(2006-09-29) — According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, 89 percent of Democrats believe it’s more likely that they will personally be subjected to NSA wiretaps and CIA waterboarding, than it is that Islamic terrorists will attempt another attack on U.S. soil.
The results come in the wake of Congressional passage of President Bush’s terrorist detainee and NSA wiretap proposals designed to prevent future attacks.
“The only thing we have to fear,” said one unnamed Democrat Senator, “is Bush himself.”
The source noted that al Qaeda is not a “legitimate threat”, since the so-called terror group has mounted only one successful operation on U.S. soil in the past six years.
“In that same time, Bush has ordered many wiretaps and the CIA has tortured lots of detainees,” he said. Then he asked rhetorically, “Which one presents a clear and present danger: Bush or Bin Laden?”
The anonymous senator also noted that the al Qaeda leader’s effectiveness has been neutralized because, “Bin Laden has been virtually dead since President Clinton nearly killed him years ago.”
138 responses so far ↓
1 Maggie // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:34 am
God bless America!
2 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:35 am
May God have mercy on the Democrats.
3 Maggie // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:41 am
Good Morning everybody……..Is conserve-a-tip having another yard sale or is everyone at Shelly’s cafe.
(I would tap on the screen but afraid of scaring Ms Right Wing’s cat)
4 Scott Ott // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:42 am
Poll: Dems Fear Torture, Wiretaps More Than Terrorists
by Scott
Ott
(2006-09-29) — According to the latest New York
Times/CBS News poll, 89 percent of Democrats believe it’s more likely that they
will personally be subjected to NSA wiretaps and CIA waterboarding, than it is
that Islamic…
5 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:43 am
Good Morning Maggie!
6 Maggie // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:51 am
RedPepper….ditto
It is incredulous to me that so many elected officials hate the very values and culture which make out country great.
Harry Reid,more than Pu Losie, creeps me out,although San Fran Nan is a very close second.
7 beekabok1 // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:51 am
Behind door #1, we have a gentleman with a listening device that may or maynot listen to your phone calls to help thwart terrorist plots.
Behind door #2, we have prison guards that may or maynot use “creative” methods to interigate prisoners in an attempt to, again, thwart terrorist plots.
And finally, behind door #3, we have said terrorists with 25 pounds of plastic strapped to his chest and the trigger in his hand.
hmmmmmmmmmm,
Decisions, decisions
8 conserve-a-tip // Sep 29, 2006 at 9:52 am
Good morning, Maggie! Nope. No yard sales this week, thank goodness. I think I’ve had enough of that to last me another 10 years! Now, I am attending other people’s yard sales to fill up my house again to have one again in 10 years. Makes sense, huh?
Mornin’ RedPepper, the computer expert comes home tonight and I can’t wait to show him what I have learned!
Scott, are you sure that is a satire?????
9 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:03 am
I thought someone (Bush) was tapping my wires this morning but after a cup of coffee and two homemade waffles Scott is up and running.
Life is good when you have homemade buttermilk waffles.
10 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:04 am
No one doubts that George Bush’s war on terror is based in belief and principle. … they’ve seen George Bush give three major policy speeches this month, pushing the Bush Doctrine with commitment and consistency. Today Congress may send for his signature the bill he sought on terrorist detainees.
The Democrats are back in the national-security game alright, but the playbook is opinion polling first, with belief a second option. One result is their national-security offensive has taken on a surreal unseriousness.
Full article here .
11 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:13 am
I bet the liberals are having nightmares about being tortured by the evil Bu$Hitler/Halliburton/Exxon/RoveHimmler junta.
12 red satellites // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:14 am
Good morning all…..!
A fine fine day here in LA…we had a union demonstration in support of our Airport Hotels yesterday. Shut down access to LAX.
Oddly…enough…they played spanish songs and chanted spanish slogans….and all of our local TV news crews were there to capture it on tape.
I bet…if I stay at an airport hotel here in LA…they put flour tortillas on your pillow instead of chocolates. Just a guess.
13 red satellites // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:15 am
Correction: Airport Hotel Workers..
14 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:21 am
#12 red satellites: No no, not flour tortillas! Sopapillas!
Sticky tho …
15 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:24 am
I bet if someone did a Lexus-Nexus search they’d find for every condemnation of global jihadism uttered by DemDonks there have been a hundred condemnations directed at Bush and conservative Americans.
I ask, how many times did Nancy Pelosi call Hugo Chavez a thug? Obviously it was a sound bite to cover her backside from those who rightly conclude that the hate-Bush/blame-America rhetoric of Hugo Chavez was torn right from the pages of the Demoncrap playbook.
Not only are liberals like Bill Clinton unwilling to take personal responsibility for the things they say and do or not do, they are unwilling to hold Islamofascists totally accountable for the evil they’ve perpetrated on innocent civilians. Instead, the Dims engage in “the-devil-made-them-do-it” sophistry which ultimately blames America and George Bush for the murderous evil of Muslims toward Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists and even other Muslims. Bearing such false witness against this country’s leadership, engaged in an epic and noble struggle against an implacable foe, is morally reprehensible.
But leave it to liberal DemDonks not to engage in a single second of introspection about their own evil passivity with respect to an active enemy of America. They whine about America “being divided” without giving a single thought to the fact that it has been them that have been divisive all along. You can track it right back to within weeks of 9/11 when radical left-wing groups were already blaming America for what was wrought on that fateful day.
16 Shelly // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:25 am
“virtually dead since President Clinton nearly killed him years ago”
Scott, to coin a phrase you are simply the best.
I guess that by voting against interrogating terrorists to prevent the deaths of Americans, and to building a fence on the border, they are hoping for a virtual election as well? Honestly, is it me or are these “we won’t be swift boated on national security again” pols throwing away the election with both hands? They really expect the American people to trust them on anything?
17 Shelly // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:33 am
red, liked your column today. Why aren’t more known murderers killed “resisting arrest?” Fortunately, Florida got their man today, literally.
18 Thomas Crown // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:35 am
Oh, these journalists. How can anybody trust them?
Woodward’s first two books on Bush were fair and accurate because they praised him. But this new one? What’s a Republican to do?
19 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:37 am
It amazes me how the MSM/LLL mischaracterize everything-it’s as though they are in some parallel universe.
All of the NYT links above blatantly misrepresent the facts. Is it ineptitude? Do they not understand English? Is it really possible that a nefarious agenda is at work? Could it be that they intentionally lying? I could go on asking similar questions for days-the unfairness bothers me-I see no logical motive.
They are no different than the insane terrorist leaders who propagandize from the pulpit, knowing they are the only source of information most of their followers have, and take advantage for their own ego-tripping aggrandizement.
Not everyone has access to the actual documents the MSM falsely misrepresents like I/we do and, therefore, the capability of rational comparison of the reality versus the fiction. It is simply wrong-immoral, even- for them (the MSM) to do what they do.
I can only hope and pray that, on November 8, 2006, the Democrats will be pulling their hair, weeping and gnashing their teeth for their failed attempt at bamboozling their fellow Americans by playing along with the LLL/MSM and the terrorists who, for some bizarre, unfathomable reason, they don’t realize hate them just as much as they hate us.
20 Shelly // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:45 am
James, here’s another gem from the left regarding the border fence that assumes we’re as dumb as dirt:
“Environmentalists and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wardens say the barrier would disrupt the migration of scores of species from jaguars to hawks and humming birds along a wildlife corridor linking northern Mexico and the U.S. southwest known as the “Sky Islands.”
Hawks and humming birds? Are they presuming we’re unaware of one particular talent they possess? Does leave one scratching his/her head.
21 red satellites // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:45 am
Thank you Miss Shelly…
Yes Florida took out the cop killer…if it had been in California…we would be discussing how much the killer may have suffered before being shot at…
22 Maggie // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:52 am
Shelly….IMHO,only electric barbed wire and razor wire on the mexican border will do.
23 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:59 am
RE: #20~~
Shelly~~
LOL!
Exactly!
24 Right Mind : Poll: Dems Fear Torture, Wiretaps More Than Terrorists // Sep 29, 2006 at 11:06 am
[…] From Scott Ott over at Scrapple Face: […]
25 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 11:20 am
The word torture has been demagogued so routinely that we tend to forget the real meaning of the word.
… only a handful of reporters showed up to see the new video, and even fewer reported on it. One journalist present was New York Post’s Washington bureau chief Deborah Orin, who wrote of “savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade – all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam’s praises.”
From the same article :
“Under Saddam Hussein,” the AEI website said of Abu Ghraib, “some thirty thousand people were executed there, and countless more were tortured and mutilated, returning to Iraqi society as visible evidence of the brutality of Baathist rule instead of being lost to the anonymity of mass graves.”
Language matters.
That is the reason it is being destroyed.
26 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 11:41 am
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him.~~1Corinthians 1:27-29
27 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Scott, your reference to UBL being “virtually dead” reminded me of the hilarious Billy Crystal character, the old miracle worker, vamping in Princess Bride about young Wesley/Pirate Roberts being “mostly dead”.
Here’s a listing of bloopers in Princess Bride. Still an excellent movie!
28 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Of the many wrong lessons the Clinton presidency taught us, the cheap apology is one that continues to haunts us. The world became accustomed to America … apologizing reflexively for every offense, real or imagined. Apologies have since become expensive. Because the radical Islamists demand — and we supply — an endless stream of apologies for conduct that is either entirely justified or inoffensive, they are winning their campaign of intimidation.
By Jed Babbin .
29 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Here’s an example of what I was talking about above (#19):
The insistence of the Democrat party (echoed ad infinitum by the MSM) to mis-characterize the Bush Administration’s philosophy in Iraq as simply to “stay the course,” implying a blind, unthinking, plodding forward with a “failed” strategy-without regard for the actual situational realities-and toward certain defeat.
Today, President Bush, in a speech to the ROA, said this:
“Look, in order to win war, in order to win the ideological struggle of the 21st century, it is important for this country to have a clear strategy, and change tactics to meet the conditions on the ground, not try to constantly respond to the critics who change their positions.” (emphasis mine)
I wonder if the Democrats aren’t projecting, after all these years-still in guilt-trip mode-smarting from the out-of-control days of LBJ, when our troops really were treated as cannon-fodder…..
30 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 2:01 pm
France’s Le Figaro caves, apologizes, denies freedom of press/speech-denies the truth:
The Forbidden Op-Eds
Death Threats in Brussels, France (Robert Redeker)
Of course, the press here has pretty much already imposed Islamic (and homosexual and infanticide and atheist and et cetera) censorship upon itself, so, why am I surprised…..
