wvucrazed Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:They are good quotes, and on the simplest level illustrate the adverserial nature of our government. If you show the Democratic quotes from that time, I think we will see that they also are speaking the opposite now of what they said then. But I also note that all those quotes are pre-9/11. Does anyone think that makes a difference? I know I didn't consider the Bosnian situation to be a major conflict that would run well past my lifetime, while I do consider the war in Iraq to be just a chapter in the war on terrorism, and I do think my unborn great-grandchildren will be fighting that war, or else it will have been lost.

You are of course correct about the polarized nature of our government. My point is that the shrill cries about anyone criticizing the war effort as being unpatriotic from the GOP is a little bit disingenuous, at best, as these quotes show.

As for 9/11... nothing changed in the way we should conduct war. 9/11 was an act of terrorism that had the potential to take place at any time over the last 20 years, just as it might at any time in the NEXT 20 years.

We must protect ourselves from terrorists, but I ask you: has Iraq made it more or less likely that another 9/11 will happen?

Consider: after 9/11, we were riding a wave of support and good feeling from the entire world. We had a HISTORIC opportunity to bring the world together and work to annihilate terrorism. The attack on the Taliban was widely supported.

Look at us now. A quagmire in Iraq. We have done more in Iraq to feed the flames of resentment and hatred in the middle east toward the US than 1000 Bin Laden recruitment videos could have done. Saddam was powerless, and surrounded... one false move by him, and he would have been disassembled. He knew this. What are dictators interested in? Power and self-preservation. Iraq was not a threat to anyone. We could have focused more power in Afghanistan, gone after the real enemy - al queda - and parlayed our international support into an effort to seriously diminish the terrorist threat. Now we can barely get even our allies to go along with us, let alone middle eastern nations that we might have been able to pressure to help had we the proper leverege.

But now...? Things are far worse in the middle east than before 9/11.

Not only that, the constitution has been set aside by Bush and his administration, who take that position that in an ongoing war, they can pretty much do whatever they feel like doing. Of course, they are the ones defining the ongoing war.

What is happening in America today - and around the world - is profoundly frightening.

I appreciate your response. We do see some things differently. But my basic question was, is it fair to compare pre-9/11 quotes to post 9/11 quotes? Certainly we had had smaller acts of terrorism before, but 9/11 was the wake-up call to our entire country. I now believe that the terrorists will not quit until their objectives are reached, and I think the untilmate objective is a world under Islamic law. They will not stop at a national or regional border. So I think we are in this for the long haul, and that was true long before we went into Iraq. This is not a battle aggainst a small extremist faction - the majority of Muslims worldwide support terrorism, either actively or passively.

I don't support an abrogation of the constitution to fight this war, but I do oppose an extention of its protections to those who want to destroy it. When the next mass murder occurs, the ones asking why we did nothing to stop it will be the same ones currently trying to shut down the wiretaps, the banking surveilance, the profiling at airports, the internments at Gitmo, etc. Wonder what the left will say when a terrorist freed from Gitmo explodes a dirty bomb in Kansas City. Bush's fault, of course. he should have done something.

You and others charge that Bush is trying to be Imperial and take the law into his own hands. In '08, if the Democrat is elected, probably Hillary, how would you want her to fight the terrorists? Would you expect that she would do it better without those tools? I would be interested in the details of how liberals will protect America.

The Constitution is a changing document - what we have now is not what we had in 1820 or 1925. Terrorism is a relatively new threat - the first time the threat has not been from a particulat nation or group of nations. Maybe what we are seeing are growing pains.

Quote:We must protect ourselves from terrorists, but I ask you: has Iraq made it more or less likely that another 9/11 will happen?

That's not the right question. The right question is it more or less difficult for a 9/11 style attack to take place because we're in Iraq? The answer is unquestionably yes.

Quote:Consider: after 9/11, we were riding a wave of support and good feeling from the entire world. We had a HISTORIC opportunity to bring the world together and work to annihilate terrorism. The attack on the Taliban was widely supported.

This is a myth I still haven't been able to get over.

We were supported in removing the Taliban because Afghanistan is useless unless you're an opium dealer. Had we tracked Al Queda to Iran instead you would not have seen the support we had for Afghanistan.

