2016 Presidential Candidate

[MDM]

Just as soon as Bush/Cheney are prosecuted for ordering a bunch of people to be tortured as many as 186 times.

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

[MoonShadow]

Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous.   She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be. 

I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor.  She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).

Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra?  It stinks of politics, not valid critique.

I don't think she's a traitor.  She may, however, have been criminally negligent with regard to these e-mails. 

I think she should be prosecuted for any crimes she committed by sending or receiving emails. Just as soon as Bush/Cheney are prosecuted for ordering a bunch of people to be tortured as many as 186 times.

Unfortunately, Obama already pardoned Bush, so that won't work.

[brooklynguy]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

[MDM]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

[brooklynguy]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

I don't disagree, but neither my opinion nor, for that matter, the opinions of the would-be victims of a potential preventable nuclear explosion, carry any more weight than anyone else's in answering the question of the moral or legal acceptability of using torture / enhanced interrogation techniques.  If anything, in the latter case, they carry less.  Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no anti-torture advocates among would-be victims of terrorism.

[MDM]

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no anti-torture advocates among would-be victims of terrorism.

Well said.

[Cathy]

I don't disagree, but neither my opinion nor, for that matter, the opinions of the would-be victims of a potential preventable nuclear explosion, carry any more weight than anyone else's in answering the question of the ... legal acceptability of using torture / enhanced interrogation techniques. ...

Today I happened to read Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 339 F3d 542 (7th Cir 2003) (Posner J, in chambers), which contains some vaguely relevant discussion. In the opinion, Judge Posner denies leave to file a proposed amicus brief on the grounds that it would add nothing to the case other than telling him the views of the author of the brief, and that is irrelevant because "[t]he judicial process ... is not democratic in the sense of basing decision on the voting ... of constituents and interest groups. [...] Essentially, the proposed amicus briefs merely announce the 'vote' of the amici on the decision of the appeal. But, as I have been at pains to emphasize ..., they have no vote". In other words, legal questions (including the legality of an alleged method of torture) are not decided by surveying all of the various special interest groups; they are decided based on the law.

[MoonShadow]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

I don't disagree, but neither my opinion nor, for that matter, the opinions of the would-be victims of a potential preventable nuclear explosion, carry any more weight than anyone else's in answering the question of the moral or legal acceptability of using torture / enhanced interrogation techniques.  If anything, in the latter case, they carry less.  Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no anti-torture advocates among would-be victims of terrorism.

That might be a fair argument, but since we know that those who are actually tortured will eventually tell their attacker whatever they think will get them to stop, such techniques are useless unless we know that we have the right guy.  Considering that we also now know that about one-quarter of the inmates at Guantanmo Bay were simple victims of false accusations, often by neighbors who had a grudge or were expecting a cash award, I can't see how we can assume that those who were tortured actually ever knew anything useful.  And they might not have known anything useful even if they were true 'collaborators'.  The typical grunt in our Army has no working knowledge of the general's battle plan either.

And even if none of that matters, torture of prisoners of war is un-American.

[sol]

legal questions (including the legality of an alleged method of torture) are not decided by surveying all of the various special interest groups; they are decided based on the law.

Presumably, "the law" is decided and enacted by people who were voted into office, with some time lag between the voting and the legislating.  From that perspective, it is ultimately popular opinion that determines legality and denying it in order to adhere to a law that is inevitably changing is just deliberate stalling.  The recent shift on gay marriage being a relevant example wherein popular opinion effectively changed the law, despite many people attempting to use  old laws to stifle the progress.

[sol]

And even if none of that matters, torture of prisoners of war is un-American.

This opinion I don't understand.  Torture is an official part of American foreign policy.  America has an official state apparatus devoted to torture, including specialized facilities and staff and training programs and legal defense teams.  America is now world famous for state officers taking denigrating pictures of torture victims.  America may not torture more than some other countries, but we do so much more publicly, proudly, and unrepentantly than anyone else.

So despite popular opinion, torture is VERY American. 

[Cathy]

legal questions (including the legality of an alleged method of torture) are not decided by surveying all of the various special interest groups; they are decided based on the law.

Presumably, "the law" is decided and enacted by people who were voted into office, with some time lab between the voting and the legislating.  From that perspective, it is ultimately popular opinion that determines legality and denying it in order to adhere to a law that is inevitably changing is just deliberate stalling. ...