31 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Okay, one more and I’ll stop (I sure hope you folks don’t mind me annoying-sharing my little “finds”):
Journalists Collude with Professors to Manufacture ‘Consensus’
32 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 2:30 pm
push
33 boberinagain // Sep 29, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Hey gang, what’s doing? Good one Scott
Princess Bride is a winner, right on Hank
I see the VA is “honoriring the troops” again, failing to supply much needed help to those thousands coming off their second tour and readying for their third tour that have, get this, mental stresses. Now why would mothers and fathers preparing to serve a third tour in a war like this possibly need help? And, more importantly, why can’t they get it?
34 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Excerpt from Dan Simmons The Time Traveler:
The Time Traveler shook his head. “You’ve understood nothing I’ve said. Nothing. Athens failed in Syracuse – and doomed their democracy – not because they fought in the wrong place and at the wrong time, but because they weren’t ruthless enough. They had grown soft since their slaughter of every combat-age man and boy on the island of Melos, the enslavement of every woman and girl there. The democratic Athenians, in regards to Syracuse, thought that once engaged they could win without absolute commitment to winning, claim victory without being as ruthless and merciless as their Spartan and Syracusan enemies. The Athenians, once defeat loomed, turned against their own generals and political leaders – and their official soothsayers. If General Nicias or Demosthenes had survived their captivity and returned home, the people who sent them off with parades and strewn flower petals in their path would have ripped them limb from limb. They blamed their own leaders like a sun-maddened dog ripping and chewing at its own belly.”
“You came back in time to lecture me about Thucydides?” I said. “Athens? Syracuse? Sun-Tzu? No offense, Mr. Time Traveler, but who gives a damn?”
The Time Traveler rose so quickly that I flinched back in my chair, but he only refilled his Scotch. This time he refilled my glass as well. “You probably should give a damn” he said softly. “ In 2006, you’ll be ripping and tearing at yourselves so fiercely that your nation – the only one on Earth actually fighting against resurgent caliphate Islam in this long struggle over the very future of civilization – will become so preoccupied with criticizing yourselves and trying to gain short-term political advantage, that you’ll all forget that there’s actually a war for your survival going on. Twenty-five years from now, every man or woman in America who wishes to vote will be required to read Thucydides on this matter. And others as well. And there are tests. If you don’t know some history, you don’t vote . . . much less run for office. America’s vacation from knowing history ends very soon now . . . for you, I mean. And for those few others left alive in the world who are allowed to vote.”
Boy did this guy nail the Democrats and RINOs who always blame America and wring their hands over how their “civil rights” have been supposedly trampled on by this war on jihadism.
35 boberinagain // Sep 29, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Here I thought it was a handful of nutjobs that got extremely lucky and killed about 3000 of us. I did not realize that we needed to wipe Muslims off the face of the earth and that this was a fight to the death for one “side” or the other.
You are as scary as ever Hank, I like that about you. If we could just kill everyone that isn’t a white Christian then we will truly have lasting peace. I’m certain that is what God wants
36 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 3:13 pm
#s 30,31 JL3: Do I mind? Only that you didn’t make a big enough fuss about “your finds”!
Let me say first - folks, if you read nothing else today please click on the first link in JL3’s Post 30 and read the included article, “Islam Wants To Conquer the World” by Egon Flaig. It is a pretty long piece but well worth the effort!
Second - in addition to the material Malkin has in her post about the professor, Robert Redeker, who is under death threats - there is another item about his situation that you need to read. Here is the link, and here’s an excerpt.
Robert Redeker, 52, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a “book of extraordinary violence” and Islam as “a religion which … exalts violence and hate”.
He told i-TV television he had received several e-mail threats targeting himself and his wife and three children, and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist Internet sites.
“There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: ‘This pig must have his head cut off’,” he said.
And also this :
But despite the government’s assurances of support, Redeker accused the authorities of leaving him “alone and abandoned”.
Interviewed over the telephone from a safe house by Europe 1 radio Friday, he said that “the education ministry has not even contacted me, has not deigned to get in touch to see if I need any help.”
On Thursday Education Minister Gilles de Robien expressed “solidarity” with the teacher, but also warned that “a state employee must show prudence and moderation in all circumstances.”
37 George Apley // Sep 29, 2006 at 3:35 pm
You come here to look around and what you find are the dame old dreary right wing voices with the same old childlike, recurring aimlessness, which is only now and then relieved by laughable hero worship of history’s least heroic National Guard fugitive.
And what’s it prove?
Just that apparent joblessness must be higher than you’d think and that it’s found a home here.
38 random // Sep 29, 2006 at 3:51 pm
I had a dream last night, really weird. We were buying Persian rugs. Lots of them. They were all rolled up on a boat like the kind they have in Italy, so this lady in a burka gets on the boat. A guy says, Okay you know what to do. And I am thinking either she is going to blow us up or he is telling her to be sure and get the payment upon delivery. But then she leans back and the whole boat tips up like the Titanic and starts to go down into the water as she begins to push the buttons on her bomb-vest.
I made myself wake up. I channel surf alot with the remote, so I’m thinking too many movies all at the same time. But it is my first Muslim Fanatic Dream.
39 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 4:14 pm
And just in case you don’t have enough to read today …
here’s Jonah Goldberg’s latest : Terrorists’ Excuse du Jour .
“In other words, before Iraq became the cause celebre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn’t have toppled the Taliban?”
40 camojack // Sep 29, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Darthmeister:
Re: #27…Inconceivable!
As for torture, I think hearing what the Dims have to say qualifies…
41 Godfrey // Sep 29, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Actually wiretaps and torture worry me more than terrorists do too.
The Democrats are absolutely right on this one. By giving up our liberties for a little security we are essentially handing the terrorists our children’s futures. Is it really so “patriotic” to trade liberty for security?
Or is it, in fact, definitively un-American to allow fear to dictate the curtailment of our liberty? Remember, people…once this is in place historical precedent says it will never go away. It will achieve normalcy.
The sickening thing is…ten years ago the conservatives would have been the ones standing up to this.
Who would have thought we’d live to see Republicans embrace statism…and not even realize they’re doing it?
42 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 5:58 pm
boberinagain,
I just knew some critic would think I was advocating the murder of innocent children and enslaving women. Why do you feign such ignorance of historical metaphor? Nice try, no cigar.
Did we have to kill every German citizen to destroy Nazism? No, but we had to ruthlessly destroy Nazism and those who subscribed to its tenets. You may think I overestimate of the threat of jihadism, but in actuality you way underestimate the Islamofascist threat to western civilization as well as the siren song Muslim jihadism produces in Islamic fundamentalists in general.
We are dealing with a 21st Century fascist movement and it’s Islamic radicalism, not America or the Bush Administration, which is the threat to the life and liberty of 21st Century man. But an even greater threat has arisen and it is the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil posture that people like you have taken as a result of your sullen skepticism. You’ve merely paid lip service to dealing with the Islamofascist threat, and unfortunately, to date, it appears that there are those within the Pentagon and the State Department who are pressing for a minimalist approach to fighting this war out of fear of “angering the Muslim world.”
If America had had that attitude toward Nazism (which was Europe’s problem after all, wasn’t it bober?), American liberal appeasers would have eventually been eradicated as the useful idiots that they are or absorbed into the decadent underbelly of the Third Reich while real American patriots would still be carrying on the resistance against the ever tightening grip of collectivist fascism. There can be no peace when the wolf prowls outside the door.
If we are still alive in that great and terrible day to come in the last days, I can only imagine your response when the Man of Perdition is revealed and requires everyone to submit to his rule in the name of global peace and harmony. While villifying good people you would eventually find yourself bowing your knee to the Master of Evil himself. Complacent people like you scare me, boberin. When will you awaken from your slumber and see the approaching threat on the horizon?
43 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Godfrey,
How many times do we have to explain how Benjamin Franklin’s axiom has been misquoted? Franklin’s exact words were: “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.”
So what essential liberty have we actually given up to purchase a little temporary safety. Have we given up the right to life? Yep, we sure did with abortion. The right to liberty? I’m not seeing fascist checkpoints on every street corner or someone telling me what kind of job I can or cannot have. How about the right to happiness and property? Well, SCOTUS certainly has thrown a monkey wrench in that one with its Kelos imminent domain ruling. But come on, any “essential liberties” you’ve lost have been purely rhetorical. Yeah, some left-wing totalitarian despot might come along down the pike and abuse some of these war powers, but it won’t be the Bush Administration. What part of “we’re at war” don’t you understand?
You would have had a conniption fit if you had lived under the Lincoln or Roosevelt regimes. I’m not buying into this faux outrage about “trading our rights for security.” That’s pure balderdash. How are you any less free today than you were pre-9/11? What, some memory bank somewhere might have recorded you ordering a pizza with anchovies or talking to grandma about the cruise your going on?
Ben Franklin’s axiom has far more application to protecting Second Amendment rights than it does protecting telephone calls that have an overseas component. Do you really believe that landlines and cellphones have any real reasonable expectation of being totally “private”? Under this administration only terrorists and criminals have anything to fear.
The Echelon Program under Bill Clinton had far more sinister domestic implications than does the present NSA foreign surveillance program. Where was the outrage then? And the fact remains the vast majority of “wiretaps” still require and are the result of bench issued warrants. There is no such thing as absolute privacy rights. Never was and it certainly isn’t in the Constitution, particularly during wartime.
44 Beerme // Sep 29, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I think the key thing to remember in giving the government the right to capture people, send them to overseas prisons and “torture” them, not even pausing to hold a hearing, is that governments and people make mistakes.
I fear the happy willingness to go along with statism as, well. A more ruthless attack plan in conducting the actual war would be more sensible to me…just sayin’.
45 Beerme // Sep 29, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Darthmeister,
I think it is really a question of trust. You trust the current government’s application of it’s power. I don’t, at least not nearly as much. And the question of how has the government’s actions harmed our freedoms can best be answered by the few people who have been on the wrong end of the stick, for no valid reason, as in the person mentioned in the article attached to my last post.
My question for you is, how will you feel about this same power in the hands of a Hillary Clinton-run federal government? Hmmm?
46 Darthmeister // Sep 29, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Good question, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. In the meantime the Bush Administration is not abusing its constitutional powers any more than past administrations have during wartime against an implacable and cunning enemy.
I’m confident there are enough principled Americans in Congress and on the Supreme Court who would work within the constitutional framework to limit the powers of the presidency if the office happens to fall into the hands of a closet despot.
Fortunately the founders were wise enough to leave within the jurisdiction of the American people the Second Amendment, the silver bullet against despotism. Once that goes then we will truly be at the mercy of whatever two-bit despot comes along. And what party has worked to diminish the Second Amendment … THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Therein lies the real threat to the liberties of Americans in the forseeable future.