Quote:Saddam was powerless, and surrounded... one false move by him, and he would have been disassembled. He knew this. What are dictators interested in? Power and self-preservation. Iraq was not a threat to anyone.

You could not be more wrong. This statement shows the left in this country still has not grasped the nature of the enemy we face.

The danger isn't from dictators with armies anymore. The threat is from 1 to 10 guys with viles of chemical/biological weapons or a briefcase of plutonium. The danger is that a dictator with ties to and support for terrorists, like Saddam, with his possession and desire to procure those types of weapons would give them to terrorist elements to use on us.

Until the left in this country comes to grips with that fact that are not qualifed to protect this country.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:They are good quotes, and on the simplest level illustrate the adverserial nature of our government. If you show the Democratic quotes from that time, I think we will see that they also are speaking the opposite now of what they said then. But I also note that all those quotes are pre-9/11. Does anyone think that makes a difference? I know I didn't consider the Bosnian situation to be a major conflict that would run well past my lifetime, while I do consider the war in Iraq to be just a chapter in the war on terrorism, and I do think my unborn great-grandchildren will be fighting that war, or else it will have been lost.

You are of course correct about the polarized nature of our government. My point is that the shrill cries about anyone criticizing the war effort as being unpatriotic from the GOP is a little bit disingenuous, at best, as these quotes show.

As for 9/11... nothing changed in the way we should conduct war. 9/11 was an act of terrorism that had the potential to take place at any time over the last 20 years, just as it might at any time in the NEXT 20 years.

We must protect ourselves from terrorists, but I ask you: has Iraq made it more or less likely that another 9/11 will happen?

Consider: after 9/11, we were riding a wave of support and good feeling from the entire world. We had a HISTORIC opportunity to bring the world together and work to annihilate terrorism. The attack on the Taliban was widely supported.

Look at us now. A quagmire in Iraq. We have done more in Iraq to feed the flames of resentment and hatred in the middle east toward the US than 1000 Bin Laden recruitment videos could have done. Saddam was powerless, and surrounded... one false move by him, and he would have been disassembled. He knew this. What are dictators interested in? Power and self-preservation. Iraq was not a threat to anyone. We could have focused more power in Afghanistan, gone after the real enemy - al queda - and parlayed our international support into an effort to seriously diminish the terrorist threat. Now we can barely get even our allies to go along with us, let alone middle eastern nations that we might have been able to pressure to help had we the proper leverege.

But now...? Things are far worse in the middle east than before 9/11.

Not only that, the constitution has been set aside by Bush and his administration, who take that position that in an ongoing war, they can pretty much do whatever they feel like doing. Of course, they are the ones defining the ongoing war.

What is happening in America today - and around the world - is profoundly frightening.

I appreciate your response. We do see some things differently. But my basic question was, is it fair to compare pre-9/11 quotes to post 9/11 quotes? Certainly we had had smaller acts of terrorism before, but 9/11 was the wake-up call to our entire country. I now believe that the terrorists will not quit until their objectives are reached, and I think the untilmate objective is a world under Islamic law. They will not stop at a national or regional border. So I think we are in this for the long haul, and that was true long before we went into Iraq. This is not a battle aggainst a small extremist faction - the majority of Muslims worldwide support terrorism, either actively or passively.

I don't support an abrogation of the constitution to fight this war, but I do oppose an extention of its protections to those who want to destroy it. When the next mass murder occurs, the ones asking why we did nothing to stop it will be the same ones currently trying to shut down the wiretaps, the banking surveilance, the profiling at airports, the internments at Gitmo, etc. Wonder what the left will say when a terrorist freed from Gitmo explodes a dirty bomb in Kansas City. Bush's fault, of course. he should have done something.

You and others charge that Bush is trying to be Imperial and take the law into his own hands. In '08, if the Democrat is elected, probably Hillary, how would you want her to fight the terrorists? Would you expect that she would do it better without those tools? I would be interested in the details of how liberals will protect America.

The Constitution is a changing document - what we have now is not what we had in 1820 or 1925. Terrorism is a relatively new threat - the first time the threat has not been from a particulat nation or group of nations. Maybe what we are seeing are growing pains.

Ask yourself this question: if there was a democrat sitting in the White House right now, do you really think the GOP would be blindly supporting him, waving the American flag, and sitting happily while they were spoon-fed whatever the President wanted to feed him? No, of course not. Regardless of 9/11, if the shoe was on the other foot, the GOP would be screaming just as loud now as they were when Clinton was in office. 9/11 didn't change that.

