Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Don Roley]

The arrest of British citizen Rouf, took place over the objections of the British law enforcement professionals. British officials wanted to arrest Rouf on British soil. British official were willing to be patient, to gather evidence, such as, oh the terrorists having purchased airplane tickets, such as, the terrorists having passports. (It's damn difficult to blow planes on international flights without a passport or ticket, you know).

The United States, as impatient as they have proven incompetent, had threated to 'RENDER' Mr. Rouf ... yep, abduct him of the streets of Pakistan, flown to a tourture friendly place, and interrogated in a way that is quite probably a violation of the Geneva conventions and United States law ... Despite President Bush's signing statements.

The British intelligence services observed how the Bush Administration has handled such classified and highly sensative information during the past three years of Valerie Plame's life - political points to be scored regardless of the cost. The Bush Administration's comments, the manner in which they were made, were all so very cavalier, and political.

What is your source for this? There is no mention of it in any legitimate media I could find. Rouf was arrested by Pakistan. And you just got through saying that America did not even know about the plot until the last few days. Kind of hard to believe they could set things up with Pakistan like that in that amount of time, or that the British would tell them if they were not ready to pounce if they were so concerned about American security as you have tried to convince us.

Sounds like either the tin foil hat brigade or the Democratic News Service put this out. With the majority of Americans giving Bush the nod in terms of security, I suspect that this story was put out to try to destroy that image.

Without a source like CNN to back this story up, I just do not accept this anymore than I do the many nutty conspiracy theories I read on the internet.

 

[michaeledward]

What is your source for this? There is no mention of it in any legitimate media I could find. Rouf was arrested by Pakistan. And you just got through saying that America did not even know about the plot until the last few days. Kind of hard to believe they could set things up with Pakistan like that in that amount of time, or that the British would tell them if they were not ready to pounce if they were so concerned about American security as you have tried to convince us.

Sounds like either the tin foil hat brigade or the Democratic News Service put this out. With the majority of Americans giving Bush the nod in terms of security, I suspect that this story was put out to try to destroy that image.

Without a source like CNN to back this story up, I just do not accept this anymore than I do the many nutty conspiracy theories I read on the internet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.

NBC news ... tin foil hat brigade.

 

[Don Roley]

Ok, so the US wanted the plot to be foiled ASAP and might have pressured the Pakistan goverment to arrest one of them. I don't see anything about him being flown off to be tortured in another country or anything about how the Veep's comments tipping them off as you have tried to present it.

 

[michaeledward]

Ok, so the US wanted the plot to be foiled ASAP and might have pressured the Pakistan goverment to arrest one of them. I don't see anything about him being flown off to be tortured in another country or anything about how the Veep's comments tipping them off as you have tried to present it.

Of course you don't.

 

[michaeledward]

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Melhman would not endorse the Republican Senate Candidate in Connecticut on Meet the Press today. Candidate Schlesinger was, essentially, abandoned by the Republican National Committee.

With Friends Like that ....

 

[heretic888]

touche

Still up for debate on some of the issues though, considering there is precedent in the past for alot of the actions.

I'd love to live in a world where we DON'T need stupid phone tapping. I'd love to live in a world were I can take a Coke on my flights and not be frisked by some guy. Sadly, that world is gone. Does not look like its coming back any time soon either. Thanks Islam! We appreciate that!

Yes, yes... not every muslim is a terrrorist, but it seems most terrorist are islamic.

Okay, let's clear a few things up here....

The issue here is not that the government is wiretapping people's phones. There are parameters in place that define when such procedures are and are not legal and constitutional.

The issue right now is that the federal government (more specifically, the executive branch) seems to have gotten in their heads that they can disregard existing laws established by the legislative and judicial branches when it's expedient to do so. The issue is that the Bush Administration is strutting around as if they are actually above the law, as if the law does not apply to them because, well, "I'm the president".