ALERT!!!
Another Democrat is speaking truth to power (snicker). From the AP:
Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri condemned President Bush in a video statement released Friday, calling him a failure and a liar. “Why don’t you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people’s sons in order increase your profits?”
See, when Islamofascist murder Americans, it’s actually Bush murdering them for resisting Islam. Nice bit of circularly reasoning … right up the Dhimmiecratic Party’s alley, too.
47 prettyold // Sep 29, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Now,now, settle down everyone, we all need to listen to this underwired woman ,who has ALL our best interests at heart and listen to her. She is religious too : Nancy Peloosli,
“Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.”
Didn’t that just make you feel refreshed ans so much safer? What a way with words that gal has got!!
48 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 7:16 pm
The only people who should be worried about the Terrorist Surviellance Program are those expecting a call from (or hoping to make a call to) Al-Qaida, some other enemy entity or, maybe, the dope smuggler.
Only an imbecile could seriously think that the CIA (or whichever agency) is expending valuable time sitting around listening-at random-to American’s phone calls.
Enemy sympathizers/enablers make me sick. Get out.
Just. Get. Out.
Go live in a cave with your scummy pals.
49 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 29, 2006 at 8:15 pm
This is kinda scary: Chinese Laser Tag.
It’s time for a pre-emptive strike; we need to cull our arsenal, anyway.
50 conserve-a-tip // Sep 29, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Darthmeister, I am going to start calling you Darthmaestro because you are the director of a symphony of words and reasoning. I love your posts. Thank you for your wisdom and journalistic skills…not that Scott isn’t great, but each of you is great in your own ways. And then, we can’t forget Santini who is in a whole ‘nother sphere!…er plane…er world.
I have said before that I have been a part of the Al Anon program for a long time and I am continually amazed at how the truths that I learned there about alcoholic/addictive behavior and codependency encompasses all aspects of life. The codependent looks at the addict and says, “I hate what he is doing, but if I take a stand or don’t do what he wants, he is going to be mad at me and will make my life miserable.” Never mind that he is already mad and life is already insane, and no matter what the codependent does to appease the addict, it isn’t going to matter a hill of beans.
The codependent says, “If I just keep my mouth shut and keep him happy, nobody will know there is a problem and maybe he won’t drink.” Never mind that the alcoholic isn’t worried about the destruction in his wake and only heads toward self-destruction by that type of enabling.
The codependent says, “If I do this, or say that, or stop doing this or that, even though I’ve tried it before maybe this time he will stop drinking and wreaking havoc.” Never mind that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
And the codependent lives in fear, anger, and frustration, with illusions of control and illusions of being able to reason sanity into the addict. The codependent blames everybody else for the alcoholic/addict’s problems and the addict and everybody else for the codependent’s problems.
The codependent who has gotten help realizes that by doing what is best and safe for himself and by saying, “no” to unacceptable situations, eventually the addict will leave (an hard alternative for the codependent) or hit bottom and get help. But in between those two situations, there is a time of sheer chaos and pain for both parties because the codependent is no longer being a doormat and an enabler. The addict’s only two choices are to either get help or die. That’s it.
Do all of these scenarios sound familiar regarding the two approaches to terrorism ala the Democrats (minus Lieberman) versus the Republicans (minus McCain and Graham)?
51 everthink // Sep 29, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Sup Dawgs?
Dang, looks like the wheels are comin’ off your thang.
Everthink?
52 Godfrey // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Hank re: #43 How many times do we have to explain how Benjamin Franklin’s axiom has been misquoted?
I’m familiar with his quote but I’m not sure how applies. I was not referring to Franklin at all.
…some left-wing totalitarian despot might come along down the pike and abuse some of these war powers…under this administration only terrorists and criminals have anything to fear.
Famous last words. This administration has two years left in office. It seems to me that to hand this sort of power to some unknown future president is unwise and shortsighted. Who will wield it next? Nancy Pelosi? Howard Dean? Some as-yet unknown young egalitarian who currently works for MoveOn.org?
Seriously, Hank…”only the guilty need worry” is exactly the sort of statement totalitarian regimes have used throughout history to justify their incremental power grabs. The statement implies complete trust of this and all future presidents. This country is not built on a foundation of trust for government, it is built on a foundation of limitation of government. That’s one of the things that make America special.
I’m a Bush supporter, so I assume you’re right: I do believe that the Bush administration wouldn’t abuse its power over its own citizens. That doesn’t matter. It’s completely beside the real point, which is that if government is given any power it is only a matter of time before that power gets used. In fact government power not only gets used, it generally gets expanded. It’s only natural during a crisis to push the limits of power (for the good of the constituency): Bush has already done this. Lincoln did it. The only recourse we have against future abuse is not to give them the power in the first place. I know that like me you’re an admirer of the founders, so you know that they understood this too well.
What part of “we’re at war” don’t you understand?
I guess the part where, at the end of the war, the reason we fought it (the preservation of our way of life) no longer applies.
JL3 re: #48 Only an imbecile could seriously think that the CIA (or whichever agency) is expending valuable time sitting around listening–at random–to American’s phone calls.
First, the issue is not whether they will but whether they can. But there is a lot more to this issue than the NSA wiretaps. Are you aware that as of a few weeks ago a United States citizen (that’s you, me, all Scrapplers and their our children), captured on US soil, can be detained indefinitely without charges?
Is this what you think America stands for? Is this what our grandfathers, fathers and sons spilled their blood for? I know your position is “yes”… but I wonder how many of them would have agreed.
Also: regarding your comments re: imbeciles/enemy sympathizers/enablers…go live in a cave with your scummy pals: I’ve read your posts here for a little while now and you are far too intelligent and articulate to stoop to such nonsense.
53 Godfrey // Sep 29, 2006 at 10:48 pm
WASHINGTON (CNN) August 3, 2031 - President Nancy Pelosi has directed the NSA to eavesdrop on churches, church-owned businesses and the private homes of church officials following a string of abortion clinic bombings by Evangelical Christian extremists.
Citing the continuing “War On Terror,” now in its twenty-fifth year, Pelosi likened the recent attacks to the Islamic terrorism of decades past. “Terrorism is terrorism,” Pelosi said. “We are at war. In order to protect this country, we will bring steady pressure, unrelenting pressure on these terrorists and their associates.”
The president also deflected questions about her decision to continue the detention without trial of Lewis Jameson, an Evangelical Christian, now in its third year. Critics say Jameson has committed no crime and is being denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. Pelosi denies this, noting allegations that he planned to blow up abortion clinics by filling them with natural gas.
“The congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11 attacks back in 2001 provided the office of the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks,” Pelosi said. “Jameson was a known Christian sympathizer, school prayer supporter and anti-choice activist. A trial at this point would be superfluous.”
Jameson, who has not been allowed access to attorneys or family members since his arrest, could not be reached for comment. Christian groups, however, have been vocal in their opposition to what many among them call mounting religious persecution.
“We are not terrorists,” said noted religious freedom advocate Hank Meister. “We’re talking about a small handful of twisted extremists acting alone, not the average Christian.”
When asked about Jameson’s incarceration, Meister said he opposed it adamantly.
“This is not Soviet Russia,” Meister said. “Last time I checked, this is America.”
54 RedPepper // Sep 29, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Godfrey.
I’ve read your posts here for a little while now, so I know you are far too intelligent and articulate to stoop to setting up straw men that you then can easily knock down and tell yourself that you’ve won the argument.
I’m a fairly linear person, myself, and I dislike getting scattered all over the place, so … let’s take one point before anything else. I’ve heard Oklahoma City and the abortion clinic bombings used so often in this sort of setting it’s ridiculous! Do you seriously wish to argue that “radical Christians” pose anything like the danger that Islamic fundamentalism poses?
If so, let’s get it on! Lets have that argument, on the facts, until we feel we have resolved it.
Otherwise, there are a few other matters I’d like to dispute with you.
55 conserve-a-tip // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:09 am
Just thought that I would put y’all to sleep with this. G’night all.
56 Darthmeister // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:09 am
Come, come Godfrey. This constitutional democracy with which are blessed is far more resilient than a mere republic, parliamentary system or a monarchy. Do you not have faith in our system? You speak as if we live under the old Weimar Republic which brought Hitler into power.
As long as there are Americans who believe their liberty and their rights are a gift from God and not merely inscribed upon parchment by a benign potentate but rather is inscribed upon the hearts of American freemen by the hand of God Himself, I don’t believe the small sacrifices we make in wartime will bring down this constitutional democracy. Our systems of checks and balances and representative government of the people, by the people and for the people is made of far sterner stuff than you imagine.
Oh yea of little faith! During the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II, our American forebearers survived with far less “civil rights” that we enjoy today! the American government of those days placed far more demands on the allegiance of the American people, even the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended under Abraham Lincoln. Is this not true? Yet we survived, the American experiment survived, and when the common threat was removed America was none the worst for lack of freedom and liberty … in fact the opposite has been true. You see, it’s counterintuitive, American history shows us this is so.
Now maybe you don’t have the faith in your fellow citizen (and given the liberals’ seditious behavior of late I can understand this lack of faith) that I do, but as long as freedom burns within our breast there will be no tyrant who can rule over us. For what army could quell 30 to 50 million patriots availing themselves of their Second Amendment right if such times were to arise?
Writer Dan Simmons in also wrote in The Time Traveler concerning this inordinate fear of our governmental institutions:
“’Those few others left alive who are allowed to vote?’” I said, the words just now striking me like hardthrown stones. “What are you talking about? Has our government taken away all our civil liberties in this awful future of yours?”
The Time Traveler laughed then and this time it was a deep, hearty, truly amused laugh. “Oh, yes,” he said when the laughter abated a bit. He actually wiped away tears from his one good eye. “I had almost forgotten about your fears of your, our . . . civil liberties . . . being abridged by our own government back in these last stupidity-allowed years of 2005 and 2006 and 2007 . Where exactly do you see this repression coming from?”
“Well . . .” I said. I hate it when I start a sentence with ‘well,’ especially in an argument. “Well, the Patriot Act. Bush authorizing spying on Americans . . . international phonecalls and such. Uh . . . I think mosques in the States are under FBI surveillance. I mean, they want to look up what library books we’re reading, for God’s sake. Big Brother. 1984. You know.”
The Time Traveler laughed again, but with more edge this time. “Yes, I know,” he said. “We all know . . . up there in the future which some of you will survive to see as free people. Civil liberties. In 2006 you still fear yourselves and your own institutions first, out of old habit. A not unworthy – if fatally misguided and terminally masochistic – paranoia. I will tell you right now, and this is not a prediction but a history lesson, some of your grandchildren will live in dhimmitude (as a result of this misguided fear).”