You keep making the error that the Democrats want to "do away" with wiretaps, etc. That is simply not the case. We support whatever means necessary to combat terrorism - WITHIN THE LAW. The President has decided that he can unilaterally do whatever he feels like in the name of fighting terrorism, with no oversight, with no checks or balances. That is not what America is about. We can fight terrorism, and we can do it in a way that protects our constitution.

If a Democrat is elected in 2008 (please, not Hillary.... please... please....), then I would expect him to take whatever action needed to protect American citizens under the scope of the law and the constitution, as well as repair our relations with our allies, and even countries we might not view as allies, in order to fight an effective multi-national war on terrorism.

Your example about the Gitmo detainee being let go and committing an act of terrorism is a little off the mark. What happens if a Republican Judge allows a criminal to go free because the case wasn't proven against him, and he goes out and rapes someone? That happens all the time in this country. Is it a good thing? No of course not. But that is our system, and we have laws and protections for a reason. The foundation of our judicial system is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. How do you think Gitmo is viewed by the average person in the middle east? Do you think it is more or less likely to create a terrorist out of someone who might not have taken that route?

Too many want to stick up the finger and say "screw you" to the middle east, and the rest of the world, if they don't like our methods. The problem is that this attitude does us more harm than good, because ultimately we are creating more of the enemy we are trying to defeat, and we are limiting our ability to get allies to assist us when we clearly can't go it alone.

Etting a bit unwieldy to keep quoting.

You say the President has unilateraly decided to do whatever he feels like in the name of fighting terroism with no oversight and no checks and balances. We have checks and balances - they are called courts. We saw an example of that today. Bush is pushing the envelope to fight an unprecedented war, one against an amorphus entity rather than a nation. None of the laws were enacted with this situation in mind. The laws you mention were enacted to protect Americans from the American Government, but now they are being used to protect foreign terrorists. One way our Constitution changes is by people pushing the envelope and then the courts ruling on it. This is how we got legalized abortion and the use of eminent domain for non-governmental purposes, and it is how DeLay's redistricting of Texas was confirmed as being legal. I think we need some changes to address a new situation. My impression of Bush is that he is doing to do what is needed NOW, rather than waiting 20 years for constutional amendents to pass. In 20 years we may all be dead, so i favor the immediate action. If you want to wait for the laws to change, that's your perogative. But the terroists won't wait.


All this concern over Bush taking liberties - he is out in 2 years anyway. No one says the new president must continue to act as he has. If we elect a Democrat who will not use these methods, will that make you happier? Do you think the new president announcing he will not use those tools will help make us safer from terrorism? Think any terorists will hear that speech and say phooey, now that htey are playing nice I have to also?

Personally, i am glad we have someone who is willing and able to take decisive action, instead of sitting around wringing his hands and wondering if he can get permission to protect the country. JMHO.

I've got to get back to work, Owl. You raise some points that are worthy of discussion, but I can't type an appropriate response now ;-)

wvucrazed Wrote:I've got to get back to work, Owl. You raise some points that are worthy of discussion, but I can't type an appropriate response now ;-)

Understood. I want to go to lunch anyway. Catch ya later.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Personally, i am glad we have someone who is willing and able to take decisive action, instead of sitting around wringing his hands and wondering if he can get permission to protect the country. JMHO.

This is called "dictatorship." The president could have made the argument and gone through proper channels to get whatever he deemed necessary to fight against terrorists. However, he chose not to do that. That isn't "decisive action".

Military tribunals, for example. The Supreme Court slapped him down for ignoring the law, but it pointed out that with proper authority and due process that the military tribunals could go forward. The right-wing radio screamers were all saying that the "liberal" justices want America to "coddle" terrorists?! Isn't that the most absurd thing you've ever heard?

The right doesn't seem to mind if the President is incapable of following the law, as long as the end result is something they approve. You say, well, Bush will only be in office 2 more years. Aren't you worried about a democratic president taking similar unilateral initiatives? What happens if there is a president taking action that you aren't so heartily in approval with? Believe me, if Al Gore was president and he tried to pull the kind of stuff Bush is doing, the GOP would be screaaaaaaming.