This is similar to the recent issue on torturing detainees. The Bush Administration seemed to feel it was justified to "make up" their own laws regarding this stuff on the fly, without going through proper procedures or due process. To put it bluntly, it is not any president's place to arbitrarily decide a given law or treaty is "antiquated" or "irrelevant". The judicial branch can rule certain laws to be unconstituional and the legislative branch can change existing laws through deliberation. But, no president in the United States can simply change existing laws because he doesn't like them.

That is not democracy, that is totalitarianism; a type of proto-fascism. That is definitely the direction our country has been moving the past few years. As a professed centrist, I stand behind my position that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents we have had in the history of our country (and easily the worst president of the 20th to 21st centuries). He is fiscally and politically irresponsible.

Laterz.

 

[Kensai]

Heretic888

That is not democracy, that is totalitarianism; a type of proto-fascism. That is definitely the direction our country has been moving the past few years. As a professed centrist, I stand behind my position that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents we have had in the history of our country (and easily the worst president of the 20th to 21st centuries). He is fiscally and politically irresponsible.

I'll drink to that too.

 

[Don Roley]

Tonight, there are reports that the United States Goverment pressed the British to make the arrests earlier than the Brits wished. There is commentary that the British do not have much respect for the Bush Administration's ability to handle sensative information. While the Brits have been monitoring this terror cell since December, the United States was only informed two weeks ago.

There is legitimate concern that Vice President Cheney's comments from Tuesday might very well of tipped off the terror cell of the investigation. The Brits may well have had to make these arrests before they desired because of comprimised security by the Bush Administration.

Amazingly enough, the Washington Post had an article on Sunday that seems to paint a picture completely opposite of what you have been told. You can hardly call them a shill for the administration.

Their web site does not have it as free content, but I think I can post some revelevant quotes and still not break copyright under "fair use" guidelines. The article was by Dan Eggan and Spencer S. Hsu.

Chertoff's stealthy information-gathering was just one
example of the U.S. government's secretive response to
an emerging terrorist plot, in which at least 41
suspects were arrested in Britain and Pakistan in
connection with alleged plans to blow up jetliners as
they flew from London to the United States.

Until the last hours, details of the British probe
were confined to a limited coterie of U.S. Cabinet
members and senior officials, according to interviews
with more than a dozen people who were involved or
have since been briefed. The approach ensured that no
advance word of the operation leaked out -- but also
meant that airlines, airports and even the
Transportation Security Administration had only a few
hours to ramp up sweeping new measures after being
alerted to the threat late Wednesday night.

Several sources suggested last week that the extensive
secrecy irritated some officials who were kept out of
the loop at intelligence and law enforcement agencies,
but declined to discuss the tensions in detail.
Michael P. Jackson, Homeland Security's deputy
secretary, said the secrecy "wasn't controversial. It
was operational security."

But starting about two weeks ago, authorities in
London and Washington grappled with a succession of
three major developments that shifted the
investigation into a higher gear and led to last
week's hurried raids and arrests. First was clear
evidence of plans to target the United States; then
came plans by the British to shut down the plot; and
finally a frantic rush to execute the arrests earlier
than expected to avoid losing suspects or allowing an
attack to occur, according to intelligence and law
enforcement officials.

It seems that there was a lot of cooperation between the US and the UK and because of secrecy concerns, only a few people knew about it. That may be why it looks like the UK did not tell the US that there was a plot to target flights to the US. It would be a big diplomatic problem if the UK had kept the US in the dark about a plot to blow up planes going to America, but that does not seem to be the case. Only a few people knew of what was going on for the sake of security. The article notes that the mayors of Washington DC and Baltimore were not told until the last minute and the arrests were about to be made.

But the timing of the arrests did seem to be stepped up for the following reasons.

The arrests on Thursday occurred at least two days
earlier than planned, according to several U.S.
officials. Among other things, sources have said, the
suspects stepped up their Internet searches for
possible U.S.-bound flights, made plans for an
imminent "dry run" to test security, and moved to
purchase global-positioning satellite devices and
other materials. British authorities were also
concerned because they had lost contact with one or
two of the suspects who had traveled to Pakistan, some
officials said.

