| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3285
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 2:27 pm: | 
|
I find the news of a Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections to be terrifying and very troubling for the region (and the world).
Although, it just occurred to me - how can "we" say we will not deal with a "democratically elected government" even though the current premise in Iraq is about implementing democracy.
In other words, I abhor the politics of Hamas, but on the other hand, can we really say we'll only support democracies (only if we agree with who gets elected)?? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10419
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
I in know way support Hamas, but then I didn't support the IRA either. The IRA had a separate political wing, Sein Fein, run by Jerry Adams (?) and actually elected members to the British parliament. Adams may, or may not, have also been the head of the IRA. In the end, it seems to be working out. Sometimes participation in government can lead to a loss of willingness to get killed, kill or blow onesself up.
Basically, we are trying to get the Sunnis to participate in the Iraqi government in hopes of achieving this goal. I admit it is easier to see the Sunnis as legitimate insurgents than it is to see Hamas in the same light, mainly because of the latters tactics.
I am not usually this polyannish, but there may be some hope, if the Israelis and the Bushies can see through the smoke.
|
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 32
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
I don't think the current administration says that it supports only democracies, but rather that it doesn't support parties that support terrorism. Reporters tried to nail down GWB at his press conference this morning on whether this Hamas gov't (which doesn't technically exist yet) will get the support promised to the previous gov't ($300M?).
A serious problem arises when a people democratically elect a non-democratic gov't, or one that behaves badly. (Insert your favorite historical example here.) |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3992
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
The problem is that for some reason, many people believe that democracies are peace-loving and that Arab democracies won't want to destroy Israel. There is a difference between saying that democracy is the best form of government and saying that democracy = good government. I think that, at best, one might posit that good government is more likely in a democracy. |
Haight-Strawbury
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6694
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
The bottom line is the current Palestinian Gov't has been sent a message. The Palestinian people want better services, better conditions and better lives. Hamas has as a result made out during this election as the alternate party of choice.
Now the key thing here is of course Hamas' willingness to end their affiliation with terror, willing to move forward in the peace process. If of course they fail to do so the Palestinian people will be no better off in 5 years than they are today.( probably much worst)
This election is actually all about Democracy because if people are given a chance to vote, they will do so and that's exactly what they have done.
Frankly, I think the Palestinian people have made a grave error but than again, they have done so in a legal binding and acceptable manner. Time will tell if in fact they have made the right decision.
Libs are morons.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3112
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
I think the moral of this story is that democracy is much more than elections. NPR just carried an excellent conversation, I believe it was Dorey Golde or some similar name, who was making the point that democracy is also about separation of church...or mosque...and state. Democracy is about individual rights, freedoms of speech and assembly, freedom from warrantless searches, basically much more than elections.
|
Haight-Strawbury
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6695
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
"freedom from warrantless searches."
See, typical NPR crap..One has nothing to do with the other.. The Hamas victory has nothing to do with warrantless searches.
Libs are morons.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3114
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Haight:
I am saying, freedom from warrantless searches is the fourth amendment of the Constitution, and one of the bases of democracy, other than just voting.
Duh. Morons are morons. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
In certain cases warrantless searches are constitutional. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3116
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Such as? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Probable cause in law enforcement for one mostly involving physical searches. |
The Man
Citizen
Username: Bumboklaat
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Exigent circumstances, and when a person consents to the search, just to name 2. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3117
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
And what tells you there's "probable cause" in a warrantless search? In other words, do you have to document anything? Do the enforcers have to get permission...from anyone?
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
No permission needed.
Easy example . A car is pulled over and the officer smells pot smoke. That is probable cause to search without a warrant.
Another example is the NSA warrantless monitoring program. This is allowed under Article 2. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3118
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Article 2: Could you post it, please?
Also, when the officer smells smoke, does he have to call in the search to headquarters or anything? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Tulip , even if he did there is nobody to issue a warrant at headquarters.
