For example: POWs weren't stripped of their freedom of religious practice. Nor were they stripped of their protections under the eighth amendment, which reads in its entirety:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Note that nothing in the text of the amendment indicates a limitation to criminal imprisonment. Obviously, in the case of bail, such would normally only be ordered during criminal proceedings, but that doesn't mean that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is limited to only those being held for criminal offenses.

Without such express limitation of the Eighth, the very idea of involuntary coercion, being rooted in cruelty, is unconstitutional.

For that matter, the relevant parts of the Fifth can be read as:

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

Thus, some due process of law must be in evidence to detain anyone for an extended period of time. In the case of POWs, the 'due process of law' is that they are legitimate combatants who have been humanely retired from the field of battle in a declared (rendering the legitimate military actions of an identifiable military force legal) war. They were identified as such, and then are held as such, until such time as it is possible to repatriate them to their home country in a manner that will not inevitably predicate their return to the battlefield (as such would be cruel, and thus, illegal).

and then sue successfully for harassment.

That's what every Constitutional protection is about. That's what the entire Bill of Rights is about: limiting the ability of the USG to abuse and harass those under its aegis.

Once an individual is a POW, they are no longer in a 'combat situation', and all of the protections accorded to anyone in federal custody apply, ie: prohibitions against cruel and unusual treatment, unlawful search, etc etc. No, they are not criminals and should not be treated as criminals. That doesn't mean that the baseline Constitutional protections don't apply to them, though. If anything, it means that protections and treaty obligations far and above just those protections apply.

But the protections afforded by the US Constitution always apply to anyone in the custody of the United States Government, because those protections are prohibitions on the behavior of the United States Government. They apply most frequently to citizens because citizens spend most of their time (in principle) in territory administered by, and thus under the auspices of, the United States Government. Anyone else who is then taken into USG custody, regardless of citizenship, would have to be afforded those same protections, because the protections are intended as limitations on the actions of the USG.

As well, if his conspiracy is against American citizens, or conspiring to commit acts within the US, then his criminal liability is to the United States.

They're not about your behavior... they're about the behavior of the US Gov.

He is a prisoner of war. He is entitled to the protections and rights granted by the Geneva Conventions, and more, he himself is obligated and held to the standards those Conventions lay out for Asymmetric Warfare.

Example: When he battled the US in Afghanistan, did he wear/clearly display a uniform, badge, token, or other identifying feature to signify his membership in an organized military force? Were his targets limited to legitimate military targets?

If not, then not only is he a POW, he's a POW who should be charged with war crimes.

2.) John Smith, a Yemeni citizen living in Yemen, trains terrorists

He's a criminal. Terrorism, and the preparations for terrorism, is fundamentally a Conspiracy to commit assault, murder, arson, etc etc, dependant upon the plan involved. In the case of general terrorist-training, the range of possible charges would be as broad as the prosecutor can imagine: the conspiracy is to commit all of them as some point.

As such, he should be incarcerated until such time as the appropriate legal body, which need not be the US legal system, can old him accountable. Many other nations have laws authorizing their law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to pursue extraterritorial claims against terrorists and accomplices. If he is held by a US agency in a US-controlled facility, then he should be held in at minimum the same baseline conditions required for all involuntary wards of the state - those used by the federal prison system. (Note that most of our prison facilities are well above those minimum conditions.)

Say it again!
WAR!
Huh. Good God, y'all.

If you really want to see elected officials serving the public interest, shackle their self-interest to that of the average American:

1)No elected official receives healthcare from their employers unless their employers receive the option of that exact same healthcare - if taxpayer-funded healthcare is good enough for the 535 legislators, it's good enough for the rest of us.

2)No federal elected official shall receive, in any form, compensation or income in excess of 110% of the Median Income among the U.S. population as reported by the IRS and/or Dept of Labor for the period 2 years earlier (as reporting still tends to lag about that far behind). Any compensation, gifts, capital gains, or other income in above that point shall be forfeit to the Internal Revenue Service or other Federally-designated recipient. This includes 50% of the value of 'communal' income and gains in the case of married officials.

Those two measures get enacted, you'll see public servants actually serving the public for a change.