57 conserve-a-tip // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:11 am
And this.
58 nomoregore // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:35 am
Didja hear Kennedy w(h)ailing about water torture? Do you think he could possibly actually listen to himself when he bloviates?
59 Darthmeister // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:53 am
I’m familiar with his quote but I’m not sure how applies. I was not referring to Franklin at all.
Of course not, you merely misquoted Franklin for political advantage without referencing him. You’re not implying you simply made it up on the spot are you? Why this sophistry?
Despite your strawhorse arguments, the fact remains that the threats from Islamofascists and a possible global Islamic caliphate far exceeds the threat your own government poses to your essential liberties.
Since the original ruling on September 9, 2005 by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, other than Jose Padilla how many other Americans have been detained on American soil under the suspicion of having colluded with al Qaeda to kill Americans? One, ten, a hundred, thousands, tens of thousands? For the first three years of his detention Padilla was held without charge, he was subsequently charged with “conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas.”
This power of the executive branch is strictly limited beneath the umbrella of the October 2002 Authorization for the Use of American Force which authorized the President to “use all necessary force against . . . such nations, organizations, or persons“. The ruling opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified an enemy combatant. This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of a group of German-Americans working for Nazi Germany.
So you see, this ruling was not without precedent and the American republic survived just fine after World War II without out a bunch of John Birchers being thrown in prison by Truman, Kennedy or LBJ.
Nice touch about Evangelical Christians blowing up abortion clinics (empty I assume). I would have thought it would have been atheists in 2035 burning down churches because of their growing hatred for organized religion.
60 Effeminem // Sep 30, 2006 at 3:21 am
his constitutional democracy with which are blessed is far more resilient than a mere republic, parliamentary system or a monarchy. Do you not have faith in our system?
It wasn’t addressed to I, but may I throw my two pence in?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ha. ahem.
The fact is that Lincoln did permanently change our government from state-controlled to federally-controlled. Roosevelt did create Big Government as we know it, citing national emergencies like stock crashes, droughts, war. Heck, the income tax itself was an exigency of World War I. The phone tax was from the Spanish-American war.
Personally, I don’t believe in the right to privacy, in that it implies a right to regulate the thoughts of others. But.. habeas corpus?
I also don’t believe that 50 million Americans would fight for their freedom. Let’s generously say that there are 60 million men of fighting age… how many are going to be on the other side? Would you fight the government, bomb police stations and the IRS building, knowing that you’d eventually be captured and killed, with no hope of success? I would. Now, what if you have a wife and kids? Are you going to go throw your life away when it won’t result in freedom for them, but poverty?
Meh, sorry I kinnever remember who wrote what. I’m sure Darth is the one with touching faith in the human spirit.
And yall are missing the point. Who says it was even Christians that blew up the abortion clinics? It could easily have been atheists, abortionists, or DNC goons. Maybe it was Christians. Doesn’t matter.. the end result is still persecution of the group the President doesn’t like.
61 Godfrey // Sep 30, 2006 at 3:28 am
Red re: #54: Do you seriously wish to argue that “radical Christians” pose anything like the danger that Islamic fundamentalism poses?
No, that was not the point at all…and I mean at all. The point of inserting Christians into the matter was not to disparage Christians or link them with violence but simply because most Scrapplers are Christians. It’s like the old poem:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
It is vitally important that we protect speech that is unpopular and the rights of people who are unpopular. Just because our rights have been eroded in the name of prosecuting Jose Padilla, whom none of us care about, doesn’t mean that in the wrong hands that same rule won’t be used against someone or something we do care about.
Like Christianity, for instance. That was the point of the Christian extremists in the article. None other.
—-
Hank: Do you not have faith in our system?
Our system is not based on “faith”, as I said above. It’s not built on trust either. It’s built on limiting the power of government. The Constitution is nothing so much as a negative document, a list of restrictions (Congress shall pass no law…). It is those restrictions that are our greatest protection against tyranny, a guarantee of basic rights that apply to all of us, even if we’re unpopular. A few weeks ago a really important one of those rights was eroded.
”…the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended under Abraham Lincoln. Is this not true? Yet we survived…”
Sure, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled against him on the matter. He ignored the ruling and continued to hold prisoners without recourse. Does anything you see around you today constitute a “case of rebellion or invasion” as it did in Lincoln’s day? Does saying “Lincoln ignored the Constitution too” make it okay?
Ever try using the excuse “but Johnny did it too” with your parents? I did. They didn’t buy it.
Here’s the very important difference between the wars you mentioned and the “war” we’re fighting now. Those wars were defined. They had concrete objectives. They all ended within a few years.
This war, the clumsily-named and vaguely defined “War On Terror” is already five years old and has no foreseeable terminus. There are no concrete objectives. It is naturally structured in such a way that we will not just wake up one day and find that we’ve “won”. No marching bands, no ticker-tape parades.
Do you realize how important that fact is? This is destined to become part of the American landscape, possibly for the remainder of our lives.
How long will it take to win this? One generation? Two? How will we know when we’ve won? It sounds a lot like Orwell’s “endless war.”
Do not make the mistake of thinking that because a deferral of liberties can survive three or four years under Lincoln it can also survive 30 or 40 years under various presidents in a state of constant war. Over that span of time things like detention without trial and secret military tribunals tend to become permanent. Ask the Romans.
Once these “wartime” concessions of our fundamental liberties achieve normalcy, they’re part of the American Ideal. Nobody questions them. They’re here for good. And the fundamental concept of America is changed forever.
I love America more than I love Bush and more than I love any political party or agenda. I don’t want to see that happen. I want my daughter to grow old in the America where I was raised.
Nice touch about Evangelical Christians blowing up abortion clinics…
Don’t read too much into that. I took an example of real-world extremism, added a little hysteria and projected it onto a well-defined group of completely innocent people. Sound familiar?
The fact that my fictional group of people happened to look a lot like you should give you cause for reflection.
Without an intact Constitution, one day it could be.
62 Godfrey // Sep 30, 2006 at 3:48 am
Effeminem re: #60 Who says it was even Christians that blew up the abortion clinics? It could easily have been atheists, abortionists, or DNC goons…the end result is still persecution of the group the President doesn’t like.
Hallelujah…someone gets it.
63 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 6:47 am
RE: #48~~
While I agree the language was impulsive and a bit harsh, I stand by my post-all the more so considering the facile responses which followed.
Being patronized and scolded for my remarks by someone who does nothing but disparage Almighty God as well as the President of my country, the Government of my country, the Citizens of my country and my own character with fabrications, fiction and foolishness only serves to underscore the source of my agitation at the time.
64 MargeinMI // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:05 am
c-a-t, Loved your good night links. “I’m hot! I’m cold! I’m hot! I’m cold!” Do you think Mr. Gore might just be menapausal?
Bwahahahahahhaha!
65 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:36 am
The War on Terror is certainly necessary. We shouldn’t prosecute it without keeping an eye out for unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms of Americans, though. The past twenty or thrity years have seen another war, the War on Drugs, seriously diminish the rights of all Americans. I see no reason to believe that government will not use the current War to further it’s consolidation of power, given the chance.
Here is an example of the suffering caused by one of the (probably) innocent victims of our over-zealous prosecution of the War on Drugs. Many more examples abound and some are mentioned in the article. The second amendment will not protect you, when faced with a paramilitary police force determined to root out “extremists”, ala Waco and Ruby Ridge.
None of these cautionary points should be taken as examples of a position that discourages determined and extreme prejudice in a prosecution of the war against extremist jihadis. If anything, I believe we have fought the actual war on terror rather too weakly. More troops on the ground and a more aggressive stance in eliminating terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan would be preferable. Protecting the freedoms that this great country mandates for all it’s citizens, and the restrictions on government power-and eventual abuse of that power-is paramount, however, and should not be forgotten.
66 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:42 am
Do any of you play caption contests? I think that Scrapplers would enjoy this kind of thing, and with the wit and wisdom that you all exhibit, daily, I’m sure some of you would be very good at it!
I have been trying my hand at making up funny captions for photos at some sites around the internet for a few months now. I like The Right Place blog, best. I ruled during last week’s contest! OK, well, I didn’t get first place, but was mentioned a number of times in the winner’s circle. Check it out, here.
67 onlineanalyst // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:55 am
Who or what inspires jihadi-terrorism asks Michael Rubin with multiple provocative questions that our intelligence services should be addressing. The movement is hardly spontaneous in that it requires funding and training besides recruitment.
Rubin concludes: “Before we blame everything on ourselves and the Bush administration, I’d sure like to have some more answers. Because I suspect that jihadists may be far more bipartisan in their willingness to kill than some of the commentaries about them. Iraq appears to be the latest excuse. If not Iraq, then Afghanistan. If not Afghanistan, then Saudi Arabia. If not Saudi Arabia, then Sicily or Spain.”
68 George Apley // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:56 am
For whom are these comments intended? Mack Sennett?
When the vote comes on whether this site attracts too much midcult froth, use my proxy to encourage reform.
69 onlineanalyst // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:22 am
The discussion re the loss of our personal liberties in the face of an apparently endless war with the threatening ideology of Islamofascism is assuredly a valid one. Enemies to our national security are most certainly embedded in cells throughout our country. How do we protect ourselves from an enemy within? The long-range planners of jihadism have studied our Constitution and our legal system for any loopholes to achieve their aims. The challenge to us is achieving the balance between national security (protections from a declared enemy from without and anarchists from within) and our own liberties.
Yesterday at “The Corner” two posts of interest from lawyer-readers discuss the terms and limits in the latest legislation:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRlMzc0ZmMyYzE3NzYxNmQyNjU0OTFkZjI2ZjE5ZGI=
and
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzEyN2IyZGE4NjliOTcxZDIxNzA4OGEzZWUwODkxYmY=
At issue here is the use of the term “aliens” and “legal residents.” As the commenter observes, the latter are by definition not American citizens but aliens. Who exactly is subject to military tribunal commissions is discussed briefly, as well.
70 Thomas Crown // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:25 am
Can we expect a Foley defense any time soon? Will there be reminders of his many stirring House floor denunciations of Clinton’s morality?
Does America deserve an answer to the pleas—What did Hasert, Blunt, Boehner and Reynolds know and when did they know it?
Is the Republican deathgrip on hypocrisy more secure than ever?
Will millions of narrow, reactionary minds constrict even further?
Will there be a Falwell prayer?
A Robertson blessing?
A sympathetic note from Abramoff?
Where and what are Rove’s instructions?
71 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:31 am
No proxy needed, George/Thomas. Also, aren’t you lefties supposed to be tolerant and accepting of alternative lifestyles? Or is that only practiced when the pervert is a Democrat?