It may very well be that you are right and some laws need to be looked at and changed to make sure we can effectively meet this threat. But you can't have one branch of the government simply ignoring laws that don't meet his approval. That is incredibly dangerous, in my mind.

Quote:This is called "dictatorship." The president could have made the argument and gone through proper channels to get whatever he deemed necessary to fight against terrorists. However, he chose not to do that. That isn't "decisive action".

1. The total lack of intellegence in the dictatorship argument is staggering with you people. Dictatorships come through one of two ways, military might subjigating the people or the people giving it because they're so bad off. Neither applies here and any attempt to liken tracking the finances of terrorists to a dictatorship is stupid.

2. Bush went through the proper channels for the finance tracking program. The chairman and ranking member of the House Intellegence Commt. were informed, as was the minority leader and majority leaders. Even your precious NY Times acknowledged the program isn't illegal. So get over yourself.

Quote:Military tribunals, for example. The Supreme Court slapped him down for ignoring the law, but it pointed out that with proper authority and due process that the military tribunals could go forward.

5 liberals on the court "slapped him down" 3 others rightly pointed out they had no jurisdiction.

Quote:The right-wing radio screamers were all saying that the "liberal" justices want America to "coddle" terrorists?! Isn't that the most absurd thing you've ever heard?

If I'd never read anything you'd ever written, possibly.

Quote:The right doesn't seem to mind if the President is incapable of following the law, as long as the end result is something they approve.

It doesn't take an advanced law degree to understand that "the law" is very much in the eye of the beholder. Don't forget you had 4 justices on the court who agreed that 1) the court had no jurisdiction and 2) the President had the right to set the tribunals up.

Quote:You say, well, Bush will only be in office 2 more years. Aren't you worried about a democratic president taking similar unilateral initiatives?

Sorry, the way we treat terrorists who want to kill us doesn't really keep me awake at night, though I know you worry constantly about it.

Quote:What happens if there is a president taking action that you aren't so heartily in approval with? Believe me, if Al Gore was president and he tried to pull the kind of stuff Bush is doing, the GOP would be screaaaaaaming.

Not me. If Al Gore presecuted the war on terror like Bush has (which never would have happend since he's a wimp) I would be applauding him and would consider voting for him.

Quote:It may very well be that you are right and some laws need to be looked at and changed to make sure we can effectively meet this threat. But you can't have one branch of the government simply ignoring laws that don't meet his approval. That is incredibly dangerous, in my mind.

This shows your total lack of understanding on this matter. Bush didn't ignore the law, he was following what he and his lawyers said it gave him the right to do. It's not like the law said, "Thou shalt not conduct military tribunals" and he did it anyway. What he did was in keeping with what past presidents have done in times of war. Extending constitutional protection to foreign terrorists is new ground, and there is no law in existence that grants it to them. It's all about nuance.

The Supreme Court, in the 5 justice opinion, didn't think a law passed last year by congress saying they don't have jurisdiction in these matters applied to this case because it was already in the pipe line before the law passed. I'd call that exploiting the nuances.

But then again you and your kind don't bother trying to understand what's actually going on. You just see defeat for Bush, victory for you and your warped world view.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:1. The total lack of intellegence in the dictatorship argument is staggering with you people. Dictatorships come through one of two ways, military might subjigating the people or the people giving it because they're so bad off. Neither applies here and any attempt to liken tracking the finances of terrorists to a dictatorship is stupid.

2. Bush went through the proper channels for the finance tracking program. The chairman and ranking member of the House Intellegence Commt. were informed, as was the minority leader and majority leaders. Even your precious NY Times acknowledged the program isn't illegal. So get over yourself.

Dictatorship is making unilateral decisions without going through the proper channels, and following the law. There is a concept in this country you may have heard of: checks and balances. Not sure if the President is familiar with the idea, but he might want to look into it. I didn't say anything about the bank tracking as being illegal, not sure where you came up with that notion.

Quote:
5 liberals on the court "slapped him down" 3 others rightly pointed out they had no jurisdiction.

Are you aware who appointed these "5 liberals?" Your argument is so transparent. You think the 3 dissenters are rightly following the law, whereas the 5 "liberals" simply had a political agenda. It must be a hard burden for the conservatives to be the only folks with the ability to stand up to partisal politics. lmfao Give me a break.

