Comments Posted By Terrible Terry
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 16 Comments
SOME SHORT NOTES ON KSM AND AMERICAN JUSTICE
Shoutout to all (and completely off-topic)
Can anyone point me to info on just what syntax is available in this blog's comment section (to do things like links, highlighting, bordering, etc.)?
TIA
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 14.11.2009 @ 16:34
If we have a legal system that is set up by our Constitution and that we believe in, why on earth would we not use it? Why should we cower in fear of some possible attack and hide behind the military and the fences of Guantanamo? If we're too afraid to act normally now, when will that ever change? If we continue with this fear, aren't we admitting that the terrorists have actually won?
As another commenter (JerryS) put it, "..why are we afraid to do what those 'soft Europeans' do regularly?"
It's odd to see you agreeing with the current Obama Administration, which is currently arguing for state secrets exemption, is arguing - in effect - that our courts are incapable of handling national security matters. Again, this seems to be a fearful reaction that once again turns to the (Executive branch of) government for protection. I challenge you (and your Obama amigos) to prove that - but I won't have to hold my breath because it simply isn't true.
(Believe it or not, this is one post in which another commenter, Richard bottoms, with whom I have many disagreements, is absolutely right on target. Keep up the good work, Richard.)
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 14.11.2009 @ 14:24
I really don't get it.
How can anyone defend our existing healthcare system that (a) is so expensive it's not economically sustainable, on a national and personal level, (b) is so unfair that when a person gets sick they lose access, and (c) is so unfair that people unlucky enough to have a health problem can't even get access? How can this even be called a "healthcare" system at all?
How can anyone defend a healthcare (or any other kind of) system that's based on markets that are mostly non-competitive? What's so All-American about a monopoly (or near-monopoly)?
How can anyone argue that, particularly in a fragmented system like ours, providing good healthcare is, in most cases, antithetical to profit maximizing? Or, that a profit-making organization should not maximize profits to whatever legal extent it can?
Sure, government involvement brings with it problems and thus has to be approached with caution. But it's not like the alternative non-government option (such as the status quo discussed above) is without huge, even worse problems of its own.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 13.11.2009 @ 15:43
@Freedom Truth: Here's a recent post on the consitutional issue from Jack Balkin's well-regarded Balkinization blog:
"Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Constitutionality of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate
JB
Penn's PENNumbra is hosting a debate between David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and myself on whether the individual mandate in President Obama's health care plan is constitutional. The first round of the debate has been published. Rivkin and Casey think the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and you can read their arguments here. I believe that the individual mandate is constitutional and you can read my arguments here.
If you would like to read the actual language of the individual mandate in the House bill, (Section 501) it is here.
As you can see, it is a 2.5 percent tax on adjusted gross income, with various exemptions for people on Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, people living overseas, people who are too poor to pay the tax, and people who have religious objections.
Rivkin and Casey take the position that this tax is beyond Congress's powers under the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and the power to regulate interstate commerce. I take the view that this is a fairly unremarkable exercise of Congress's power to tax income for regulatory purposes, and that it is also within Congress's power to regulate insurance markets under the Commerce Clause.
I do not regard this as even a close question after the New Deal. Thus, the debate between Rivkin, Casey, and myself has overtones of the debate about the constitutionality of the modern state created by the New Deal, and indeed, Rivkin and Casey's constitutional argument relies on The Child Labor Tax Case, (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company), a Lochner-era precedent which struck down a Congressional attempt to ban child labor."
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 13.11.2009 @ 15:17
I doubt anyone disagrees that we all have a right to life (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Of what value is that right without a commensurate right to appropriate healthcare necessary to maintain that life?
I doubt many would hold that we should demand proof of insurance before treating an accident victim, particularly one that has life-threatening injuries. Why is it so different when we encounter a person with a life-threatening condition like cancer?
If we have a right to something (life, healthcare, etc.), someone/something must presumably be responsible to see to it that we get that something we have a right to. Who/what has that responsibility? Does it make sense to say that we have a right to something, but we will have to depend on charity to obtain satisfaction of that right?
Just wondering....
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 13.11.2009 @ 14:04
MORE THAN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR VICTIMHOOD AT WORK IN FORT HOOD ATTACK
Richard bottoms: Those sound like reasonable rules. But I'm not sure how well they apply to Hasan.
On your first rule: recall that Hasan was a psychiatrist (who, IMHO, are generally known to be somewhat kooky anyway). What you'd do to a normal soldier with problems is send them to - guess what - a psychiatrist. Not sure how this works kook-to-kook.
On your second rule: the weapon he had was purchased at a gun store just off-base. Since we can't use that information legally, how would anyone know? 2nd Amendment, you know.
On your third rule: In his normal work, I don't think he had a military weapon. So I don't know what you'd take away from him. And besides, since he used a personal weapon, what good would taking away his military stuff do?
On your fourth rule: see comment on rule one above.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 17:46
Obamathered: Boy, insult-slinging time, isn't it? You suspect I'm not a real veteran, but you're sure of Richard because "he is closer to the mark than" I am. And because you said it first, you certainly are. Good logic. I'm impressed.
You keep repeating the same stuff, that all these "facts" are "out there" somewhere. I don't believe it. I'm familiar with the reports of his seminar at Walter Reed, but I can find nothing that authoritatively supports the particulars you claim. Maybe I'm a poor Internet searcher. Or maybe...... After all, what can you possibly expect from a "goddamned, clueless idiot"?
I suspect you're secretly creating evidence of Rick Moran's thesis in this post. But in any case, when and if you're able to come down to earth, stop your childish insults, and start using your reasoning powers, we'll dialogue again. Till then, you enjoy yourself too.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 17:36
Obamathered: "Terry: The fact you even posed the question has revealed gross ignorance of military affairs. Hasan’s behavior was routinely brought to the attention of his superiors and they ignored it–a violation of the UCMJ on their part."
I guess you must be another military expert? You and a couple of others seem to think you have access to lots of facts that I don't think have been released yet. Do you have special access, or just a great deal of imagination?
Precisely what behavior of Hasan was brought to the attention of what superior officer in what form and by whom? IOW, was it a formal complaint? If so, did they actually ignore it? Or did they dismiss it as being unsupported? What part of the UCMJ did this superior officer allegedly violate?
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 17:04
Richard bottoms: "The military has the power to have you shot for not going to your assigned place of duty"
If you're in a war zone, in certain very limited circumstances, that is possible. But otherwise, hardly. Certainly not in the Hasan situation.
If you're going to make your points with reason, ok, we'll discuss. If you're going to launch such hyperbole, have fun with yourself.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 16:55
Richard bottoms: Yes, I am a veteran.
My question dealt with your assertion that the Hasan matter could have been dealt with effectively by applying "common sense rules." I asked precisely what those (missing) rules were. You responded that they were punishment for "saying the wrong thing in the wrong tone of voice to the wrong person."
Is that a rule: "Don't say the wrong thing to in the wrong tone of voice to the wrong person"????
And, as to your interpretation of the freedom with which the UCMJ can be applied, there are of course, abusive people in the military as on the outside. But what you describe is certainly NOT the way that decent military discipline is normally (or should be) carried out.
Comment Posted By Terrible Terry On 12.11.2009 @ 16:52