I'll have to save Article 2 for tomorrow. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8484
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Searches done without correct procedure can endanger a prosecution. Why risk it? |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:40 pm: |
|
How is the warrantless monitoring program allowed by Article II, because it says the President is Commander in Chief?
Tulip, you are correct in that the 4th amendment and its prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and requirement of warrants is a bedrock of our democracy, where freedom of the individual is balanced against the needs and power of the government. Case law over the years has carved out exceptions, as noted above, and some others.
Whether the warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration is lawful though, remains to be seen.
Excellent point about democracies being more than elections, or, I would add, having a Constitution. This notion is applicable to the situation in Iraq also. The Bush administration likes to point to Iraq and say look at the progress, Iraq has a Constitution and has had free elections. I agree those are big steps for the country, but a Constitution is just a piece of paper if you don't have the leaders, lawmakers, and court system with the wherewithal to protect and defend it at all costs, even the provisions those leaders, etc. may not like.
As for the Iraqi elections, people were given the chance to vote. But Shiites voted for Shiites, Sunnis for Sunnis, and Kurds for Kurds. Maybe, after this election, Iraq is just a step closer to civil war or having the theocrat the majority wants, and who may want closer ties to Iran. Maybe they'll just ignore what their Constitution says about separation of religion and governmnet and the rights of women. Time will tell if such a result will occur and it would not be in our best interests if it did. I personally find that prospect a lot more probable than a flowering western style democracy. That wouldn't be such a great democratic result but hey, they had their election.
Democracies are so much more than merely voting and having a Constitution. The tough part comes after the election and after a Constitution is drafted, when governing has to be done and the Constitution has to be interpreted and defended. We shall see what happens. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10422
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Drug searches are interesting. If an officer smells marijuana smoke he can get a warrant. He can not search the car without a warrant. He can look around , but he can't open the glove compartment or the trunk or move objects to look under them.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 521
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Tulip-
I love it that individuals like you whine about executive abuse of power but remain mum over judicial abuse of power. You become a strict constitutionalist when it comes to the 4th amendment but then the document becomes "open to intepretation (OTI)" when it comes to the 14th amendment.
I may be going out on a limb here but if I had to guess you would rather have the 2nd amendment just go away wouldn't you? Again, another "OTI" moment...
So do me a favor and decide how you are going to view the constitution and get back to me, ok?
Now onto Hamas-them gaining so much power is scary, but to honestly think that they will uphold the tenants of democracy...ummmmm...
The only upside to this (and this is ify) is that this election would "legitimatize" Hamas to the point of being a recognized govt. body. If so and they keep up with their terrorist ways, the world can address them in a more "legitimate" arena (war, UN, etc...)
In other words, if they keep up with their ••••, we can take em out! 
|
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 37
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Whatever one thinks of the US form of democracy, there are and have been others. Democracy can be defined in many ways, but probably common to them all is a determination by the people, either directly or indirectly, of their rulers. Those rulers might enjoy very strong or weak powers, and the people may enjoy more or fewer civil rights.
Aristotle would say that democracy is a form of gov't in which the many (i.e., the poor) rule in their own interest. He wasn't a big fan.
The US Constitition does not equal "democracy", it embodies one form of it. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 9:19 pm: |
|
What's the big deal? Hamas has been ruling Palestine for decades. Nothing will change whether they held elections or not. They will continue to live in squalor and blame the great satan. No surprises here. The big difference is now, Israel and the US can't pretend they are dealing with a legit government. I think it will make it much easier to mess with Hamas now that they are the ruling party. Let's see what Israels response will be when the next mortar or suicide bomber hits. Something tells me it will be rather fierce. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 9:22 am: |
|
The rise of Hamas presents a golden opportunity to cut off funding to the Palestinians.
The US constitution is a blueprint for a Republic. The word "democracy" is nowhere to be found in it. Federalist #10 compares and contrasts Republics(good) with Democracies(not so good). Lastly, an Islam that recognized a distinction between Mosque and State would no longer be Islam.
Cheers |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page