Quote:
It doesn't take an advanced law degree to understand that "the law" is very much in the eye of the beholder. Don't forget you had 4 justices on the court who agreed that 1) the court had no jurisdiction and 2) the President had the right to set the tribunals up.

Lawyers in the Bush administration have skirted the law at every opportunity to give Bush this grand notion of a "robust executive power" that Darth Cheney keeps spouting about. You might recall that he was slapped down by the Supreme Court 2 years ago. Maybe he will get the hint this time that due process is required, and that he can't simply do what he wants with no regard to congress. [Not that this congress is likely to deny him anything... which is why it's so puzzling why Bush decides to go it alone so frequently. ]

Quote:Sorry, the way we treat terrorists who want to kill us doesn't really keep me awake at night, though I know you worry constantly about it.

Do you understand the concept of Precedent? This is America, not some 3rd world nation with a fictional democracy. We cannot weaken our fundamental system of justice. We don't do it for criminals in the US, no matter how heinous the crime is. And ultimately by standing up for due process and the geneva convention we are helping ourselves by helping our standing in the world. Gitmo has only created more hate, resentment, and ill-feeling toward the US - - - NOT what we need right now in light our Bush's other hideously-executed adventures.

Quote:

Not me. If Al Gore presecuted the war on terror like Bush has (which never would have happend since he's a wimp) I would be applauding him and would consider voting for him.

Then you are a rare one. Gore never would have blundered as badly as Bush, so I guess it's a moot point.

Quote:

This shows your total lack of understanding on this matter. Bush didn't ignore the law, he was following what he and his lawyers said it gave him the right to do. It's not like the law said, "Thou shalt not conduct military tribunals" and he did it anyway. What he did was in keeping with what past presidents have done in times of war. Extending constitutional protection to foreign terrorists is new ground, and there is no law in existence that grants it to them. It's all about nuance.

His counsel was presented with a goal, and tasked with a way to justify the goal. Many attorneys in the Bush administration had been expecting the Supreme Court slapdown, because they knew they were "overreaching". What I don't get is WHY Bush needs to take this approach, when he could easily get what he wants through more legitimate means.

Quote:Dictatorship is making unilateral decisions without going through the proper channels, and following the law.

Umm, no it isn't.

dictatorship - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition)

And I'll restate, the fact that 1) Bush went to congress about the finance tracking program and 2) the Supreme Court heard that case is proof that nothing Bush did is dictatorial.

Quote:There is a concept in this country you may have heard of: checks and balances. Not sure if the President is familiar with the idea, but he might want to look into it.

see above.

Quote:Are you aware who appointed these "5 liberals?" Your argument is so transparent. You think the 3 dissenters are rightly following the law, whereas the 5 "liberals" simply had a political agenda.

Nope. Liberal, when talking about jurists, isn't necessarily political. It's a world view or a judicial philosophy.

And yes, the 3 dissenters are rightly following the law, because the law says they have no jurisdiction.

Quote:It must be a hard burden for the conservatives to be the only folks with the ability to stand up to partisal politics. lmfao Give me a break.

Not partisan politics, just rampant stupidity.

Quote:Lawyers in the Bush administration have skirted the law at every opportunity to give Bush this grand notion of a "robust executive power" that Darth Cheney keeps spouting about.

Proof?

Quote:You might recall that he was slapped down by the Supreme Court 2 years ago. Maybe he will get the hint this time that due process is required, and that he can't simply do what he wants with no regard to congress. [Not that this congress is likely to deny him anything... which is why it's so puzzling why Bush decides to go it alone so frequently.

Due process for terrorists. You know if you spent as much time worrying about the rights of people who were actually Americans, the right to life being chief among them, as you do the rights and well being of terrorists there's no telling what could be accomplished.

Quote:Do you understand the concept of Precedent? This is America, not some 3rd world nation with a fictional democracy. We cannot weaken our fundamental system of justice. We don't do it for criminals in the US, no matter how heinous the crime is.

That is because they are, in fact, Americans. These terrorists are not. You're all about the law you show me where in our constitution terrorists have a right to due process.

Quote:And ultimately by standing up for due process and the geneva convention we are helping ourselves by helping our standing in the world.

Terrorists don't fight for a country, therefore they don't have a right to Geneva Convention protection. As far as our standing in the world, give me a freaking break.