Given a schedule from London, senior U.S. and British
government officials consulted Wednesday between 6
p.m. and midnight Washington time. It soon became
clear that all the suspects could not be located
immediately, raising concerns about a potential
attack.

"As things headed south," one official said, Chertoff
"flipped the switch" to gain approval for raising the
threat level.

The shocking thing about the above is that if the source that talked to MSNBC is correct, then despite the fact that some of the suspects were lost and out of surveliance the British were still willing to gamble the lives of hundreds of people to gather more intelligence.

If I lost a few people and could not be one hundred percent certain of what they were doing when they were going through all those preperations I would be worried. The fact that they are still looking for folks kind of tells us that they do not know if there were people who had passports and were ready to go. I can see the advantages of watching a plot and gathering evidence. But I can also see how not knowing if there is something still being hidden and the idea that maybe they were better prepared than we thought would scare the heck out of TSA. And we know that they are still looking for suspects as I write this.

 

[michaeledward]

Amazingly enough, the Washington Post had an article on Sunday that seems to paint a picture completely opposite of what you have been told. You can hardly call them a shill for the administration.

I just read the article.

The article talks very little about the British operation. It certainly spells out what the actions taking place in the American Goverment were. But that article, in my opinion, does not discuss the opertation of British and Pakistani law enforcement. And that's where this even took place. How Chertoff planned to elevate FAA alert status to Code Orange, really, isn't that big part of the breakup of this plan.

Yes, the Brits communicated a bit with the Administration. From the article, the 200 FBI agents referenced, seemed to be monitoring the 'social network' of the terrorists in the United States. The article states that none of the terrorists had been in the United States.

I could be reading that article incorrectly ... but it really is a fluff piece that gives very little information.

P.S. Did you hear the White House's ringing endorsement for Connecticut GOP Senatorial Candidate Schlesinger? .... Yeah, Neither did he ... with acquaintences like these ..... blah blah blah.

 

[Don Roley]

I just read the article.

The article talks very little about the British operation. It certainly spells out what the actions taking place in the American Goverment were. But that article, in my opinion, does not discuss the opertation of British and Pakistani law enforcement. And that's where this even took place. How Chertoff planned to elevate FAA alert status to Code Orange, really, isn't that big part of the breakup of this plan.

Yes, the Brits communicated a bit with the Administration. From the article, the 200 FBI agents referenced, seemed to be monitoring the 'social network' of the terrorists in the United States. The article states that none of the terrorists had been in the United States.

I could be reading that article incorrectly ... but it really is a fluff piece that gives very little information.

P.S. Did you hear the White House's ringing endorsement for Connecticut GOP Senatorial Candidate Schlesinger? .... Yeah, Neither did he ... with acquaintences like these ..... blah blah blah.

The point of the article is that is seems to clash with the events as you were told. No one doubts that the UK were the leaders in this case. That is only common sense. But the accusations that they held back info about an attack on US citizens are not born out, as well as many others things I quoted from you.

As for the lack of support for Schlesinger..... I really can't get too mad about an example of someone not supporting their party over what they believe. I know that the common state of affairs is to always back someone in your party over someone from another, but I do not really think that is a good thing. I certianly wish that some people in both parties would do more of this type of thing. The following story is still fresh in my mind.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=83191

And I can't help but think that if this person had made it through the primaries, then other DNC members would have had to endorse her. They probably did when she ran in 2002. That is just wrong for people to always support the folks in their own party even when they do things you do not agree with.

 

[michaeledward]

The point of the article is that is seems to clash with the events as you were told. No one doubts that the UK were the leaders in this case. That is only common sense. But the accusations that they held back info about an attack on US citizens are not born out, as well as many others things I quoted from you.