72 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:42 am
“97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can’t Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime” from INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY.
73 R.A.M. // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:43 am
Great editorial cartoon at:
http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/index.html
Scroll down to “Bully” Clinton.
Isn’t it interesting that some of the things being said by Al Quiada(sp), Hamas, and “leading dictators” around the world, are EXACTLY the same things we hear from Pelosi, Gore, Dean, Kennedy, Murtha, etc, etc, etc—-
I know,—-it has already been said before!
BUT, it is amazing that if you take the words said about GWB and/or Republicans/Christians, and they don’t tell you WHO said them,—-you REALLY WOULD have to guess if it was the enemy or Dimocrats?
In my opinion, they have BOTH become the same thing!
I guess that is why they got so mad when GWB said, “Either you are with us, or against us!”
The truth hurts! That is why when things like Bubba’s meltdown hits, you see an increase in “troll activity”!
Now ALL the talk will be Mark Foley. I for one am glad this pervert has been found out, BUT, am also betting we will NOT see the ACLU, NAMBLA, of Barney Frank coming to his defense anytime soon!
It also shows the difference between Republican and Democrat sleaze.
Republican elected criminals USUALLY fess up and resign, while Democrat elected criminals, deny-deny-deny, refuse to step down, have their ‘peers’ say, “they have not been convicted of ANYTHING”, and then run again and get elected by their lemming voting block—(see Marion Barry, Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson, and the ‘Clinton Gang’!)
74 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:53 am
Note the insertion of earmarks in the latest spending bill, and the elimination of any further “airdrops” due to the recent passage of the sunshine rule which would identify who added the earmarks and who it benefited. It could have been worse, but Coburn, et. al., prevented some political earmarking with one of the only sensible bills passed by our current congress.
Still $2.1 Billion for an aircraft our military wants to discontinue is a big pill to swallow. Aren’t there more important things to spend that money on?
75 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:56 am
RE: #72~~
I should have given credit (a Hat Tip) to Power Line for their link to the IBD article.
76 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 10:27 am
R.A.M.,
Thanks for the link to Varvel’s site! Great cartoons!
77 R.A.M. // Sep 30, 2006 at 11:01 am
Beerme: I have great respect for Gary Varvel. He is a small fish among the MANY sharks at the Indianapolis Star!
It is humorous to read the opinion page, (about every other day), from liberals about Varvel’s “hateful, disgusting cartoons”!
If anything, he is pretty mild compared to the left’s cartoonists!
P.S. Even being from Indiana, (and a former Bobby Knight fan), Bobby Knight would be perfect to play the part of Clinton, if the interview is ever put in a movie, with the Wallace part being played by Woody Allen.
78 R.A.M. // Sep 30, 2006 at 11:13 am
What Thomas Clown forgot to mention above is that if Republicans in the House knew about Foley, so did Dims!
Wonder why they brought this story forward less than 40 days out from the elections?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????????
Also makes you wonder what other secrets BOTH parties are hiding———well other than those being covered up ‘badly’ like, Harry Reid’s campaign contributions from Abramoff, other conflict of interest donations, and free tickets to boxing events, Wm Jefferson’s “cold cash”, and Hillary’s ‘disappearing’ election violations.
Thomas Clown: If Barney Frank gets caught doing the same thing, will it be “his personal business” with you, or will your ilk’s defence be, “it was consentual”?
79 Jericho // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:14 pm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52216
Why can’t we get a conservative government like this?
80 onlineanalyst // Sep 30, 2006 at 12:43 pm
It must be a full moon… or midterm break, for the Lefty perpetual students and their guiding beacon “professors” are infecting conservative sites once more. Having gotten their orders and talking points from the Party Officials, they spew their predictable nonsense again in the guise of speaking “truth to power” (whatever that is from day to day). Then again, they may be attempting some traction and credibility since all of their other feeble attempts at relevance have fallen flat.
“Spin” another record, boys.
81 onlineanalyst // Sep 30, 2006 at 1:35 pm
On a cool and rainy afternoon, why not settle back with this video that puts history into perspective? Pass the popcorn!
82 onlineanalyst // Sep 30, 2006 at 1:38 pm
The link didn’t “catch,” so I will try to post the video again:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/8287728826057446/its_all_a_lie_-_the_fraudulent_senator/
No photoshopping here. As a cyberfriend says, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
83 dmcfarland // Sep 30, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I am getting sick and tired of RINO’s like Mc Cain and the other coward republicans that are getting in the way of National Defense. I have several dissagreements with Bush on several issues, but he seems to be the only republican that cares about national security.
We really need to get rid of the Mc Cains and Hannibal Specters of the party, and get some rock ribbed real american patriots. We have a whole party that opposes America-theyre are called democrats. We dont need republicans working in concert with the treasoncrats and further adding to the fifth column in America.
84 Darthmeister // Sep 30, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Okay, all I’m hearing is rhetoric about “lost rights”. I want someone to document what right they once had before 9/11 that has now been taken away or severely curtailed. And I won’t accept some nebulous claim about ones “right to privacy” has been diminished…whatever that means in today’s post-9/11 world. If you want absolute privacy then go live in an anarchist system and see what other rights you would lose instead.
Anyone been arrested for speaking their mind about the government? Been unfairly incarcerated because of a government frame job? Have had jackbooted thugs kicking down their doors? Been harassed by the BATFE (I can understand this happening no thanks to the Clinton administration’s fear of the armed citizen)? Have had to suffer detention at government checkpoints? Been rounded up by federal law enforcement on a random basis? Been made to wear a yellow star of David, a green crescent or a cross on an arm band (what would atheists wear?)? Been harassed by the IRS because of your association with “undesirable” organizations or because of what you’ve posted on the Internet?
C’mon, what “civil rights” has any law-abiding American suffered which would indicate there is a fascist government agenda which is targetting everyday, innocent Americans going about their business?
Any law can be abused, any law can be ignored by corrupt government officials if they are intent on ruining someone’s life. It’s not just the nature of the Patriot Act which is the problem, it’s the way it can be corrupted by corrupt people. There are enough safeguards built into our system of government and jurisprudence which would minimize such wholesale violation of essential rights. Hey, there’s always the ACLU to the rescue. And yes, honest and not so honest mistakes can happen since this isn’t a perfect world. And no I wouldn’t want those honest mistakes to happen to me … but what’s your point? That’s no argument given that we all agree we live in an imperfect world and random mistakes are going to happen.
What essential rights have we Americans been denied under the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act? I suppose one could argue that our “freedom of movement” has been hindered because of greater security measures in our airports … but really, is that a violation of our civil rights, particularly during a time of war against an enemy more than willing to use unfettered access to their advantage. I have no problem with what the NSA is presently doing monitoring phone calls which have a foreign source on one end or the other.
Under FDR, all mail going to or come from abroad was read and censored by the U.S. government. This was far, far, far more intrusive and invasive than anything the NSA has done to this point … far more intrusive. Yet the American republic survived and we are none the worst for it and Nazism was defeated. I’d be all for sunset provisions and I think that’s understood by Congressional members when extraordinary war Presidential warpowers are validated by them and SCOTUS. Let’s start living in the real world here. There isn’t a right we have that hasn’t been technically infringed in one manner or another. And yes, the less infringement the better. But I haven’t seen anything egregious in the powers the President Bush and the NSA have exercised to this point.
85 everthink // Sep 30, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Godfrey:
Respond as you will, I must applaud you comments on this thread! Your character, intelligence, and patriotism must be respected.
Hank is right though; we will be coming for him. He will be changed with strutting while seated, being educated beyond his capacity to reason.
ET
After Foley, so much for “Family Values” of the “Whited Sepulchre” Party
86 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 3:57 pm
“The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an armed force . . . has the power . . . to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and subject citizens . . . to the rule of his will. . . . If true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law.”-Chief Justice David Davis, ruling for the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866), declaring commander in chief Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and other denials of due process during the Civil War unconstitutional.
“No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts.” -David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union
Nat Hentoff writes a good article indicating why conservatives are and should remain vigilant and concerned about any possible assaults on our freedoms by our government, especially as it pertains to the prosecution of the war on terror.
It isn’t a matter of basic civil rights that have been violated, or the names of those who’ve been victimized, but rather the attitude of the public in response to the increase in executive power that bothers me. Especially as seen coming from conservatives. No matter how wrong, weak and partisan Democrats are, we constitutionally-minded conservatives should not be cheering a power grab by the executive branch, even if that branch happens to be run by a man we believe to be sincere and dedicated to the protection of this country and our way of life (as I do believe). Disagreeing with Bush is not the same as agreeing with Nancy Pelosi.
“Hold on to the Constitution and the republic for which it stands,” said Daniel Webster, warning, “What has happened once in 6,000 years may never again.” (from the above mentioned Hentoff article-JWR
87 Godfrey // Sep 30, 2006 at 4:03 pm
JL3 - I “disparage Almighty God as well as the President of [our] country, the Government of [our] country, the Citizens of [our] country and [your] character with fabrications?
I’ve never disparaged any of he above. It’s merely a discussion. It always has been. Lighten up, man. You’re being a bit obtuse.
Beerme re: #65 - Succinctly put.
As a libertarianish person I read Reason often. I saw that article when it was first posted and intended to read only the lede but I was sucked in for the whole 20-minute ride.
What really stands out about Maye’s case from a political perspective is that it’s something both civil libertarians and conservatives can agree upon. The fact that this guy’s life was permitted to be turned upside-down (and nearly extinguished) by well-meaning police officers acting on the erroneous word of a confidential informant is exactly the sort of unintentional transgression I have been referring to.
When law enforcement officers become intent on doing their job they understandably lose sight of the big picture. That’s where the checks and balances are important; i.e. the warrant. The judge should never have issued the warrant for the second dwelling, where Maye and his daughter were sleeping. The same thing applies to any investigation, for any cause…even if the subject ends up being guilty.
I’ve heard a saying that I can’t attribute or even quote without paraphrasing but which I find brilliant. It goes something like:
The death of liberty will be due not to the actions of one evil man but to the well-meaning actions of many good men.
I’d hate to look back on my life one day and realize that I was one of those “good men”.
OLA re: #69 - At issue here is the use of the term “aliens” and “legal residents.” As the commenter observes, the latter are by definition not American citizens but aliens.
Jose Padilla is a citizen of the United States. He is neither an illegal alien nor a legal alien resident. He was held for three years without charges.
I’m not saying he’s innocent. He’s a hateful extremist and an enemy of our country. I am saying that our nation’s laws demand that he be charged with a crime or set free. If the law is allowed to be ignored in his case it is much easier to ignore it in other cases.
The challenge to us is achieving the balance between national security … and our own liberties.
