Skip to main content

View Diary: The Fantasy of "Government Tyranny" (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i would, but since that situation doesn't exist in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    artmartin, JerryNA

    the US, it doesn't apply to this conversation.

    Would you describe a hypothetical government that claimed the power to imprison or kill anyone it chose without judicial review to be a tyranny?
    the drone program has been approved, by both your elected representatives (congress & the president), and your non-elected representatives (the judiciary). presumptively, since the majority of those who actually voted, didn't vote all those elected representatives out of office, this means that same majority tacitly approves of the program. the judiciary has had an opportunity to review it, and has chosen not to, deeming it a matter of national security, and beyond its purview.

    whether or not you individually approve isn't relevant. as a representative democracy, the majority of those who voted do approve, and registered their approval by their vote. hardly a tyranny, in the classically accepted definition of the term.

    the drone program is only different from soldiers on the ground, killing people that we, the people of the US (again, by virtue of our voting record) have deemed appropriate to kill, because the killing isn't being done "up close and personal". it doesn't meet our "marquess of queensbury" sporting standards. of course, neither does killing them by artillery shell, fired from a ship 50 miles away, or a bomb, dropped from 40,000 feet, so the whole stance is hypocritical to begin with.

    •  That doesn't make it Constitutional (4+ / 0-)

      You are simply saying that because Congress does something, or because the President declares by Executive Order that American citizens may be shot on site or detained with no due process, that it is legal.  It isn't.

      That, sir or madam, is tyranny.

      The British attempted to confiscate guns and powder and sparked a revolution.

      The diarist gets things terribly wrong when he/she says:

      When the guns of a minority trump or nullify the vote of the majority (thereby placing that minority above the law), that doesn't prevent tyranny; that is tyranny.
      The minority, in this case, IS the law.  It cannot be changed except for an amendment to the Constitution.  The President, nor the Senate, nor the House have any say in that.  They are not allowed to change that.

      You are so wrong when you say:

      the majority of those who voted do approve, and registered their approval by their vote. hardly a tyranny, in the classically accepted definition of the term.
      99% could approve.. it doesn't make it right.. nor legal.
    •  hogsnot. (0+ / 0-)

      it can't happen here, ever?

      "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

      by happymisanthropy on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:24:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site