Personally, I'd like to see just one Senator or Congressman who opposes single-payer universal coverage answer the following question:

If I, as an employed American citizen who pays my taxes, cannot afford to pay for my own healthcare... why am I paying for theirs?

In effect, they've provided a cheap series of Direct-to-DVD productions while the studio works on the next big-budget movie.

Are they worried about 'jet lag'? Obviously not. But 'convenience' is another story. What we might label 'convenience', they might frame as 'we can mount one attack within the U.S. for the price of six or seven closer attacks', and at that trade-off, the call's a no-brainer.

Don't mistake acknowledging similar results - lack of any successful, big-ticket foreign attack on U.S. soil - for agreeing with the underlying idea that we're safer because of the wars.

Wall of Text crits you for 32,652,000 damage.
You die.

It's amazing that you'd even bring Darwin into this. Normally, Darwinist references in terms of social and political issues are expressed by those supporting an unfettered Free Market: the businesses that don't adapt to the changing conditions don't survive. That's the so-called "Darwinist" economic attitude, and it's the one required by unfettered free enterprise. The unfit, after all, can't be subsidised, because that puts unfair pressures on those businesses that would normally succeed without government assistance.

So I have to say, I'm impressed. Demanding a Darwinian approach while simultaneously wishing him an eternity in Hell. Not, of course, that anyone gets an eternity in Hell... after all, Revelations clearly states that those who don't share in eternal reward will be condemend to Gehenna, "the fire that burns for an Age". That'd be 1,000 years, at which time... they're utterly obliterated, no eternal torment. Sorry to disappoint. Of course, there's also that whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing, but obviously you've decided to go ahead and offer yourself up for immediate judgement. Please list all of your sins so the community can evaluate your case. But I digress...

Next, allow me to congratulate you on completely missing the point of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Who decides ability? Each of us do. You do what you want to do, what you feel you're most suited for and called, within yourself, in your heart of hearts, to do. That is where your truest ability lies: where your heart calls you; because that is where you can go and do what you do happily and freely. Each of our efforts contributes to the whole of society, no matter what those efforts are. Society would be impossible without each piece of the puzzle that's contributed by individuals. So, it's in society's best interests for those contributions to be ones that are made without rancor or compulsion.

That means people doing the things they love to do, which means people finding the things they love, and then being given the opportunity and tools to do it. But it hinges on the individual having in his life the liberty to pursue his own happines. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's a familiar phrase, but I don't think you'll find it in the Bible.

Life? The people of Jericho weren't given any option to convert and become Israelites, were they? Instead, Joshua was ordered by God to put to death every man, woman, and child for the crime of their ethnicity.

Liberty? Slaves told to obey their masters, guidelines on how badly you can beat your slaves...

The pursuit of happiness? Just how happy were those folks in Jericho about being the victims of divinely-ordered genocide?

Yeah. But I'm digressing again. Sorry. On to 'to each according to his need'.

What determines need? Well, that should be self-evident. You need food and water. You need protection against exposure, either through clothing or shelter (or, hopefully, both), and you need oxygen. When ill, you need the things, be they rest and fluids, or medication, that will allow you to recover. Those are what a person needs, from a physical standpoint; the things that, if they don't get them, they die. But from a social standpoint? Well, you need the physical things... and you need the freedom to be able to live in accordance with your beliefs and... oh, hell, look at that, we're back at Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

So, what determines need? Well... I'd say beyond the physical, biological needs... we do, ourselves, individually. Need, mind you, not want. You need shelter. You don't need a palatial manor. You need food. You don't need caviar. So we're talking about a baseline safety net that allows people to continue to function as contributing members of society.

You say this idea is 'satanic'.

First off, 'Satan' isn't a name, it's a job title. It means 'adversary'. In fact, the only times 'Satan' is identified in the Bible, he's doing exactly that: he's Man's Adversary. What's more... he can be shown to be doing it for God. Satan doesn't touch Job until God says it's ok to test him. Satan's other big moment is with Christ, and the whole 'turn this rock into bread' in the desert. Again, it's a test. When you took a test in school, were your teachers trying to make you fail? Or were they hoping you'd pass the test? Christ doesn't pass that test, he's not fit to be the redeeming sacrifice. If Christ isn't tested... then he doesn't know he's fit. 100% divine, 100% human, remember? All those human frailties and weaknesses, he's got. So, you test him. Demonstrate to him that he's got what it takes, that he has the strength of character to endure suffering and pain because it's the right thing to do. It's not the easy thing. It's not the personally advantageous thing... but it's the right thing.