The specific question of whether any particular persons are guilty of any crimes as a result of alleged torture programs that took place in the past is not a question that can be resolved through legislation at this juncture. For that proposition, I refer you to Art I, §§ 9-10 of the US Constitution, and in particular the ex post facto clauses contained within. That's what was being discussed in the chain I quoted. (Specifically, it was alleged that George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney may be guilty of unspecified offenses for things they did in the past. MDM then replied with his suggestion that victims of terrorist attacks might be sympathetic to the alleged torture programs. brooklynguy then replied to that, and I ultimately joined in to the thread soon thereafter.)

[MoonShadow]

And even if none of that matters, torture of prisoners of war is un-American.

This opinion I don't understand.  Torture is an official part of American foreign policy.  America has an official state apparatus devoted to torture, including specialized facilities and staff and training programs and legal defense teams.  America is now world famous for state officers taking denigrating pictures of torture victims.  America may not torture more than some other countries, but we do so much more publicly, proudly, and unrepentantly than anyone else.

So despite popular opinion, torture is VERY American.

Only relatively recently. We most certainly did not officially condone such tactics during the first or second world wars. There may have been instances wherein it happened anyway, but it certainly was against our policies toward prisoners of war, and we still have prohibitions upon the poor treatment of such PoW's.  Bush & Co dodged those laws because they would never acknowledge that they were PoW's, a leap of logic that I could never wrap my head around.  They seemed to be arguing that acts of terrorism were not acts of war, so the inmates were not PoW's; but nor were they acts of crime, for which our other laws required prosecution and a due process.  It was basicly an internment camp.  While I know that the US has failed to maintain it's own standards on many occasions in the past (including some of my own ancestors), we have typically come to be ashamed of those failures, not argue for their legality in a federal court.  What the federal government does in our name often reflects poorly on the character of "we the people", but we have never openly condoned such actions when the details were known before the Bush/Cheney era.

[GuitarStv]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

We do know that innocent people (at least 150 of them) were held and tortured in US prison camps.  I have yet to hear an argument for this practice that anyone has claimed is morally acceptable.

[brooklynguy]

That might be a fair argument, but since we know that those who are actually tortured will eventually tell their attacker whatever they think will get them to stop, such techniques are useless unless we know that we have the right guy.

The only argument I made was that one's relationship to the actual victims of past terrorist attacks or to the would-be victims of potential future terrorist attacks has no relevance towards the question of the morality (or legality) of the use of torture in terrorism-prevention efforts.

In an alternate version of the trolley problem, there can be little doubt that it would be immoral to flip a switch to send a train car full of innocent passengers to their deaths in order to save the life of a single person tied up on the tracks.  Nevertheless, if it were my children on the tracks, I would probably flip the switch; while my relationship to the victims may make that action more understandable, it would not make it any less immoral.

Similarly, the fact that I lost my father on 9/11 does not make my opinion on the use of state-sponsored torture any more relevant that it otherwise would be.  For the record, I believe our country's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" constituted torture that was both morally and legally unacceptable.  That said, if I were faced with a situation where I truly believed the torturing of a detainee would save the lives of my children, I probably wouldn't hesitate to torture him myself.  Every would-be potential terrorism victim is somebody's child, but as a nation and a society, we should not do what we would do, we should do what we should do.

[forummm]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

"morality" is not equivalent to "legality". Whether torture is moral or not, my understanding is that it is very clearly against US (and international) law. Morality (or certain people's opinions about what constitutes morality) is not a "get out of jail free" card. Waterboarding has historically been called torture by our own government. Both the Senate and Obama have reported that we tortured people. This really isn't an open question. Both Bush and Cheney refrain from traveling abroad. Perhaps because of fears that other countries have more respect for the rule of law as pertains to the powerful than does ours.

there are no atheists in foxholes

I disagree.

[Jack]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

There is, however, a sharp demarcation between what's allowed under the Geneva Convention and what is criminal behavior!

The people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have been martyrs for the cause of freedom, except for the fact that we shat upon their legacy by abandoning our ideals. We let the terrorists win.

[Gin1984]

One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).

We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations.  And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center.  Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.

There is, however, a sharp demarcation between what's allowed under the Geneva Convention and what is criminal behavior!

The people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have been martyrs for the cause of freedom, except for the fact that we shat upon their legacy by abandoning our ideals. We let the terrorists win.

I agree. 

[MDM]

There is, however, a sharp demarcation between what's allowed under the Geneva Convention and what is criminal behavior!