As for the lack of support for Schlesinger..... I really can't get too mad about an example of someone not supporting their party over what they believe. I know that the common state of affairs is to always back someone in your party over someone from another, but I do not really think that is a good thing. I certianly wish that some people in both parties would do more of this type of thing. The following story is still fresh in my mind.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=83191

And I can't help but think that if this person had made it through the primaries, then other DNC members would have had to endorse her. They probably did when she ran in 2002. That is just wrong for people to always support the folks in their own party even when they do things you do not agree with.

I disagree with what you see in that Washington Post article. It does say that the British moved earlier than they desired. Although, it does present a different reason for why the move came earlier.

I still believe that article talks very little about the operation of law enforcement concerning the arrests; instead it attempts to sing the praises of how well the Administration handled the implementation of security measures in response to the arrests .... as opposed to, say, how well they handled the response to Katrina.

As for your other comments, are you saying that Mr. Schlesinger has done something for which he should not receive support of the Republican administration?

I mean, outside of choking kittens infront of children in wheelchairs, what could Mr. Schlesinger have done to get less Republican Support than an 40 plus year Democrat, who served 18 years in the Senate?

 

[Don Roley]

I disagree with what you see in that Washington Post article.

You are quite free to disagree. I brought it up because it seems to have shot down the idea that the Veep's comments were the cause of the early move and the idea that the UK was worried about the security of America. Someone seems to be telling you things in order to make political points. It just rubs me wrong when someone takes a look at situations like this bombing plot and their first instinct is to rush out and spread a false story about how the Veep almost ruined the operation.

I mean, outside of choking kittens infront of children in wheelchairs, what could Mr. Schlesinger have done to get less Republican Support than an 40 plus year Democrat, who served 18 years in the Senate?

Now you are making it sound like Bush crushed Schlesinger's cat under the wheels of air force one. Schlesinger seems to not support the president on certain issues and has spoken against him for the press. In return, the president has not said anything bad about him, but has not rushed out to make a statement. Nor has he supported the 40 year democrat as you say. People who praise Schlesinger for not always following the head of his party and being independent seem rather strange when they turn around and expect that they be seen as a member of that party first and not based on what they do.

You should have seen the situation back here in Japan a few months ago. Junichiro Koizumi, the prime minister of Japan and head of the Liberal Democratic Party wanted to reform a lot of things like the postal savings system. Several career politicians that were wedded very closely with the status quo opposed him, even members of his own party. When they shut down the bill that would have torn a lot of money from them and reformed the system, Koizumi disolves the parliment and announces elections. He then campeigns against several members of his own party that tried to stop the reforms that Japan needs. The public gave him a stunning victory for his courage in putting the need to do what was right ahead of always supporting someone in his party.

So, the lack of a statement from the president yet really does not strike me as being all that terrible. And I do not see him supporting Schlesingers opponents as you try to portray. We all complain about politics being too partisan. But now that someone is not veiwing someone on the basis of what party they are, we are getting complaints about loyalty.

 

[michaeledward]

You are quite free to disagree. I brought it up because it seems to have shot down the idea that the Veep's comments were the cause of the early move and the idea that the UK was worried about the security of America. Someone seems to be telling you things in order to make political points. It just rubs me wrong when someone takes a look at situations like this bombing plot and their first instinct is to rush out and spread a false story about how the Veep almost ruined the operation.



Now you are making it sound like Bush crushed Schlesinger's cat under the wheels of air force one. Schlesinger seems to not support the president on certain issues and has spoken against him for the press. In return, the president has not said anything bad about him, but has not rushed out to make a statement. Nor has he supported the 40 year democrat as you say. People who praise Schlesinger for not always following the head of his party and being independent seem rather strange when they turn around and expect that they be seen as a member of that party first and not based on what they do.

You should have seen the situation back here in Japan a few months ago. Junichiro Koizumi, the prime minister of Japan and head of the Liberal Democratic Party wanted to reform a lot of things like the postal savings system. Several career politicians that were wedded very closely with the status quo opposed him, even members of his own party. When they shut down the bill that would have torn a lot of money from them and reformed the system, Koizumi disolves the parliment and announces elections. He then campeigns against several members of his own party that tried to stop the reforms that Japan needs. The public gave him a stunning victory for his courage in putting the need to do what was right ahead of always supporting someone in his party.

