nazi Germany was a defeated power at the time of the Nuremberg trials; so it really had no choice in the matter. Why would the US meekly acquiesce to such a thing?) To assert that anyone serving on a military tribunal must have been "brainwash[ed]" is surely an insult to our military personnel--however it may be rationalized. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 10, 2014 11:42:11 GMT
Is it an "Inalienable Right" of the mother, in your opinion--after she has taken home her infant child--to neglect that child, declining to so much as feed him (or her)? Why would a libertarian not believe in the liberty of the unborn child (or the recently born child) to continue living? Is it not anti-libertarian to believe that it would be perfectly okay to kill this child?
Libertarians do not oppose obligations that the person has voluntarily accepted. When the mother removed the infant from the hospital she voluntarily assumes the obligations of "guardianship" of the infant and based upon that voluntary obligation libertarians do not oppose the laws that establish what those obligations are. The legal requirement to provide for the "welfare of the child based upon the voluntary obligation of guardianship" are fully endorsed by libertarianism.
The woman's Inalienable Rights are not violated by her voluntary obligation to provide for the welfare of the child based assuming guardianship. No one forces the "mother" to take the infant home from the hospital after it's born and, if fact, our laws specifically establish that she doesn't have to. If the woman was forced to take the infant home from the hospital and provide for it's welfare that would be a violation of her Inalienable Rights but our laws don't require that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 10, 2014 12:06:57 GMT
To inquire if I believe that "the leaders and agents of the US government should be exempted from facing justice when they are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity" is to beg the question. I am not at all convinced that they are guilty of any such thing.
The issue isn't whether they are "guilty" but instead is there a valid basis for an indictment and prosecution. Always remember that an indictment and prosecution only requires evidence that a crime was probably committed and that the person charged is probably responsible for that act and/or of conspiracy related to that act.
So let me layout a simple foundation for indictment and prosecution based upon the use of the "enhanced interrogation technique" authorized under by Bush adminstration. We will just address one of those techniques (not waterboarding).
"Hypothermia: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water in order to increase the rate at which heat is lost from the body."
In Afghanistan at least one prisoner died from hypothernia after being subjected to this treatment by interrogators and the autopsy determined it was a case of homocide. Subjecting a person to hypothermia is not "incidental to lawful sanctions" as provided for in Title 18 and is therefore a form of torture under US statutory law. Title 18 also establishes that anyone that is indirectly involved is a co-conspirator to the act and is guilty of the same crime.
If found guilty of committing this criminal act a person can be subjected to life in prison and even the death penality and a co-conspirator can be sentenced to life in prision. When a person's actions lead to the death of another person it is one of the most severe violations of the law in the United States.
Based upon Title 18 and the facts of the case I believe that every grand jury imaginable would return an indictment requiring prosecution. Conviction for the crime requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but the indictement and prosecution does not.
We don't need to establish "guilt" but instead we merely need to establish that the facts establishing the foundation for possible indictment and prosecution related to a case of murder resulting from torture should have occurred but it did not. There is no question that the "murder was committed and that it was a result of torture" as that was determined by the autopsy. The only issue is who was responsible for the murder and the torture.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 11, 2014 0:15:48 GMT
Is it an "Inalienable Right" of the mother, in your opinion--after she has taken home her infant child--to neglect that child, declining to so much as feed him (or her)? Why would a libertarian not believe in the liberty of the unborn child (or the recently born child) to continue living? Is it not anti-libertarian to believe that it would be perfectly okay to kill this child?
Libertarians do not oppose obligations that the person has voluntarily accepted. When the mother removed the infant from the hospital she voluntarily assumes the obligations of "guardianship" of the infant and based upon that voluntary obligation libertarians do not oppose the laws that establish what those obligations are. The legal requirement to provide for the "welfare of the child based upon the voluntary obligation of guardianship" are fully endorsed by libertarianism.
The woman's Inalienable Rights are not violated by her voluntary obligation to provide for the welfare of the child based assuming guardianship. No one forces the "mother" to take the infant home from the hospital after it's born and, if fact, our laws specifically establish that she doesn't have to. If the woman was forced to take the infant home from the hospital and provide for it's welfare that would be a violation of her Inalienable Rights but our laws don't require that.
What if the mother were to change her mind, after leaving the hospital with the baby? Do you believe she should then be free to neglect her child (who cannot possibly care for himself or herself)? |
|
