<p>Not about how their tax dollar are to be spent. Isn’t that a core principle of representative government?</p>
<p>“In retaliation for the declaration, however, seven Republican members of Congress are moving forward with their bill to strip Berkeley of $2.3 million in federal funds earmarked for school lunches, ferry service, local disability organizations and public safety.”</p>
<p>So, congress members from other states should take away lunch money for needy children, aid for disabled people, and public safety because they disagree about a recruiting office? Oh, that would be a brilliant move!</p>
<p>Of course it’s all cheap theater on both sides and everyone wants their little part in front of the spotlight. The reality is that it probably won’t pass for a myriad of reasons, but if our representatives are stupid enough to pass a bill like that it will surely end up in the courts. Lastly, and if it survives a court challenge, the citizens of Berkeley, if they have any gumption at all, should refuse to pay any federal taxes whatsoever. Now that would be a revolution worth watching.</p>
<p>So are you an advocate for a stronger federal government; one huge mega-bureaucracy that takes all of the taxpayers money and then decides independent of those taxpayers what should happen to their money. Certainly, and as WashDad pointed out, we’re well on our way.</p>
<p>That reminds me of the fellow who says the tax rebates should be issued in the form of debit cards with a 90 day expiration period and with a use-it-or-loose-it clause. Why as tax payers do we so easily forget ITS OUR MONEY.</p>
<p>And what exactly has transpired to justify the taking back of 2.3 million dollars the citizens of Berkeley had contributed themselves? That their council members said the Marines aren’t welcome and they wouldn’t mind if the citizens made it be known in a non-violent fashion? Funny, but the citizens of Berkeley I saw today made their views known by showing up at the recruiting station to buy lunch for the Marines.</p>
<p>Those members of congress seem to me to be more than a bit petty, and at least as short sighted as the Berkeley city council members. Are they all in some kind of competition to prove who is the most ignorant?</p>
<p>No I don’t; Kant’s categorical imperative actually says “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”</p>
<p>I could have said that, but instead I used the more common, more understandable and equally correct “if I wouldn’t want it done to me”. You misunderstand the statements if you think them functionally different.</p>
<p>fundingfather: The difference between legal combatant and terrorist is strictly a matter of opinion. Who defines who gets to legally fight?</p>
<p>For example, would it be acceptable under the rules of war for terrorists to torture contractors? I mean, they’re used for military operations yet aren’t soldiers; they kill civilians - don’t they perfectly fit the definition of terrorists?</p>
<p>And then wouldn’t the terrorists be,as bearpooh said, justified in waterboarding top US administration officials?</p>
<p>I worry greatly when much of the justification for waterboarding is “they’re our enemies and we think we can get x, y, z out of them”.</p>
<p>Yes, if private contractors were to gain unlawful access to a sovereign country with the intent of killing its civilians, they would be subject to strict interrogation methods whose intent was to prevent future killings of civilians. Note that private contractors in Iraq are a) there legally and b) do not target civilians for killing them.</p>
<p>Same distinction would apply to top US officials or generals. If they were involved with targeting civilians for death they should be subject to the same type of interrogation as a means to stop future intentional civilian killings.</p>
<p>
I worry much more about a society that is so indifferent about protecting its own people that they bend over backwards trying to think of strawman arguments to justify their unwillingness to take modest measures to protect itself.</p>
<p>dont like the war and dont like the Administration but i dont like the Berkeley decision either. Perhaps the Federal Government should withhold all Federal money from the city. I’d be all for that.</p>
<p>Sorry, but the term “torture” is not one-size fits all. Are you suggesting that we subject our pilots and special forces to “torture” because they are waterboarded as part of their training?</p>
<p>I find it puzzling that the left would have no problem putting KSM into prison for the rest of his life, but to subject him to less than a minute of fear with the end result being that people’s lives are saved is somehow barbaric. Ask him which he would prefer: to be waterboarded for less than a minute or to be sent to prison for the rest of his life and you’ll quickly learn that waterboarding is indeed “modest” compared with what people think is right and proper.</p>
<p>The topic of ROTC as it relates to college campuses was brought up during the Las Vegas Democratic debate in January. According to the Columbia University paper,</p>