So, the lack of a statement from the president yet really does not strike me as being all that terrible. And I do not see him supporting Schlesingers opponents as you try to portray. We all complain about politics being too partisan. But now that someone is not veiwing someone on the basis of what party they are, we are getting complaints about loyalty.

'shot down' ? - Now there's some hyperbole. I will grant you it is a different spin on what happened, but I do not think it disproves anything. Every reference indicates the arrests occurred earlier than anticipated or planned by the Brits ... I don't think your article, or my references, settle the question of motivation.

I do not complain that politics are partisan. We have a two party system. I think it is a functional system. It has worked well for 200 plus years.

But, what do you do, when your party abandons its principles? You know, things like small government, fiscal responsibility, or even cheering for the guy in the same colored shirt?

 

[mrhnau]

Okay, let's clear a few things up here....

The issue here is not that the government is wiretapping people's phones. There are parameters in place that define when such procedures are and are not legal and constitutional.

The issue right now is that the federal government (more specifically, the executive branch) seems to have gotten in their heads that they can disregard existing laws established by the legislative and judicial branches when it's expedient to do so. The issue is that the Bush Administration is strutting around as if they are actually above the law, as if the law does not apply to them because, well, "I'm the president".

Oh, like Perjury? Granted, this affects the nation more significantly, but the premise is the same. Things like this have happened in the past. There is precedent. Lincoln had to suspend certain aspects of the Bill of Rights based on the Civil War. I'm thinking you are not going to tell me that the Civil War is unjust based on that, or that Lincoln should have been impeached based on breaking certain portions of the existing laws.

This is similar to the recent issue on torturing detainees. The Bush Administration seemed to feel it was justified to "make up" their own laws regarding this stuff on the fly, without going through proper procedures or due process. To put it bluntly, it is not any president's place to arbitrarily decide a given law or treaty is "antiquated" or "irrelevant". The judicial branch can rule certain laws to be unconstituional and the legislative branch can change existing laws through deliberation. But, no president in the United States can simply change existing laws because he doesn't like them.

Certain laws have not been updated for the times, for instance, alot of surveillance laws have not been updated to include the latest technologies. In instances like this, it might be considered vague. Without legal precedent, they have -no- choice other than to make things up on the fly.

Now, for things that are not vague and updated, lets consider those. You mention torture. Is this something that is dictated by the Bush administration? Did Bush himself or some high level cronie give permission? Or is it from some higher level of the military? Or a local commander? Until we find this out, I'm not going to rush to point a finger and Bush and cry foul. If this is the case, we better start blaming Bush for every soldier that does anything wrong. Every time some guy gets drunk and starts a bar fight, we better blame it on Bush, especially if the guy does it habitually.

I think time and the legal process will find out where the blame lies. I just hope the truth is really uncovered in this.

Guantanamo? didn't we have internment camps here in the US during WW2? Didn't Lincoln hold suspected spies during the Civil War? Are you wishing impeachments were handed our during that time? Please feel free to call Lincoln and Rosevelt the worst presidents ever, ok?

That is not democracy, that is totalitarianism; a type of proto-fascism. That is definitely the direction our country has been moving the past few years. As a professed centrist, I stand behind my position that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents we have had in the history of our country (and easily the worst president of the 20th to 21st centuries). He is fiscally and politically irresponsible.

Laterz.

Fiscally? Just how is our economy doing? He got handed a start of a recession and shortly after getting in office faced 9/11. Considering what he was handed, I think he is doing quite fine.