So, maybe you're right: Marx was talking about trying to find an economic model where we put one another's needs ahead of our own wants. Darwin was talking about looking for truth, rather than just accepting answers on blind faith. They're not easy things... they're often not personally advantageous... but they are the right things. So in that sense, maybe they were 'satanic'... testing us to see if we could rise above the convenient and the easy, the teachings that had just been accepted without question, to choose the right options.

And if that's the case, then wouldn't the Christ-like thing be to pass the test? To reject what's easy and convenient in favor of the harder, less personally rewarding, but nevertheless morally correct choice?

Also, as a minor, but salient point:
"Lenin took over the Soviet Union in 1917."

Vladimir Lenin was one of the leaders of the October Revolution by the Bolsheviks in 1917. This led to the Congress of Soviets electing Lenin to lead the new Russian state, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Then followed the Russian Civil War, which lasted until late 1921. (Actually, the last elements of the White Army didn't give in until 1923.) In 1922, the Russian SFSR, Transcaucasian SFSR, Ukranian SSR, and Byelorussian SSR got together and signed the Treaty on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In other words, in 1917, there was no Soviet Union to 'take over', just as there's no Soviet Union now. There was Russia. There remains Russia. The USSR happened later, and Lenin never 'took over', he was installed as the leader of the USSR from the start.

Splitting hairs? Maybe. Semantics? Definitely. But words matter, and the language we use to convey our ideas is important. Being clear about what you're saying prevents people from taking the wrong thing from your words.

It's also important to remember that, as you pointed out, Marx wrote in 1848. In 1848, the commercial telegraph had existed for 15 years, and wasn't widely implemented. It wasn't even as common as the depictions of it in fiction about the American west (usually set 1870-1890) make it out to be, and in those films, a telegram's an unusual event. So telecommunications was still in its infancy for Marx. When Marx wrote, the very idea of central power was a slow, burdensome process that took weeks, if not months or years, to wield. So he was primarily looking at smaller, localized groupings that saw to their own needs.

I think, in all honesty, if Marx had had any idea what was going to happen in the century and a half after he wrote those words, he'd have had a very different view on the potential 'contractions' to challenge capitalism's viability. A great many of the tools for communicating and coordinating economic activity that our entire system relies upon... simply didn't exist.

But, you also erroneously say that Marx had his solutions to human failings coming from the State. That's simply not so. As you point out, in Marx's final stage of development, the State is discarded as meaningless. Instead, the solutions come from the community. Marx's final 'communism' is nothing short of benevolent anarchy, or pure democracy (which are extraordinarily close to one another) in that problems are discussed among the entire populace, and solutions found and agreed upon, and then voluntarily implemented by all, because all agree that they are, in fact, the correct solution.

I don't know that I'd call Marx 'naive' in that, though. I'll certainly grant you that the scenario he envisioned is quite impossible, but that doesn't mean he actually expected it to happen. It's kind of like any other form of perfection: you know you can't ever get through life without sinning. You know you're going to sin. That doesn't mean you don't aspire to that impossible goal, and strive to achieve it. In the same way, just because Marx indubitably knew his utopian scenario would never happen, that doesn't mean he was wrong to set it out there and say 'this is what I think we should all try to get to'.

As far as religion and spirituality go... religion's a very different thing from faith. Faith can be a wonderful thing. Faith can inspire, can uplift, can bring out all of the best in people. A community of the faithful can be a beautiful thing, and can be a great source of common ground and benevolence among its members. Religion, though, the organized, structured system of enforcing orthodoxy and uniformity of doctrine and dogma... that is an opiate, but it's important to understand what that means. An opiate isn't just some drug you take to feel good. In fact, that's about the last thing an opiate is... though ironically, it's the first thing opiates promise and are sought after for.