Perhaps a study of the Geneva Convention would find otherwise, but the guess here is that flying planes into buildings, both full of innocent people, is not allowed there.  And yes, "two wrongs don't make a right,"

The people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have been martyrs for the cause of freedom, except for the fact that we shat upon their legacy by abandoning our ideals. We let the terrorists win.

There are different definitions of winning.  One can make the case that being a live pragmatist is better than being a dead idealist, but there are also different ways to measure "better."

On another note: brooklynguy, very sorry for the loss of your father.  I lost a good friend, but that's not nearly the same.

[Glenstache]

there are no atheists in foxholes

I disagree.

I would add that a reasoned consideration of a world in which lots of people end up in foxholes might be a good motivation to be an atheist.

[brooklynguy]

On another note: brooklynguy, very sorry for the loss of your father.  I lost a good friend, but that's not nearly the same.

Thank you.  I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.

One can make the case that being a live pragmatist is better than being a dead idealist, but there are also different ways to measure "better."

Using the dictionary definition I found that seems most pertinent to this discussion,

better:

2.  morally superior; more virtuous

I think most people would agree that being a dead idealist is better than being a live pragmatist, but if push came to shove I think most of us would probably still personally choose to be the latter over the former.  Self-preservation and loved-one-preservation are powerful motivating forces, capable of overriding the moralistic integrity of some of the staunchest idealists.  It's easy to claim that your atheism will never waver, but until you're actually in a foxhole you can't know for sure.

[GuitarStv]

The atheist/foxhole argument is that religion's pull is strongest when you're in a terrified state of panic and not thinking clearly . . . which I suspect most atheists would be OK with.

[brooklynguy]

To clarify, I only used the "no atheists in foxholes" expression because it was a convenient aphorism for the idea I was trying to express (namely, that it's easy to adopt a position in the abstract but either abandon or violate it in times of extreme crisis).  I don't necessarily believe in a strong version of that aphorism (i.e., I don't believe that literally no one who is faced with the strong possibility of death continues to disbelieve in a higher power), but I do think there is some truth in a weaker version of that aphorism (i.e., I think it's likely that many people who operate strictly according to logic and reason and do not believe in a higher power may nevertheless find themselves praying to one to spare their life if faced with death even while continuing to believe that such prayers are futile because they know that magic does not actually exist).

Anyway, I didn't mean to lead this off topic discussion about the morality of torture into the further off topic territory of religion.

[Bob W]

Back to the Presidential Candidate discussion ---

Now that Hillary is becoming increasingly damaged goods who else may jump in other than Biden,  Gore and the usual suspects?

The Iowa early poll now shows Trump with a significant lead and Scott what's his name falling from 1st to 3rd.  2nd place is Ben Carson.   I'm at least relieved that the race is being lead by a man who appears to have little interest in gays, god, or fundamental religion.    (I don't know that for a fact as I'm not really following Trump too closely and he hasn't published a platform.) 

I'm guessing Fox is hoping for a Trump victory at this point as they have realized that a Trump vs. any Democrat will lead to the best election ratings ever for them.   So yeah,  Fox is now officially backing Trump by giving Megyn Kelly 10 days off to reconsider her ways. 

Wish we were hearing more on Kasich.

[GuitarStv]

Now that it's clear you Americans are crazy enough to actually vote him in, I'd like to officially take back my comedic endorsement of Trump and apologize.

[Chris22]

I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are.  Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are.  It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists.  I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck. 

[forummm]

I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are.  Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are.  It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists.  I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck. 

The bad things other people are absolutely no justification for the bad things we do. Period. If they are bad we should follow our laws and process to bring them to justice. If we don't do that, then we make ourselves to be bad guys too. Why do that? There is no reason to violate our own principles in the process. It actually endangers us more to cede the moral highground. We recruited so many enemies and lost so many friends by the egregious way we treated people--many of whom were completely innocent. Even today we hold many people at Guantanamo that the government has admitted are innocent. Is that the kind of country you want to be? What if that were you? I would feel just terrible if you were locked up and tortured for over a decade for something you didn't do. I imagine you'd feel even worse about that.

In our system of law-based justice, we follow pre-established processes and try people. Let the evidence speak for itself. When we deviate from that we become less.

We also have a routine practice of extra-judicial killings that Obama has continued. He and his staff are judge, jury, and executioner. They decide, without any oversight from independent jurists, who to kill, and execute them (and people who happen to be around them, or the people they mistakenly thought were them)--even American citizens. Why aren't conservatives like yourself outraged about this unchecked governmental power being exercised in secrecy?