Ah, thereby hangs the tail. I submit that we have already achieved that balance. Two hundred years ago, in fact.
It’s called the Constitution.
88 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Habeas corpus still applies to me.
None of my basic civil rights have been violated.
Waving the white flag is not in my repertoire. Nor is appeasement. Nor is aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war.
Nor do I take my talking points from the MSM or LLL or maniacal dictators. Nor am I so paranoid (or guilt-ridden) that I’m peeping through the slats of the window blinds, anticipating the imminent arrival of the CIA.
89 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Some interesting analysis “On the latest video address by Dr Zawahiri, the “Prime Minister” of Jihadism..” from Counterterrorism Blog.
90 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Illinois has beaten the stumblebum MSI Spartans. There goes the National Championship!
91 Beerme // Sep 30, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Oops, make that MSU…I guess they’re not the only stumblebums…
92 Godfrey // Sep 30, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Dang. Forgot the </b> tag.
JL3 re: #88 - “Habeas corpus still applies to me.”
It’s supposed to apply to everyone. Habeas corpus predates the Constitution. It predates America by centuries. It is not something to be trifled with or brushed aside for military convenience.
Are you saying that it’s okay to ignore its abuse as long as that abuse doesn’t pertain to you?
What if one day it does?
93 Darthmeister // Sep 30, 2006 at 5:25 pm
No matter how wrong, weak and partisan Democrats are, we constitutionally-minded conservatives should not be cheering a power grab by the executive branch, even if that branch happens to be run by a man we believe to be sincere and dedicated to the protection of this country and our way of life (as I do believe).
Cheerleading one another are we? You think it makes your strawhorse arguments more valid, Godfrey and Beerme?
“Powergrab”? How has there been a “powergrab” by the executive branch when it has been exercising powers far more benign than that of other Presidents under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution? If there is a “powergrab” it occurred with the wrong-headed ruling of SCOTUS in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. Congress is working to overturn this egregious judicial activism on the part of SCOTUS which severely undermines Presidential war powers. This ruling was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and hopefully Congress can remedy this egregious powergrab on the part of SCOTUS. There’s your real powergrab.
Throughout American history, the President has always had broad, discretionary constitutional power to conduct war and authorize means by which he can best fulfill his consitutional obligation to safeguard and secure the American people from threats abroad and within.
No, the President does not have carte blanche powers, I’ve never advocated that, but President Bush is a long, long ways from exercising such powers of despotism that you seem to divine. I’m witnessing a lot of unhealthy paranoia here which plays right into Scott’s original satirical observation: There are Americans who fear they will be tortured and eavesdropped on more than they do terrorism. And I for one am amused by this state of affairs.
I believe the rights and freedoms of the American people were under far greater assault when the FBI and ATF cowboys under Janet Reno were complicit in the murder of 86 Branch Davidians at Waco. Nothing approaching that has ever occurred under the Bush Administration. So I must wonder how much ink was spilt and hands were wrung when that blight occurred? I know I was outraged and wrote letters to the editor excoriating the Clintonistas for their mendacious violation of those innocent Americans. Did you?
And, I might add, I find little comparison between those abuse of rights by the U.S. executive branch at Waco and what is happening in the war on terror at the NSA. The former was far more egregious than the latter … and the American republic withstood that assault on the freedoms of 86 Americans. I’m still not buying into your unfounded paranoia. And how many people (terrorist wannabees) like Padilla have been detained without being charged with a crime? **crickets chirping**
94 RedPepper // Sep 30, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Guten Abend, folks!
95 GnuCarSmell // Sep 30, 2006 at 6:12 pm
I wasn’t sure if waterboarding really worked, so I tried it out on my neighbor’s cat. The cat told me everything.
96 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 6:22 pm
As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon…..”:
“Give Muslim Extremists What They Want to Stop Terrorism”~~Ted Turner
97 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 6:36 pm
[ahem]
98 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Suggesting that a prisoner of war is covered by habeas corpus is to suggest they are unlawfully imprisoned; a stance I find utterly ridiculous.
The United States Constitution says, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (Article One, section nine).
Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another’s detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences.
99 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Here’s an interesting article on the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from The American Thinker.
100 RedPepper // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:21 pm
#98 JL3: On the topic of “civil liberties”, and related matters, one thing I am struck by is how little help “precedent” provides. Even comparisons to past wars are of limited value; let alone analogies to the criminal law! This sort of conflict really is “something new under the sun.”
“When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
101 Godfrey // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:52 pm
JL3 re: #98 - Suggesting that a prisoner of war is covered by habeas corpus is to suggest they are unlawfully imprisoned; a stance I find utterly ridiculous.
Then I’ll be sure not to suggest it. I certainly haven’t yet.
RedPepper re: #100 “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
What a great quote! I hadn’t heard it.
However, we do have ample precedent for the incremental surrender of civil liberties. Pick a totalitarian regime, the story is almost always the same.
Or at least the ending is.
Hank re: #93 - “Powergrab”? How has there been a “powergrab” by the executive branch…
I won’t presume to speak for Beerme, but when I used the term “power grab” it was within the context of historical totalitarians, not Bush, and my point was that adopting the line of reasoning that “only terrorists need worry” weakens our civil liberties structure and enables others to use that rationale in the future, perhaps in less “justified” circumstances. This must be guarded against.
…when it has been exercising powers far more benign than that of other Presidents under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?
You are once again using the “but Lincoln did it” argument, which I’ve already addressed above.
I am familiar with Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution…but please refer me to the part that addresses indefinite detainment of citizens without charges. If you’re referring to the presidential power conferred therein to “make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,” that doesn’t apply. Not only does it not give the president unilateral power to break treaties, but I was not addressing the Geneva Convention here at all, I was addressing habeas corpus. Nor have I referred to foreign prisoners of war, but US citizens.
The only part of the Constitution that addresses detainment of this sort as far as I’m aware (with the obvious exception of the Bill of Rights, which prohibits it) is within Article I. Section 9 (which JL3 quotes above). But as I said in a former post, neither rebellion nor invasion apply in this case. Which means that the Constitution is being violated.
If there is a “powergrab” it occurred with the wrong-headed ruling of SCOTUS in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.
The idea that SCOTUS’ decision to hold the president to the Geneva Convention is a “power grab” seems a bit absurd. It seems more like a power check, which is exactly why the court exists. Don’t forget that this ruling will apply to future presidents as well.
It’s also worth noting that the article you linked to is by John Yoo, the guy who first advocated “plenary” (i.e. dictatorial) powers for the president in the time of war. Again, the problem with that approach is that this war will outlive us all. So in effect any powers given to the president now will be at best semi-permanent.
I must wonder how much ink was spilt and hands were wrung when [Waco] occurred…
Wonder no longer. Waco was a fine example of governmental abuse of power. We agree on that. If you were consistent, however, you’d hold the current administration to the same standard even though you share their political goals.
And how many people (terrorist wannabees) like Padilla have been detained without being charged with a crime?
Again, the number of constitutional violations is completely beside the point. The point is that the government has now expanded its ability to include the incarceration of US citizens without trial and that this expansion of power is effectively permanent. That is a very big deal, Hank.
This is a topic that is (or used to be) near and dear to the hearts of most Americans, conservative and liberal alike. It is very important. Furthermore, we have a host of historical examples to choose from which justify concern whenever our liberties are threatened, regardless of how minor that threat seems at the time.
These things always happen incrementally. In 1912 there were no federal income taxes, no welfare programs, no large-scale federal confiscation and redistribution of our wages…and I’m sure these are things very few Americans would have tolerated if they’d been imposed all at once. A few decades later, through incremental change, these things began to take on a sense of normalcy.
And look where we are today.
That is the nature of this sort of thing. The NRA knows this well, which is why they take an almost cartoonishly extreme stance on any measure whatsoever that might create a climate where gun control could become acceptable. Personally I am very glad the NRA suffers from what the Left would call “unfounded paranoia”—or I wouldn’t be able to parade around the neighborhood with my blunderbuss (although I assume the powdered wig would still be legal).
Given these facts it boggles my mind that you cannot see the connection between recent curtailment of essential liberties and the Waco and Ruby Ridge fiascos. David Koresh and Randy Weaver were quasi-militant crackpots too…why do their cases inspire indignation while Padilla’s inspires a standing ovation?
It doesn’t matter that he is a Muslim nutjob and it doesn’t matter that we are at war. All three of the above men are/were constitutionally entitled to the same protections…simply by virtue of the fact that they are American citizens.
102 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:56 pm
RE: #100~~
RedPepper~~
Excellent points.
The “privileges” afforded under the Constitution in civil and criminal matters have never been extended to prisoners of war during wartime. It’s Apples and Oranges.
For example, if we were still fighting the Nazis-supposing we hadn’t defeated them as yet-we would still be holding hundreds of thousands (millions, even, by now) of Nazis in our prisons (and not a seaside luxury motel with all the amenities) today and none of them would been tried yet today, let alone afforded a lawyer.
And, yes, most assurredly, war in the 21st Century is a whole new ball of wax; thanks, I think, in large part to instantaneous international communications.
So, let’s blame Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, et al. Yeah, they started this whole mess-darn Capitalists.
103 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:58 pm
So, 9/11 was not an invasion.
Hmm.
I must be in a parallel universe.
104 Jericho // Sep 30, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Were not some of the men who were executed in 1943 for landing in America from a German submarine and seeking to subvert and bring rebellion Americans? Two of them were. Was Randy Weaver part of a campaign against America or was he acting in isolation? Can the same be said of Padilla? Padilla should have long ago been tried in a military court, and then shot upon a guilty verdict or released if otherwise. That he has not been so treated is an expression of Bush’s deference to the left and the leftist media, ultimately reflecting Bush’s cowardice.
105 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:07 pm
So, if someone willfully denies their allegiance to the USA in order to serve the enemy, willfully joins their ranks, willfully follows and carries out their policies against the USA, they’re still a citizen who should be afforded all the rights and privileges under the Constitution.
Hmm.
I must be trippin’.
106 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:20 pm
RE: #104~~
“Bush’s deference to the left”? President Bush? Surely you jest.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA ET AL.
107 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Here’s why I think Kofi Annan is a [insert derogatory noun].
108 RedPepper // Sep 30, 2006 at 9:59 pm
#105 JL3: I completely agree; if such actions do not fall under the language you cited earlier from Article One, section nine, I’m not sure what would. Nor would I agree with the concept that foreign combatants are entitled to the protections afforded by the American Constitution.
Not that I necessarily would oppose a formal process to deal with these issues! Not that I would leave these decisions solely to the Executive Branch! But we should not be using the Criminal Law as a model!
109 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 30, 2006 at 10:14 pm
RE: #108~~
Thank you.