What opiates really do is keep you unmotivated, keep you passive and pliable. That's what religions do: they give you easy, ready-made answers so you don't have to question. They give you behavioral guidelines and claim to have all the answers, in order to keep you from questioning the very need for them and their hierarchies. They keep you passive, receptive to what those in authority decide to tell you.

It's very, very important to understand the difference between a community of the faithful, and a religion. Religions are the systematic enforcing of their established dogma and doctrines. The folks you celebrate your beliefs with, the preacher who leads the services, those are parts of your community of faith. When you're faced with a difficult question, and you go to your pastor with it, and the two of you discuss the issue, and look to your personal faith for answers, that's the actions of members of a community of faith. When you get 'well, the church says 'x',' and trying to understand why gets you told what amounts to 'because they said so', that's religion. Your faith should never compel you to surrender your freedom to another man's judgement, but merely leave you willing to consider his words and opinions and how they resonate with your own relationship with God.

That's the difference between faith and religion, and it's important to keep that in mind when evaluating Marx.

Karl, I mean. Richard Marx... eh, you don't need to keep much in mind to evaluate his work. :/

Oh, and...

Wall of Text II crits you for 11,000,000,000 damage.
Hopefully, you lived. ;)

Brian, in case you're wondering wtf people are grumbling about: 'queued' would be 'in line' while 'cued' is 'shown indicators of action'.

The next song your iTunes comes up with? That's queued. Following someone's lead? Taking a cue.

The only reason precious metal coins had value was people were willing to do work to get the rare metals. The value itself was in the effort needed to get them. All any money is is a promissory note of 'This person has a chit worth redeeming for value. If you redeem this chit for them, you can then bring this chit to anyone else participating in the system and redeem it from them.'

That's it. That's all any form of money is. So to say 'you've never actually seen the money you make' is pointless: holding a handful of coins, I'm still only seeing an abstract representation of the value of my labor, and one that may change in value any given day, given price fluctuations. You never actually have the redeemed value of your labor until you have the product which you were working in order to buy.

Torture and the rule of law are very much on our minds. The rule of law should be on the mind of everyone who's hoping the government can get the economy moving again:

If the government cannot be trusted to obey the law, then any economic stimulus measures cannot be trusted, because it is only the law that determines how those moneys will be put to use. If the executive feels free to violate those laws at will, then the legislature's efforts to assemble useful packages of spending become moot, and all faith in the government's economic strength is rendered worthless.

Faith in the government's economic efficacy is the only thing upon which our currency's value is based. So if that faith is rendered worthless, so too is the dollar.

TLDR; If the government can't be trusted to abide by the rule of law, the dollar is worthless, and there is no hope for any meaningful and lasting economic recovery.

And $140,000,000... less than the repairs to 3 planes... isn't money well-spent? As pointed out, the USAF sheltered far more than 3 plans because of the warnings. The FAA is able to re-route traffic and avoid damage to civilian planes, and potential loss of life.

And that's a volcano in Alaska. What if it were Ranier? Or St. Helens? Or Hood? All three are slumbering volcanos outside of Seattle, where there's far more air traffic.

$60M cost for 1 plane in a remote area vs $140M for all the volcanoes we monitor in a program that's already underfunded. Even without taking into account the cost of rebuilding roads and other infrastructure if a volcano in a more populated region were to pop off... that's an incredibly sound investment in infrastructure.

Most of Western Suffolk, that's rich. $70-80k/yr will let you get by w/a house and a car if you're careful, $120k comfortably. Some parts of Huntington and Islip, $250k/yr will feel like you're barely keeping up with Joneses, but those Joneses are worth millions. And out in the Hamptons, or Montauk... well, if you live there year round, $250k/yr is mega-rich, and if you own one of the estates out there and only vacation out there (or you're Billy Joel), $250k/yr means you haven't actually worked that year.

As for those two cops? The Suffolk Co. Police Dept is one of the highest-paid in the country, and for the most part, does jack-all to earn it. That's part of why the Suffolk Co. Sherrif's Dept has been trying to get a similar payscale - they do the actual damned work, as do Corrections officers.