[GuitarStv]

I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are.  Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are.  It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists.  I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.

Yeah.  'Simulated'.  Three men were tortured to death in Guantanamo Bay by Americans.  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610

It's OK, because they were suspected terrorists.  Well, not the two of them that were cleared for release . . . I guess they weren't actually terrorists because they were being released.  Oops.  Well, it's cool because those guys were at one point suspected of being a terrorist.  And that's pretty damning right?

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog.

He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

Oh wait.  So many of these guys had nothing to do with the terrorism?  Oopsies again.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550

The US has been killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians via air strike in Afghanistan since 2001.


Please, get over the jingoism and flag waving.  The US has decided to behave like terrorists.  You shouldn't get upset when someone points that out.

[MissStache]

I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are.  Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are.  It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists.  I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.

Here's what this says to me:  "Those guys are awful, wretched, monstrous dicks.  So we should treat them just as badly as they treat each other (which makes them awful, wretched, monstrous dicks) because we are righteous and good."

[forummm]

I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are.  Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are.  It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists.  I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.

Here's what this says to me:  "Those guys are awful, wretched, monstrous dicks.  So we should treat them just as badly as they treat each other (which makes them awful, wretched, monstrous dicks) because we are righteous and good."

No, but we're better than them because we have good intentions. And they started it!

[MoonShadow]

I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are.  Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are.  It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists.  I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.

I served also, and my point is that in the past, America didn't compare itself to other nations and say "well, they were worse!".  America really was the shining city on the hill for quite a long time.  We established the ideals of how a representative republic should act, and we were embarrassed when our leaders failed to maintain such standards of moral action.  Similar to how the British expect the royal family to represent the highest order of civilization, and are disappointed when they fail; America has long held our publicly elected & appointed leadership to a higher moral & legal standard.  A recently as the 90's, we came surprising close to impeaching a sitting president for adultry; and several  federal and state congressmen have had their political careers destroyed for acts of hypocrisy, on both sides of the isle.  Just off the top of my head, I remember a Republican congressman who supported the Defense of Marriage Act who was caught in a police sting soliciting gay prostitution as well as a Democrat Congressperson (in California, IIRC) that was a hardcore gun-banner who was busted by the state department for gun running. 

[FoundPeace]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

[sol]

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?

Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why.  Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not.  The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes.  The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.

In these two cases, more regulation of one thing makes the world a better place and more regulation of the other makes the world a worse place.  You can't pick a position that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.

[MissStache]

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Wait.  You are comparing voting with the ability to purchase a literal lethal weapon?  No part of this is a valid comparison.  That is like saying an Orca is like a hamster because they are both animals. 

[Jeremy E.]

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?

Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why.  Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not.  The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes.  The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.

In these two cases, more regulation of one thing makes the world a better place and more regulation of the other makes the world a worse place.  You can't pick a position that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.

"Democrats want to make the world a better place." I don't need to read any further. I'm sure Hillary Clinton is only in this race to try to make "the world" a better place.

[MoonShadow]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

I remember seeing someone mention that exact comparison somewhere on this forum, but it may have been another thread.

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

What I don't understand is why is it that so many people hear liberals cry about 'sensible gun restrictions' when most of what they actually ask for are laws in the majority of states?  Gun owners already do have to present an ID whenever buying a gun from any federally licensed dealer, which is all of them; and firearms training is socially expected and common even in the few states that don't actually mandate minimum training requirements.  Every federal firearms dealers are legally bound to keep their sales records forever, so registration actually exists, it's just not centralized; so whenever a firearm is used in a crime, the ATF & FBI can track down it's last known owner rather efficiently.  And anyone who buys a firearm without learning how to use it, or buys one for their kids without teaching them how to handle it, is a mouth-breathing moron who is bound to legitimately earn the Darwin award in some fashion eventually.  There are dozens of privately funded training programs that go beyond the level of training that most military personnel get in basic training.  Appleseed is one, (http://appleseedinfo.org/) and 4H is another, (http://4-hshootingsports.org/) both of those programs are nationwide, and there are many more that are local or regional.  To most of the liberals who honestly don't wish to ban guns, but just want to see laws designed to prevent the mentally deficient or criminal element from getting firearms; those laws already exist.  Most of them are quite well crafted, and gun owners understand why they exist and are willing to put up with the rational ones; but no law is going to prevent all criminals from getting guns.  They can't even keep drugs out of prisons, for cristsakes!  The laws proposed by liberals who don't understand guns or gun owners are burdensome, ineffective and often counterproductive to their own stated ends.  Please, educate yourselves on the topic before you support more of this 'common sense legistlation' that you keep hearing about.