110 Darthmeister // Sep 30, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Godfrey, I still only see rhetorical paranoia on your part. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
There is no such thing as living in a totally free state. Whether its free speech, carrying firearms in public places, right to privacy, they’ve already been infringed to one degree or another. And I have always been an advocate of less government intrusion in our lives, but America has never fought a war against an enemy willing to blow up schools, sports arenas, restaurants, skyscrapers, metropolitan buses, etc.
Right to privacy is not an absolute right, neither is it even enumerated in the Constitution. You can rail all you want about our freedoms being frittered away blah, blah, blah, but the real fact of the matter is, given the present circumstances and present threats to this country, this administration has been most benign with regard to surveillance and with respect to the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
It is unfair to characterize my view as justifying this administration’s “excesses” by adverting to the excesses of previous administrations. I was merely pointing out, as a matter of actual fact, that there has been “no powergrab” by President Bush or the NSA, and under this same Constitution the courts and Congress in the past have generally recognized that Presidents do have extraordinary powers during war time. Whether a war last ten days or ten years is irrelevant as to the kind of powers Presidents wield under Article II, Section2. The Constitution certainly makes no distinction as to the length of wars so why your extra-constitutional whining on this point?
If the courts and Congress saw no constitutional reason to limit FDR’s executive orders to monitor ALL trans-Atlantic telegraphic and telephone communications as well as read and censor ALL mail going from and into America from overseas, then how can it possibly be argued that President Bush has engaged in a “powergrab” (per Beerme) by monitoring phone calls which have a foreign point of origin or destination?
You flatter yourself to think that our government has the time and the resources to be remotely interested in your personal phone calls AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY HAS EVER MONITORED SAID PHONE CALL IN REAL TIME or as electronic capture other than your phone number. Again you engage in rhetorical paranoia. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is actually happening … i.e. you’re phone calls are being illegally monitored.
But let’s not lose sight that what all this caterwauling is all about is the very few cases in which a warrant was not requested because of certain time sensitive constraints. If there had been the nicety of a warrant being issued in every case, would that magically make you feel better even though there still exists the possibility that your cellphone or landline might actually be targetted in a future warrant? Because that’s what we’re arguing here.
My reference to Waco was a demonstration of my own sensitivity to the violation of civil rights and the fact I actually made public statements to that effect. In that light I am more than willing to wail and gnash my teeth if I truly believe POTUS has overstepped his constitutional authority in ensuring the safety and security of the American people at large.
Again I maintain that the writer Dan Simmons has exercised a more mature and salient wisdom on this matter that must not be ignored given the times we live in. I’m afraid this generation of Americans have lived too long in the cocoon of safety to realize that outside enemies may indeed pose very real and potent threats to our lives and liberties:
The Time Traveler laughed again, but with more edge this time. “… In 2006 you still fear yourselves and your own institutions first, out of old habit. A not unworthy – if fatally misguided and terminally masochistic – paranoia. I will tell you right now, and this is not a prediction but a history lesson, some of your grandchildren will live in dhimmitude (as a result of this misguided fear).”
And that is precisely the point that Scott was making with his parody. Don’t you see the irony of you “masochistically” holding to your paranoia? You claim you want your children to go up free, and I do, too. The question before us then is this: Will our children have more freedoms in twenty or thirty years if we encumber our government’s ability to vigorously pursue and fight Islamofascism in real time or less rights if or when Islamofascists are able to effectively evade our government’s ability to keep America safe and secure?
Or as Scott elegantly put it, which do you fear most, what our government is doing to stop or apprehend terrorists or the terrorists themselves?
I fear if we don’t stop Islamofascism cold in the next two or three years we will begin seeing such horrors under the next administration (McCain, Hillary, Kerry et al, it won’t matter) that you may be forced to rethink your position. For better I be proven wrong than you be proven wrong. This is no redress of greivances under the intimidation of shari’a. We’re already seeing Europe dhimmiefied, European critics of radical Islam literally fear for their lives. Michelle Malkin, LittleGreenFootballs, and Jihadwatch document this reality EVERY DAY! And you are willing to risk bringing that here to America? So where’s the freedom in living under the shadow of the everyday threat of radical Muslims killing you or your family for exercising your First Amendment rights? I can see that day coming for America if more people don’t see the very real threats to our liberties that I already see unfolding in Europe. Muslim thugs pose far more threats to our right to life and right of conscience than the American government many times over.
111 Jericho // Sep 30, 2006 at 10:35 pm
“all enemies foreign and domestic”
Definition of Domestic Thinkfrey????
112 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 1, 2006 at 7:43 am
Ah, I feel better now-a load has been lifted now that Armstrong’s Famous Quote Is Rewritten.
I mean, this has been annoying me, keeping me awake nights, causing me to seek counselling for decades. Thank goodness for this man’s unrelenting, 37-year quest for the truth.
113 Darthmeister // Oct 1, 2006 at 8:55 am
“Unlimited government…”, that’s a total red herring Godfrey and you know it. We are nowhere near unlimited executive power given the free public debate Americans are having now.
Here are some historical facts about warrantless surveillance that demonstrates such actions on a limited scale and limited timeline certainly posed no longer term risk to American liberties as you’ve claimed it would. Your views would have us believe Washington, Lincoln, Wilson , FDR, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton (the last two conducted their warrantless surveillance during peacetime so maybe I would allow agree with you there) were all fascists, unconstitutionally spying on the American people. I cannot subscribe to such utopian histrionics. As a conservative I leave it to the leftists to engage in such conspiracy theories about the “evils” of the American system of government.
The legal groundwork for modern warrantless surveillance with respect to national security is documented here
Here are some court cases that have dealt with this issue of warrantless surveillance:
However, because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.”-United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)
“We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance.”-U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (1980)
“Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.”-United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)
“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”-In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)
“If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.” -The Amy Warwick (The “Prize Cases”), 67, U.S. 635, 668 (1862)
“The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs,” possessing “vast powers in relation to the outside world.” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). Foreign affairs power the “exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).
The President “has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity” for emergency measures. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. at 336. “[T]he President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific statutory authorization.” Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 The Constitution gives the power to the President “to preserve order and insure the public safety . . . . when other branches of the government . . . functioning would itself threaten the public safety.” Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 335 (1946) (Stone, C.J., concurring).
And yet our constitutional democracy and the liberties of Americans continued to flourish during a time your present stand on the issue would require you to describe as a fascist usurpation of power by the executive branch. I’ve never believed in living in ivory towers so as a conservative who believes that the safety and security of our nation is the best guarantee Americans have we will still enjoy the rights we do for generations to come, I don’t see why I should start living in one now.
And in typical fashion, our modern court of judicial activists has ignored stare decisis in order to pander to their own personal policy preferences without regard to the penumbral powers the presidency has traditionally exercised under Article II, Section 2 during wartime. The only powergrab I’m seeing at the moment is the modern SCOTUS.
Hopefully Congress will bring some sanity to this debate about the use of warrantless surveillance under special circumstances but somehow I doubt it with the RINOs and liberal Bush-haters on the prowl.
114 Beerme // Oct 1, 2006 at 10:51 am
Hank,
Did you read the article by Nat Hentoff that I linked to in my post (where I used the term “power grab”, which I almost didn’t use…)? In it he makes the argument that the three branches of government are there for checks and balances against the usurpation of power, especially by the executive branch. I don’t agree with everything Hentoff writes but he is an ardent guardian of the Constitution. There are certainly valid arguments against the use of warrantless searches and unwarranted wiretaps but I am not using them here (I would against a president like Clinton-and you would, too, I imagine).
I won’t cover the rest of the argument because it has been covered very reasonably and effectively already by Godfrey. I will say this, however: I have guarded the worst examples of humanity in Michigan’s prisons for twenty-two years. During that time I have met and dealt with, confrontationally, some of the most despicable examples of human beings you can imagine. In that time, I have always afforded each and every one of those reprobates every right and dignity that they are afforded by law, even though they certainly don’t deserve it, having raped children and killed innocent people, etc. What we do to the worst of humanity, we will eventually do to the rest. History has proven this repeatedly.
What is important is to look at all problems in a calm and reasonable way, divorced from emotion, and question each action judiciously. Padilla is an American citizen and deserves to be tried in a court of law and deserves a speedy trial just like all of the scumbags I work with. Simple as that.
If we don’t do that the future holds further encroachments of others’ civil rights, and the end result is the kind of thing none of us wants.
I don’t feel like a paranoiac when I say that the executive branch is gaining in its powers over the other branches of government. And I don’t deny that Bush’s intentions are pure and righteous. I fear for what may be done by others in the same position in the future, because of powers we’ve ceded to this president (and his administration) in the present.
This War on Terror is a new thing. It requires some new methods of dealing with enemy combatants and the like. It also requires some thoughtful and non-partisan debate to determine what is Constitutional and what is not. This debate should take place in all three branches of our government, regardless of the quality or competency of those who hold positions in some of those branches. That’s the kind of government we’ve developed over the course of the last 230 years. The resulting decisions may not always be right, but the trade off is the balance of power that prevents despotism and authoritarianism.
115 onlineanalyst // Oct 1, 2006 at 10:54 am
Maybe we need a clarification here. Godfrey, are you referring to the Padilla case as the example of executive plenary power (This may not be the exact term, but correct me if it is not.)? Hasn’t the Padilla case been resolved in terms of the disposition of his case? Does that now not determine how a US citizen suspected of terrorist ties will now be charged/tried? In other words, now there is a precedent, is there not?
And I agree with your judgment regarding what should have been done with the borders, both south and north, after 9/11/01. After all, the terrorists did come to the US via Canada, if my memory serves.
116 Beerme // Oct 1, 2006 at 10:59 am
Now, I certainly have used up all the bandwidth assigned to me for the rest of the month!
117 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 1, 2006 at 11:46 am
I really don’t see the relevance of the Jose Padilla case, currently playing out in Miami, in the context of the conversation I thought we were having concerning rights and privileges afforded US citizens under the Constitution.
The man is under an 11-count indictment awaiting trial in Miami which was put off until next year (at which time his lawyers will, no doubt, try to have it put off again). Right now (and all along, if you ask me) he’s doing something that we are all too familiar with (though I suspect Beerme much moreso)-playing games through more-than-willing teammates-grinning, preening, obfuscating lawyers-in an attempt to forestall the inevitable, gleefully jerking the chains of the system, revelling in his notoriety.
118 Stop The ACLU // Oct 1, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Sunday Funnies
image courtesy of faithmouse
Dr. Sanity has the Carnival of Insanities
The Skwib has the Carnival of Satire
The Crazy Rants Of Samantha Burns: Democrats attempt to negotiate with terrorists.