<p>“At the Las Vegas Democratic debate on Jan. 15, all three leading Democratic presidential candidates pledged to “vigorously enforce” the Solomon Amendment. If enforced, this amendment would revoke federal funding from universities, like Columbia, that refuse to allow Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) programs or military recruiters on campus.”</p>
<p>(CNN) – The Berkeley City Council voted early Wednesday to rescind a previous vote that said Marine recruiters are “not welcome in this city,” but held tight to its anti-war stance.</p>
<p>Military supporters and anti-war demonstrators began gathering in Berkeley early Tuesday.</p>
<p>The vote came after more than three hours of animated citizen input and council debate. More than 100 speakers took turns at the podium. Each speaker was given up to a minute to comment.</p>
<p>In a 7-to-2 vote, the council said it would no longer send a letter to the local Marine Corps Recruiting Station and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway saying recruiters aren’t welcome in Berkeley.</p>
<p>Instead, the city is now simply stating it’s opposed to the war and the billions spent on it. However, “we recognize the recruiter’s right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence,” the council said.</p>
<p>The council also said it supports and respects the men and women of the armed forces.</p>
<p>The real problem is, because waterboarding and related activities avoid due process in their current incarnation, there is little to nothing to prevent someone innocent from being waterboarded. Yes, the government says it only waterboards top terrorist leaders and other Really Bad Guys - but that’s not the case. Maybe it’s because I’m from Canada, but I’m appalled at the ignorance of many Americans when it comes to failures of the terrorist-catching system. </p>
<p>Case example: Maher Arar, who was not even a legitimate terrorist suspect but was deported to Syria and tortured for a year under America’s renditions policy (though in this case Canada had some complicity). Even though the US’s actions in the case began in response to a tip from CSIS (Canada’s intelligence agency), even after CSIS backed off that tip and admitted it was fallacious, America continues to not admit Arar’s innocence, nor that he was tortured in Syria.</p>
<p>My point? The US is losing much of the credibility that allows the country to hold the moral high ground on issues of ethics, especially in regards to justice. As America disregards more and more of its own laws about due process, other countries (especially ones prone to torture) have less and less reason to respect them. </p>
<p>Why bother checking to see whether or not a contractor has killed anyone before torturing him? After all, America doesn’t check before they torture… why should anyone else?</p>
<p>Obviously a fallacious argument, but one that I have heard argued many times.</p>
<p>"The real problem is, because waterboarding and related activities avoid due process in their current incarnation, there is little to nothing to prevent someone innocent from being waterboarded. "</p>
<p>Actually, that is not the case. Before someone could be legitimately waterboarded, there is (was) an entire process of escalations that go through the attorney general and the president. In fact, the entire interrogation process requires approval for each step of escalation - even to poke a detainee in the chest requires prior approval. </p>
<p>People think that what is happening is a Jack Bauer performing a renegade interrogation. This is not the case.</p>
I don’t get this. The city government is elected by the citizens of that city to govern the city - not international affairs. I doubt that any of the council members ran on an ‘anti-war’ platform but rather, a platform relevant to the local city politics which would mean they can’t represent those citizens with any kind of “city…opposing the war” statement. </p>
<p>If I were a citizen of that city I’d vote out any council member presumptuous enough to make the above statement on my behalf regardless of my stance on the war.</p>
<p>ff: News flash, due process is not the executive branch giving its approval. That’s what the judicial branch is for.</p>
<p>It’s clear that whatever due process is inherent in the whole interrogations/renditions process is failing when cases like Arar’s occur and then are not apologized for and do not result in any changes to the system or process. It’s really a shame.</p>
<p>I don’t know the exact details of the Arar case (including whether it happened exactly as he states it or if their may be some creative story telling going on.) However, assuming that it happened as he relates it, I would think that this is more of a reason to have an official program as was followed for the 3 al Qaeda detainees that ultimately were waterboarded. Having a well-defined program to get crucial information will mitigate the need for rogue operatives who want use the rendition route.</p>
<p>Despite your “news-flash” the judicial system is set up to deal with criminal investigations, not national security. The courts have ruled that they are not part of the process for obtaining national security information.</p>