Quote:Gitmo has only created more hate, resentment, and ill-feeling toward the US - - - NOT what we need right now in light our Bush's other hideously-executed adventures.

Yeah, cause goodness knows they were looking for a reason to hate us before Gitmo ever existed.

Quote:Then you are a rare one. Gore never would have blundered as badly as Bush, so I guess it's a moot point.

Gore never would have attempted to defend us to begin with.

Quote:His counsel was presented with a goal, and tasked with a way to justify the goal. Many attorneys in the Bush administration had been expecting the Supreme Court slapdown, because they knew they were "overreaching". What I don't get is WHY Bush needs to take this approach, when he could easily get what he wants through more legitimate means.

He has precedent on his side regarding military tribunals. The court vered from that precedent in their decision.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And I'll restate, the fact that 1) Bush went to congress about the finance tracking program and 2) the Supreme Court heard that case is proof that nothing Bush did is dictatorial.

The president "went to congress"?? Oh come on, now. The president tells some key members some aspects of what he is doing. He doesn't go to get permission. Or did you forget the bipartisan furor after the NSA revelations?

Quote:

Nope. Liberal, when talking about jurists, isn't necessarily political. It's a world view or a judicial philosophy.

OK, so lets be clear: you are saying that the 5 who voted for and the 3 who voted against the Presidents' point had absolutely zero political consideration? You would disagree with anyone saying the 5 "liberals" were voting the way they did because of a political bias?

wvucrazed Wrote:Lawyers in the Bush administration have skirted the law at every opportunity to give Bush this grand notion of a "robust executive power" that Darth Cheney keeps spouting about.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Proof?

Discussion last night on one of the new shows, I believe it was Dana Milbank of the Washington Post who spoke of his conversations with White House attorneys. Also have read it in the past in Newsweek and Times about the internal struggle in the White House about David Addington's notions about Presidential power. If you are interested, you might do some research and read about it.

Quote:Due process for terrorists. You know if you spent as much time worrying about the rights of people who were actually Americans, the right to life being chief among them, as you do the rights and well being of terrorists there's no telling what could be accomplished.

This is what America is all about: freedom and the rule of law. We cannot break the principles, even when it might be difficult.

Today's Washington Post sums it up perfectly:

****
For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.

In some ways, the ruling replicates a pattern in American history where presidents have acted aggressively in wartime, only to be reined in by courts or Congress. Even some Bush supporters said yesterday that it may be appropriate now to revisit decisions made ad hoc in a crisis atmosphere, when a president's natural instinct is to do whatever he thinks necessary to guard the nation against attack.

"That's what presidents do, and I say thank goodness for that," said George J. Terwilliger III, deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. "But once you get past that point . . . both as a matter of law and a matter of culture, a more systemic approach to the use of authority is appropriate."

****

Quote: That is because they are, in fact, Americans. These terrorists are not. You're all about the law you show me where in our constitution terrorists have a right to due process.

So you basically think we can treat any individual not an American citizen anyway we feel like? No rules, no nothing? What ARE the rules?

Quote:

Terrorists don't fight for a country, therefore they don't have a right to Geneva Convention protection. As far as our standing in the world, give me a freaking break.

I know you folks don't think our standing in the world matters - screw the rest of the world, right? But the reality is that we depend on our allies, and we certainly could use their help now. But "they hate our freedom", right? They are anti-american in a completely irrational way. You might laugh at the concept of our standing in the world, but it is of vital importance.

Quote:
Yeah, cause goodness knows they were looking for a reason to hate us before Gitmo ever existed.

What are you talking about? We had wide support after 9/11, internationally. Bush has managed to throw that all away.

Quote:Gore never would have attempted to defend us to begin with.

Al Gore has been in service to this country for decades, as a Senator and Vice President. Do you really think it appropriate to call him a coward? That is where partisan politics is so blinding, and why I am right when I say that you would have zero support for Gore if he were in Bush's shoes right now, doing exactly what Bush is doing.

Quote:He has precedent on his side regarding military tribunals. The court vered from that precedent in their decision.

Congress and the courts have slapped down the chief executive in times of war in the past when he overreached his authority. THAT is the precedent that matters, and thank God the Supreme Court was willing to stand up to the executive again.
***

Anyways, this has been a good discussion, but I have to get back to work. Hopefully we can continue at a later time.