Politically irresponsible? Better say the same about Lincoln and Rosevelt. Given the circumstances and the unique war we have been faced with, I think he has made alot of good decisions. Have they all been great? Probably not, but most of them have been. I'd have been happy to see him use his Veto power on a few more things, but considering he had a Republican congress, I guess it would not have been used too frequently...

btw, I don't like the term centrist. Thats just me though

 

[mrhnau]

That is not democracy, that is totalitarianism; a type of proto-fascism. That is definitely the direction our country has been moving the past few years. As a professed centrist, I stand behind my position that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents we have had in the history of our country (and easily the worst president of the 20th to 21st centuries). He is fiscally and politically irresponsible.

Sorry for the double reply, but thinking a bit more on this comment, it deserved another one and some clarification.

comments like this really burn my biscuits.

There is no totalitarianism. You want that, go live in Iran. Take a visit to North Korea. Try Cuba. The freedoms we have seen go away (at least our perception of that) is NOT due to the Bush administration. Do you think Kerry/Gore would have done any differently? Given the intellegence received, do you think they would have not gone into Iraq? Think they would have pulled out and let a Civil war start there once the intellegence is revised? If we find a large group of terrorist and potential terrorist, do you not think they would have kept them in a place similar to Guantanamo? I would be afraid if they did not! The job of a police officer is to protect the people from crime and enforce the laws. If there were no criminals breaking laws, we would not need cops shooting people or making arrests. Same thing holds here. If we have no crazies flying planes into buildings or setting of bombs in trains and public places, we will not need to have places like Guantanamo or wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. Stop pointing fingers at Bush and start blaming those dummies perpetrating crimes! I'm tired of blame being pushed at the "police officers" with no blame distributed to the "crack head w/ a gun". People wanting to destroy our country NEED TO BE STOPPED. Plain and simple. Anything short of that is criminal. Unless of course you want to live in a regime like in Iran and forced into Islam. You can't get the UN to hand out resolutions. That does not work against religious zealots. See Hezbollah and Lebanon. Place proper blame were its due.

Did we overstep certain bounds? We made some guys get naked and take some pictures. Is that bad? Sure. Did not Ussay torture and kill people in Iraq? Did not Saddam kill thousands? What occured in this "torture" case is similar to alot of hazing in some of the "bad" fraternaties. Lets get the court to decide what happened and what punishment needs to be doled out. Stop yelling "crucify!" and let the legal system work. Its there for a purpose.

OK, so you want to discuss the US overstepping boundries. Lets discuss the islamo-fascist. Do you think they overstepped their boundries in attacking us? How about Saddam paying about 20k to familes of suicide bombers in Israel? Blowing up cafes on a regular basis in Tel Aviv? Trains in Spain? I want to hear an uproar about these grevious attacks, but yet you scream about taking some naked pictures. Or playing some loud music, sleep deprivation. Shoot, I have that right now with school (sleep deprivation part anyways LOL).

*sigh*

Heretic, I realize you did not specifically argue all of these points, just letting off a bit of steam in your statements general direction After a while, the relentless attacks seem a bit ridiculous, considering the world we are forced to live in. Personally, I'd love to live as a pacifist, but its totally unrealistic. You can't live isolated in this world.

 

[heretic888]

A few points here:

1) I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent. What "Kerry/Gore" would have done does nothing for me.

2) I never claimed we lived in a totalitarian state. I claimed we were moving in that direction, which we are. We presently live in a country where political dissidence is met with accusations of treason, where cronyism takes precedence over competence, where national debates are "controlled" so that only "the right questions" are asked and "the right people" are allowed to participate, and where a presidential administration can openly break the law and lie to the public but face no reprisal or accountability whatsoever (unless you count giving the Medal of Freedom to the architects of said lies as "accountability"). I sincerely hope this changes in the near future, but it won't be from those currently in power.

3) The rationale that "it's okay to spit upon our American principles and break the law because the bad guys did it first!" doesn't do it for me, either. The factor that you're missing here is that we aren't supposed to do stuff like that. That's what makes us different from them. We're the "good guys". We believe in civilized discourse and the rule of law. We don't just disregard laws because they're annoying.