[MDM]

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?

One can also ask the similar question: "Why is it that Republicans are for voting ID cards but against tightening down gun laws significantly?"

Both sides pretty much use these as scare tactics.  Democrats wave the "they're trying to take your vote away" flag, while Republicans wave the "they're trying to take your guns away" flag.

On the flip side, some Republicans are legitimately concerned about voter fraud and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a voter ID is not onerous.  And some Democrats are legitimately concerned about illegal gun ownership and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a gun owner ID is not onerous.

[sol]

"Democrats want to make the world a better place." I don't need to read any further.

Then you're missing out. I think it was clear that I wasn't using"democrat" to refer to politicians, but to people who favor gun licensing and oppose voter ID laws because those positions make America better.  If you take a step back from the preconceived notions implied by the labels, sometimes people have interesting things to say about specific issues.

[Jeremy E.]

"Democrats want to make the world a better place." I don't need to read any further.

Then you're missing out. I think it was clear that I wasn't using"democrat" to refer to politicians, but to people who favor gun licensing and oppose voter ID laws because those positions make America better.  If you take a step back from the preconceived notions implied by the labels, sometimes people have interesting things to say about specific issues.

If there is a clear registry, and more gun laws, then assuming there is ever a ban on handguns(similar to what Bernie Sanders would like), non-hunting rifles, or any type of gun, the fear is that they know who have them and go try to take them away from those people. We have the right to bear arms, this right isn't to allow us to hunt, it's there to allow us to defend ourselves and will not be taken away.

[MoonShadow]

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?

Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why.  Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not.

Honestly, how would you know?

  The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes.

And said paper trail exists.

  The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.

And why don't they?  Shouldn't legal ID's be taxpayer funded?  Once upon a time, a person's Social Security card was considered legal id.  When that changed, there should have been a push to provide the poor the photo ID's that modern society requires.  You can't open a savings account without a photo ID.  If Voter ID's laws actually passed, then voter registration drives would just start including the "get them down to the county clerk's office for an ID" step as part of the drive.  The comparison may have it's faults, but do you really believe that voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and minorities?  Did you have to take a Jim Crow test for your last photo ID?  It's not like we are asking for a freaking passport!  We are just asking for a piece of plastic with your picture and name on it.  The same piece of plastic that anyone typically has to produce when writing a check or using a credit card!  Hell, even a cash advance joint requires a photo ID, and they seem to get way too many poor clients who managed to get an ID.

[sol]

Gun owners already do have to present an ID whenever buying a gun from any federally licensed dealer

Any idea how many firearms are transacted outside of federally licensed dealers?  Anecdotally, I legally own several firearms and have never set foot in a dealer or filled out any paperwork at all.  I'm a liberal who wants that "common sense legislation" to include actually registering all firearm transactions, instead of the paper thin excuse for licensing we have now.

If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me.  They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around.  Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.

[beltim]

  The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.

And why don't they?  Shouldn't legal ID's be taxpayer funded?  Once upon a time, a person's Social Security card was considered legal id.  When that changed, there should have been a push to provide the poor the photo ID's that modern society requires.  You can't open a savings account without a photo ID.  If Voter ID's laws actually passed, then voter registration drives would just start including the "get them down to the county clerk's office for an ID" step as part of the drive.  The comparison may have it's faults, but do you really believe that voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and minorities?  Did you have to take a Jim Crow test for your last photo ID?  It's not like we are asking for a freaking passport!  We are just asking for a piece of plastic with your picture and name on it.  The same piece of plastic that anyone typically has to produce when writing a check or using a credit card!  Hell, even a cash advance joint requires a photo ID, and they seem to get way too many poor clients who managed to get an ID.

If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them.  But those provisions just aren't included.

I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.

[MoonShadow]

If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me.  They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around.  Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.

I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited.  The ghost gun thing is an issue, but one without a real legislative solution, since guns are simple tech and there are way too many people with the skills & technology to make them.  The inherited guns thing actually is traceble by police.  Also, don't assume that the FBI can't figure out that you have weapons registered to dead people.  Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.

Like I said, the system is not foolproof, but a nationwide registry is not the answer, because it will not solve the problem and it will create other problems.