Quote:The president "went to congress"?? Oh come on, now. The president tells some key members some aspects of what he is doing. He doesn't go to get permission. Or did you forget the bipartisan furor after the NSA revelations?

Yes, how silly of him not call a joint session to ask them about the finance program and have it televised on CNN.

Quote:OK, so lets be clear: you are saying that the 5 who voted for and the 3 who voted against the Presidents' point had absolutely zero political consideration? You would disagree with anyone saying the 5 "liberals" were voting the way they did because of a political bias?

No, I'm saying that their ruling is in line with their judicial philosophy. I can't say they were politically motivated because I don't have the info. One would assume that Ginsburg and Breyer don't agree with Bush politically, but their judicial philosophy bares that out so there doesn't have to be a political reason for them to rule against him. I'm not saying there isn't one, I simply don't know.

Quote:Discussion last night on one of the new shows, I believe it was Dana Milbank of the Washington Post who spoke of his conversations with White House attorneys. Also have read it in the past in Newsweek and Times about the internal struggle in the White House about David Addington's notions about Presidential power. If you are interested, you might do some research and read about it.

So a discussion on a news show is your proof. Wow, wish your standard about Iraq proof was as low.

Quote:This is what America is all about: freedom and the rule of law. We cannot break the principles, even when it might be difficult.

These terrorists aren't Americans.

Quote:So you basically think we can treat any individual not an American citizen anyway we feel like? No rules, no nothing? What ARE the rules?

No. I just don't believe terrorists are entitled to the constitutional protections that Americans enjoy. There are rules for how we treat them, however I don't believe those rules are violated by a military tribunal as opposed to a jury trial in an American court.

Quote:I know you folks don't think our standing in the world matters - screw the rest of the world, right?

No, I don't think Gitmo has anything to do with our standing in the world. The idea that somehow we'd be loved or in better standing if Gitmo never existed is stupid.

Quote:But the reality is that we depend on our allies, and we certainly could use their help now.

We haven't stopped getting help. Pakistan, Russia, China and countless other nations still funnel us intellegence and information. That has not changed.

Quote:But "they hate our freedom", right? They are anti-american in a completely irrational way. You might laugh at the concept of our standing in the world, but it is of vital importance.

No, they wish they were us. And who can blame them. But I don't laugh at the concept of our standing in the world, I laugh at the idea Gitmo changes it in any way.[/quote]

Quote:What are you talking about? We had wide support after 9/11, internationally. Bush has managed to throw that all away.

No, he really hasn't. But that makes for a great talking point.

Quote:Al Gore has been in service to this country for decades, as a Senator and Vice President. Do you really think it appropriate to call him a coward?

This coming from a guy who lambasts the existing POTUS every other breath and calls him a dictator? Spare me.

And I'm not calling him a coward, I'm saying Gore's worldview doesn't lend itself to being able to defend this country in the manner it needs to be at a time like this. And it certainly doesn't give any indication he'd have prosectuted the war on terror like Bush, which is what I was saying to begin with.

Quote:That is where partisan politics is so blinding, and why I am right when I say that you would have zero support for Gore if he were in Bush's shoes right now, doing exactly what Bush is doing.

Pot, meet kettle.

And you are not right. I will state again, if Gore prosecuted the war on terror like Bush has, he'd have my full and unequivocal support in it. And you don't know near enough about me to call me a liar junior, so be a big boy and don't.

Quote:Congress and the courts have slapped down the chief executive in times of war in the past when he overreached his authority.

Not with regards to military tribunals and the use of them, at least not in the current law. This is the first time.

Quote:THAT is the precedent that matters, and thank God the Supreme Court was willing to stand up to the executive again.

Rah, rah, sis boom bah.

wvucrazed Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Personally, i am glad we have someone who is willing and able to take decisive action, instead of sitting around wringing his hands and wondering if he can get permission to protect the country. JMHO.

This is called "dictatorship." The president could have made the argument and gone through proper channels to get whatever he deemed necessary to fight against terrorists. However, he chose not to do that. That isn't "decisive action".