Babalu shows a picture of unconditional love.
Steve H. at…
119 Darthmeister // Oct 1, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Beerme, thanks for your professionalism in putting up with the dregs of humanity. One can only imagine however, what American soldiers at GITMO are subjected to dealing with virtual animals throwing feces and plotting ways to do harm to American guards who in turn have to treat them with kid gloves lest they be accused of being Nazis by the likes Dick Turbin and the rest of the DemDonks.
Though I do appreciate Hentoff’s views on abortion (since he is pro-life), the rest of his worldview, in my opinion, is straight out of the left’s playbook. So I rarely waste my time dealing with his overly-nuanced, often torturous reasoning on issues. He’s another one of those ivory tower individuals who see boogie men and conspiracies whenever confronted with reasonable display of governmental power … excepting those Supreme Court rulings that he happens to agree with, of course.
Our local newspaper runs Hentoff’s column’s ad nauseam and I personally am wary of any person who bases their view on anything that man has to say since he’s an undying sycophant of the ACLU. Consider the source is my dictum when Hentoff enters the fray.
The way things stand for the last thirty years, Beerme, the judicial branch has done far more in usurping constitutional powers than anything the Bush Administration has done to date. Also, I would like to know where in the Constitution the judicial branch effectively has veto power over both the legislative and executive branch? I don’t see that as a “check-and-balance” but rather a dangerous concentration of constitutional powers in the hand of the judiciary thereby creating a judicial oligarchy. We are all witnesses to this reality.
Thomas Jefferson warned in a letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
In a letter to William Jarvis, Mr. Jefferson noted, “You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
Jefferson also noted in a letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820: “A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation (people) is a solecism, at least in a republican government.”
How many times have we seen federal courts overturning the clear will of the people when judges overturn the election results on issues like gay marriage, immigration, etc.?
Amen, Mr. Jefferson, amen. It is the judiciary that we have the most to fear, not the executive branch. Other American founders issued similar warnings about a judicial oligarchy, particularly after laying the groundwork for future judicial usurpation of power by way of the fig leaf of the early Marbury vs. Madison case.
Now we have a body of nine unelected judges serving for life unconstitutionally legislating their personal policy preferences on matters of life and death under the guise of “judicial review” and then arrogantly calling it constitutional law when the Constitution is completely mute on the issue. These are matters that were to be left with the legislative branch which in turn is accountable to the People.
Judges like Anna Diggs Taylor are poster children for the rank despotism inherent in foolish people who believe themselves to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution when they are not in any way accountable to the will of the American people like the Congress and the Executive branches.
120 RedPepper // Oct 1, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Godfrey: I also would like to clarify some things.
In your #112 post, I count four separate references to citizens; “incarceration of citizens … “, “jailing Americans … “, “opening the door … to detain citizens”, and “Bush would prioritize detention of US citizens without a trial … “.
The Padilla case is the only instance that I am familiar with where an American citizen was jailed without a trial, and as far as I know, his case is currently being handled through the courts. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Most of the disputes that I have heard center on the foreign, illegal combatants, particularly those being detained at Gitmo.
How we are obliged to treat American citizens is one thing; IMHO, how we should deal with alien attackers is another matter. How say you?
And one other thing … we did not redefine the word “war” … the jihadists did!
121 Darthmeister // Oct 1, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Instead of wiretapping terrorists, I think double-tapping them is far better. Soldiers and police officers know what I’m talking about … SGT USMC, this one is for you.
122 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 1, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Well, it looks like Bob Woodward’s politically-timed hit-piece “State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III” is sending the LLL/MSM into an ecstatic frenzy.
I found this report by The Council on Foreign Relations called “Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq, August 2006” by way of here by way of here.
Wow!!!!! $1.99 gas spotted in Carrollton TX! $2.06 here in Arlington. Thank you, President Bush!
LOL
123 RedPepper // Oct 1, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Well, well! Look who just got back from where!
When visitors like yours truly swing by, the camp likes to serve them the same meal the prisoners get. This being Ramadan, Adm. Harris was particularly proud of the fresh-baked traditional pastries his team had made for the holy month. And he was right: The baklava was delicious.
Mark Steyn: At Gitmo
124 Ghoti // Oct 1, 2006 at 8:03 pm
#87 Godfrey:
After citing the quotation, “The death of liberty will be due not to actioins of one evil man but to the well-meaning actions of many good men,” he states, “I’d hate to look back on my life one day and realize that I was one of those “good men.”
I think the following is appropriate for consideration:
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature: It simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith:
2. From spiritual faith to great courage:
3. From courage to liberty:
4. From liberty to abundance:
5. From abundance to complacency:
6. From complacency to apathy:
7. From apathy to dependence:
8. From dependence back into bondage.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore 127 million
Bush 143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore 580,000
Bush 2,427,000
States won by:
Gore 19
Bush 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore 13.2
Bush 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” stage.
I agree with Olson’s assessment of our “progress” along the journey. The implantation of socialist agendas into our governmental system has led us down that path, and has been accomplished by well-intentioned good men (political profit nonwithstanding) - and I, too, would hate to look back one day and realize that I was one of those “good men.”
125 RedPepper // Oct 1, 2006 at 8:31 pm
One thing is for certain … we had best be prepared for the long haul!
Harvard professor Samuel Huntington first made this case in 1993, in his famous article “The Clash of Civilizations” in the journal Foreign Affairs. “Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years,” he wrote. After the founding of Islam, Muslims spread their faith by the sword. Islam conquered North Africa and pushed into Europe, where it ruled in Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and parts of France. Twice, the forces of Islam laid siege to Vienna. For 1,000 years, Islam advanced and Christendom retreated.
By Jonathan Last
126 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 1, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Query:
Who won the other two states and what are their stats?
127 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 1, 2006 at 8:33 pm
128 Darthmeister // Oct 1, 2006 at 11:06 pm
The GOP’s secret weapon for Election 2006 and 2008.
NEWS FLASH!!!
NYT plans to have four stories about Congresspervert Foley on page one. I wonder why. This overkill will backfire on the liberals once again. Now the liberals have to figure out how to deal with the unrepentant liberal Democrat rank and file who are members of NAMBLA.
129 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 1, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I sent FOX News an Email yesterday morning informing them that if they were going to pummel me with filth like they did with that Karr dude, I would turn them off.
There’s just no point in sensationalizing that garbage.
Dare to be different.
Sheesh.
130 Effeminem // Oct 2, 2006 at 1:16 am
JL3, I think Pat Buchanan won Florida.
131 Ghoti // Oct 2, 2006 at 1:29 am
I can’t find any data giving the final data, although the final state count was 30-20. The info was apparently distributed before two states were decided for certain, so Florida was surely one of those missing in the stats.
Some have downplayed the significance of Tyler’s assessment of the 8 steps listed by suggesting that the analysis may have been made by someone else other than Tyler, but none have been able to refute the 8 steps listed - a typical ploy of distraction/avoiding the real issue in a debate, with which we are all familiar.
Some have also twisted figures to lessen the ratio of murders per capita, and debate whether Prof. Olson was actually the compiler (yes, he actually exists on the faculty of that law school), but still end up with figures that essentially draw the same conclusions.
The point of the entire article is summed up in the final two paragraphs attributed to Prof. Olson, and is surely irrefutable… although argument-provoking.
132 MargeinMI // Oct 2, 2006 at 6:16 am
Mornin’ Scrappletown!
133 Beerme // Oct 2, 2006 at 6:41 am
Mornin’ Marge!
134 Beerme // Oct 2, 2006 at 6:58 am
Thomas Sowell theorizes in his book, A Conflict of Visions, that those with a “constrained vision” (conservatives) believe that mankind is flawed and will revert to baser instincts when given the chance, while those with an “unconstrained vision” (liberals) believe that mankind is perfectable, using the tools of science and following an intellectual elite’s prescription.
Those with a constrained vision, then, believe that the traditional morals and ethics that mankind has perfected over thousands of years as a sytemic method of controlling imperfect human behavior (this would include laws as well as morals and the institutions that create/carry them out) are preferable to an educated elite tinkering with the system as a social experiment. They understand that there are times when the elite will be right and tradition will be wrong but are willing to accept those instances in exchange for the trade-off that more and worse unintended consequences will accrue from the many other tinkerings of the elite that would prove disastrous (think Soviet Communism, here).
I see the power of the courts as a successful check on the powers of the other branches in the same way. It is a system that has been perfected over time and is preferable to any tinkering we might do-even if it results in some better results in the short term.
I hope to see a more constructionist court come out of the present administration. It could be one of the greatest achievements of the Bush administration.
135 Darthmeister // Oct 2, 2006 at 8:33 am
A strict constructionist court sounds good to me, Beerme. I’ve had liberals ask me (I paraphrase), “Well, if the SCOTUS can’t overturn established law and essentially break new ground and legislate from the bench, then what good is it?” I always direct them to Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
What they will invariably glom onto is the phrase, The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution. See, see, the federal courts have power over the law and can change it if they believe it to be “unconstitutional”.
No, the federal courts and justices are still under the law (no man, no woman, no judge and no governmental institution is above the law) they are merely to intepret or apply the law as legislated by duly elected representatives of the People who sit in Congress. We’ve been so brainwashed by a judicial activism which literally legislates from the bench that we sometimes can’t see the obvious, the powers of the judiciary are also limited under the Constitution. I also believe Congress has been remiss in not impeaching more judges like Anna Diggs Taylor who are clearly acting as out-of-control kings and oligarchs by subverting the Will of the People.
If we don’t believe good will and good sense doesn’t reign among Americans and that we know better than unelected, pointy-headed judges what constitutes real Americanism under our form of constitutional republicanism, then what use is there of a Congress? Let’s just cut out the middle man (the Congress) let the judges decide what the laws should be. Why all the legislative windowdressing when the prevalent left-wing political paradigm dictates that judges have ultimate veto power over both the legislative branch and the executive branch.
136 onlineanalyst // Oct 2, 2006 at 10:07 am
Look at this list of creditable of court nominees, military leadership, and John Bolton that was sent back to the White House by our cowards in the Senate. Weep over how politics trumps quality.
137 Godfrey // Oct 2, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Ghoti: great post. I have cut and pasted it into my permanent Scrapple file.
OLA: sorry for the silence, Sunday was not a by-the-computer day. I think the notion of “plenary power” put forth by John Yoo is one that covers a lot of the recent aggrandizement of presidential power, including the Padilla case. If I’m not mistaken it was originally put forth in his infamous “torture memo” when he was at DOJ.
138 aaaawindshields // Oct 4, 2006 at 9:25 am
I am loving scrapple face…….
You must log in to post a comment.