4) Also, "it's okay to break the law because Lincoln/Truman/Roosevelt/Washington/Jesus Christ did it, too!" also doesn't do it for me. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

5) I don't recall saying anything about impeachment, but okay.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

Certain laws have not been updated for the times, for instance, alot of surveillance laws have not been updated to include the latest technologies. In instances like this, it might be considered vague. Without legal precedent, they have -no- choice other than to make things up on the fly.

That is just plain wrong. There were plenty of choices available to the administration.

The first of which is .... OBEY THE LAW.

The second of which is ... BREAK THE LAW.

Now for some of us, those two choices would pretty much cover the events of engaging in surveillance of potential criminal activity. But, if the technology has changed significantly, there might be a third option.

The third of which is ... PETITION CONGRESS TO WRITE A NEW LAW.

But, even with this vast array of choices available, President Bush has found a new way.

President Bush's way .... I WILL SIGN THE BILL APPROVED BY CONGRESS, AND IGNORE IT WITH THIS SIGNING STATEMENT.

President Bush's way, not surprisingly, pisses all over that document we commonly refer to as The United States Constitution. You see, in that document, those people affectionately referred to as 'The Founding Fathers' gave to Congress (the popularly elected Representatives, and the State appointed Senators) the privilege of writing the laws. And, they further gave the United States Supreme Court the responsibility of interpreting the laws. The Administrative Branch of Goverment was tasked with Executing the laws faithfully.

President Bush's use of the 'Signing Statement', over 700 times in the first six years of his adminstration, is re-writing the laws Congress has approved; just ask John McCain about his torture bill.

Yet another reason why this President deserves to be Impeached, Convicted, and Removed from office.

 

[mrhnau]

A few points here:

1) I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent. What "Kerry/Gore" would have done does nothing for me.

Understandable. I'm not Republican either. However, what could have possibly happened with Kerry/Gore is irrelevant to your political affiliation.

2) I never claimed we lived in a totalitarian state. I claimed we were moving in that direction, which we are. We presently live in a country where political dissidence is met with accusations of treason, where cronyism takes precedence over competence, where national debates are "controlled" so that only "the right questions" are asked and "the right people" are allowed to participate, and where a presidential administration can openly break the law and lie to the public but face no reprisal or accountability whatsoever (unless you count giving the Medal of Freedom to the architects of said lies as "accountability"). I sincerely hope this changes in the near future, but it won't be from those currently in power.

I don't believe dissidence is met w/ accusations of treason. Many people passionatly believe in some things, and they are free to discuss them. HOWEVER, I also hold that those who passionately believe the opposite should have a chance to respond.

That being said, there are limitations on "freedom of speech". You can't openly discuss assassinating the president. You can't malliciously slander. You can't divulge national secrets. Thats treason. There has been talk that the disclosure of the phone tapping procedures constitutes treason. I personally agree with that.

Most of what you are probably talking about is probably not along that lines. Discussion should be fostered. However, those that disagree with you have an equal right to speak. Will problems be uncovered? possibly. Thats part of the process.

ok, what exactly are these "breaking of laws" are you refereing to. Lets get specific. I'm betting this thread has already discussed most of them.

3) The rationale that "it's okay to spit upon our American principles and break the law because the bad guys did it first!" doesn't do it for me, either. The factor that you're missing here is that we aren't supposed to do stuff like that. That's what makes us different from them. We're the "good guys". We believe in civilized discourse and the rule of law. We don't just disregard laws because they're annoying.

You are taught not to speed. If your wife is having a heart attack, would you not speed to the hospital? If you are having a baby, would you not encourage your husband to speed? Why would you consider breaking the law?

You encourage your child not to fight. If a bully starts punching him, would you expect your child to lay down and get pummeled? Would you hope he would defend himself? If you teach your child to not be violent, why would you consider him breaking this command?

You are taught not to kill. If you are in the military, would you chose not to kill? If someone breaks in your house and threatens to murder you and your family, would you not attempt to disable/kill him first? If a terrorist has his hand on a bomb and will be blowing up you and 100 people, would you not try to disable/kill him first? Would you still not consider yourself different from him?