[Gin1984]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

Because of actual facts.  Isn't that funny.  Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence.  But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Now, compare that to voter fraud.  Do we have an issue with voter fraud?  No.  We have an issue with voter suppression via some of the laws in which the GOP pretending will limit vote fraud but no actual issue with it.  So, which should elected officials care about?  Mmmm, hard question.  Sarcasm if you did not get it.

[Gin1984]

If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me.  They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around.  Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.

I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited.  The ghost gun thing is an issue, but one without a real legislative solution, since guns are simple tech and there are way too many people with the skills & technology to make them.  The inherited guns thing actually is traceble by police.  Also, don't assume that the FBI can't figure out that you have weapons registered to dead people.  Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.

Like I said, the system is not foolproof, but a nationwide registry is not the answer, because it will not solve the problem and it will create other problems.

My ex, my brother and my best friend's little brother all have guns that have/had no paper trail to them and they are in California.  Oh, except that my best friend's little brother did have to tell the federal government about his, he is a Seal.  Not sure why, but he had like three that had no record before joining the armed forces.

[MoonShadow]

If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them.  But those provisions just aren't included.

A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.

http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
 
So your complaint is what, exactly?  That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?

I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.

I don't believe you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

[dramaman]

If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them.  But those provisions just aren't included.

A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.

http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
 
So your complaint is what, exactly?  That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?

Kansas also has 'free' IDs. The problem is that to get them you need a birth certificate, which does cost money to obtain. Most folks without an ID would not have a birth certificate. Therefore, getting the 'free' IDs constitutes a financial burden.

[MoonShadow]

If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me.  They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around.  Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.

I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited.  The ghost gun thing is an issue, but one without a real legislative solution, since guns are simple tech and there are way too many people with the skills & technology to make them.  The inherited guns thing actually is traceble by police.  Also, don't assume that the FBI can't figure out that you have weapons registered to dead people.  Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.

Like I said, the system is not foolproof, but a nationwide registry is not the answer, because it will not solve the problem and it will create other problems.

My ex, my brother and my best friend's little brother all have guns that have/had no paper trail to them and they are in California.

Then they are already felons...

http://carolrossi.hubpages.com/hub/California-Gun-Laws-Transfer-a-Firearm

  Oh, except that my best friend's little brother did have to tell the federal government about his, he is a Seal.  Not sure why, but he had like three that had no record before joining the armed forces.

That is due to an old federal law that governs militarily trained personnel.  I have to do the same thing.  Typically, I have to have an over-the-phone interview with an ATF agent whenever I buy a gun.  They ask things like, "do you ever have suicidal thoughts?" and "have you ever thought about harming your spouse?".  Basicly psych questions that no one in their right mind would answer yes to.  I once asked the operator if anyone actually answers yes, and she said, "amazingly, yes they do.  We have discovered more mentally disturbed people with these obvious questions than you would think."

[dramaman]

I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.

I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).

Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.

Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.

Because of actual facts.  Isn't that funny.  Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence.  But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Now, compare that to voter fraud.  Do we have an issue with voter fraud?  No.  We have an issue with voter suppression via some of the laws in which the GOP pretending will limit vote fraud but no actual issue with it.  So, which should elected officials care about?  Mmmm, hard question.  Sarcasm if you did not get it.

Exactly, there are daily reports of gun violence. Voter fraud, however, is a minor problem a best. A few local elections have been overturned over the years, but those are mostly due to misuse of absentee ballots, which voter ID laws don't address.

[MoonShadow]

If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them.  But those provisions just aren't included.

A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.

http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
 
So your complaint is what, exactly?  That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?

Kansas also has 'free' IDs. The problem is that to get them you need a birth certificate, which does cost money to obtain. Most folks without an ID would not have a birth certificate. Therefore, getting the 'free' IDs constitutes a financial burden.

Oh, come on!  Either the birth cert isn't the only thing that works, or there is likely some free way to get a certified copy of the birth cert.  There are probably even charities to help with this kind of thing.  This is a bullshit argument.

[beltim]

If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them.  But those provisions just aren't included.

A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.

http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
 
So your complaint is what, exactly?  That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?

1) The delay of several years between enacting voter ID laws and providing free ID.
1b) It took a federal court order to mandate free ID.
2) Access to places to get said free ID is insufficient: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification  - my favorite is the center that provides free ID that's only open the fifth Wednesday of "every" month
3) As dramaman pointed out, some states that provide free IDs still require documents that require money to obtain - e.g. birth certificates, for which the cost of obtaining is more than the adjusted value of the wildly- and widely-acknowledged illegal poll taxes of yore.

But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud?  I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.