Military tribunals, for example. The Supreme Court slapped him down for ignoring the law, but it pointed out that with proper authority and due process that the military tribunals could go forward. The right-wing radio screamers were all saying that the "liberal" justices want America to "coddle" terrorists?! Isn't that the most absurd thing you've ever heard?

The right doesn't seem to mind if the President is incapable of following the law, as long as the end result is something they approve. You say, well, Bush will only be in office 2 more years. Aren't you worried about a democratic president taking similar unilateral initiatives? What happens if there is a president taking action that you aren't so heartily in approval with? Believe me, if Al Gore was president and he tried to pull the kind of stuff Bush is doing, the GOP would be screaaaaaaming.

It may very well be that you are right and some laws need to be looked at and changed to make sure we can effectively meet this threat. But you can't have one branch of the government simply ignoring laws that don't meet his approval. That is incredibly dangerous, in my mind.

No, that's called "leadership". When Clinton bombed the milk factory in sudan, I was glad he took action. i didn't support him on the perjury/obstruction of justice, but i did on this, even though it turned out he was the victim of faulty intelligence. I think he made the decision without asking anyone's by-your-leave. The executive brach of the government is responsible for action, and the President is the Chief Executive. We need leaders, not file clerks in those offices.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:Awww, little Kev got his feeling hurt since I actually question one of his heros. Poor baby. The fact is that pilots and aircrew are given survival training. I know several who went through it.

Can you not read? Did you NOT see where I stated I didn't support McCain as a politician? A hero? In a military sense, yes. I wouldn't expect your civilian ass to understand.

Ohh, I forgot that only people in the military are enlightened enought to "get it". Excuuuse me. What is your deal? You've been in a pissy mood for months now.

JTiger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:Awww, little Kev got his feeling hurt since I actually question one of his heros. Poor baby. The fact is that pilots and aircrew are given survival training. I know several who went through it.

Can you not read? Did you NOT see where I stated I didn't support McCain as a politician? A hero? In a military sense, yes. I wouldn't expect your civilian ass to understand.

Ohh, I forgot that only people in the military are enlightened enought to "get it". Excuuuse me. What is your deal? You've been in a pissy mood for months now.

It's funny that the same folks who proclaim that Murtha can be attacked for his ideas despite his military background are often the ones who assert their OWN military background as evidence that everything they say is infallible. lmfao

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Personally, i am glad we have someone who is willing and able to take decisive action, instead of sitting around wringing his hands and wondering if he can get permission to protect the country. JMHO.

This is called "dictatorship." The president could have made the argument and gone through proper channels to get whatever he deemed necessary to fight against terrorists. However, he chose not to do that. That isn't "decisive action".

Military tribunals, for example. The Supreme Court slapped him down for ignoring the law, but it pointed out that with proper authority and due process that the military tribunals could go forward. The right-wing radio screamers were all saying that the "liberal" justices want America to "coddle" terrorists?! Isn't that the most absurd thing you've ever heard?

The right doesn't seem to mind if the President is incapable of following the law, as long as the end result is something they approve. You say, well, Bush will only be in office 2 more years. Aren't you worried about a democratic president taking similar unilateral initiatives? What happens if there is a president taking action that you aren't so heartily in approval with? Believe me, if Al Gore was president and he tried to pull the kind of stuff Bush is doing, the GOP would be screaaaaaaming.

It may very well be that you are right and some laws need to be looked at and changed to make sure we can effectively meet this threat. But you can't have one branch of the government simply ignoring laws that don't meet his approval. That is incredibly dangerous, in my mind.

No, that's called "leadership". When Clinton bombed the milk factory in sudan, I was glad he took action. i didn't support him on the perjury/obstruction of justice, but i did on this, even though it turned out he was the victim of faulty intelligence. I think he made the decision without asking anyone's by-your-leave. The executive brach of the government is responsible for action, and the President is the Chief Executive. We need leaders, not file clerks in those offices.

Have you ever read George Orwell's "1984"? That was "leadership" too.

Leadership it taking decisive action while upholding the constitution and everything that we are fighting for in the first place. Your proclamation that this is "leadership", screw the law, is scary. You might agree with the Presidents actions in this case, but what if you didn't? Where does this slope lead? We have a system of government that is dependent on careful checks and balances, and when one branch decides to go it alone it sets a dangerous precedent when we all just bow our heads, baaaaa like sheep, and say "Anything you say Mr. President, anything you say."