You are forced into circumstance that forces you to reconsider certain laws. Is the speed breaking law worth my spouses life? Is the ideal of non-violence worth my child getting multiple broken noses and potential life threatening injuries? Is the law against murder worth the lives of my family or 100 people? In the legal system we have, there are clear exceptions to certain laws. I believe the circustances we have been forced into are unprecented and may force legal definitions similar to the laws that might govern speeding/self-defence.

In an ideal world, there is no need for breaking these laws. Given circumstances (pregnancy, bullies, terrorist bombings) you have "clearance" of a sort... The problem here is the "clearance" has not been codified. It might never be. Time will tell. I don't believe laws changed due to the Japanese internment or Lincolns holding of spies. I'd have to look at more detail.

4) Also, "it's okay to break the law because Lincoln/Truman/Roosevelt/Washington/Jesus Christ did it, too!" also doesn't do it for me. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Does not make it right, just shows precedent. If you want to criticize one, then you better do it to all of them. Lets call Lincoln/Roosevelt/etc a villian too. I take it from your statment that they were all incorrect and worthy of criticism?

5) I don't recall saying anything about impeachment, but okay.

hence my quote

Heretic, I realize you did not specifically argue all of these points, just letting off a bit of steam in your statements general direction

I've heard wacky liberals talking impeachment occassionaly. Granted, not too often though...

 

[michaeledward]

I don't believe dissidence is met w/ accusations of treason.

Perhaps you recently heard a CNN news reader state that:

'Some describe Ned Lamont as the al Qaeda candidate"
​

Although, in fact, no one has ever described Ned Lamont that way, the CNN news reader was not reprimanded for that comment. But, I don't know if you can get much closer to accusing someone of treason than to claim that he is the candidate for Osama bin Laden's network. (What liberal media?)

Or maybe you have heard of recent commercials, in which the face of the Junior Senator from New York, is on the same screen as that of Osama bin Laden. I wonder what message that is trying to send.

Oh, wait ... how about if the Vice President of the United States interrupts his vacation (as if he is not reclusive enough) to hold a press conference in which the message was 'Connecticut Voters, by choosing Candidate Lamont over Senator Leiberman might encourage 'al Qaeda types'.

 

[mrhnau]

Perhaps you recently heard a CNN news reader state that:

'Some describe Ned Lamont as the al Qaeda candidate"
​

Although, in fact, no one has ever described Ned Lamont that way, the CNN news reader was not reprimanded for that comment. But, I don't know if you can get much closer to accusing someone of treason than to claim that he is the candidate for Osama bin Laden's network. (What liberal media?)

Obviously trying to stir up the far left. Saying something like that is ridiculous. I'm suprised the statement was not retracted. I'd also like to hear the context. One sentance may be taken way out of context. Find the source if possible please. I'm imagining that after that statement he spent the next few minutes praising him.

Or maybe you have heard of recent commercials, in which the face of the Junior Senator from New York, is on the same screen as that of Osama bin Laden. I wonder what message that is trying to send.

The depends. What was the context? What was said? Something like:

"Hillary is Bin Ladens best buddy"

or

"Hillary fights to defend us from the likes of Bin Laden"

That picture works w/ both. Need context again. Claiming Hillary is next to Bin Laden in a picture and trying to draw a conclusion out of that borders on silly w/out context.

Oh, wait ... how about if the Vice President of the United States interrupts his vacation (as if he is not reclusive enough) to hold a press conference in which the message was 'Connecticut Voters, by choosing Candidate Lamont over Senator Leiberman might encourage 'al Qaeda types'.

Does Cheney think Lamont would be lax on security? Would Lamont lower security and turn a blind eye to al Qaeda? If so, this is one way to state that. Again, I'd like to see the context and not just a line. Also depends on what he means by al Qaeda types.

So, in conclusion: context context context.