Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Another One Bites The Dust

The Al Gore incident is just another example of the silliness that being politically correct causes. Mr. Mineta needs to issue racial profiling orders today to the airport security details.

Orders that presumably, would allow the former Vice President of the United States, to board an airliner without an extensive search.

There are many acts I believe Al Gore capable of - using an airliner as a tool of mass destruction isn't one of them!

Not true, Derrick. The Millenium terrorists were stopped on his watch. And Clinton never suggested he take on to himself the powers Bush has decided are his with no consultation with anyone else.

In fact, with all of the wars we have been in since WWII -- Korea (Truman, Eisenhower), Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon, Ford), Desert Storm (Bush1), Granada (Reagan), Bosnia (Clinton), Somalia (Bush1, Clinton) -- none were wars declared by Congress and none of the Presidents even suggested they had the right to suspend civil liberties. The last President to do so was FDR -- only AFTER war was declared, and they were continued for the few months Truman was in office until the war ended, when Truman lifted these actions

This is the problem when you guys allow this sort of thing to become a partisan argument. You think you win points by pointing something significant out -- that Bush is better than Clinton. But this is not the argfument at all. And all the while you want to argue partisan politics, we are losing our freedom.

Not once have I, or Steve or anyone else who wants the process to remain constitutional compared Il Duce with Clinton. Those of you who argue against us do. Why? What bearing does it have?

Or are you invoking the "right wing conspiracy" type thinking that you mock so much when it is mentioned.

This is NOT a partisan issue. When defacto President Cheney or Ari Fliesher <sp?> question the patriotism of those who question these policies, they are making it partisan. they are wrapping themselves in a flag which they desecrate by their very words. Agree with me or be publicly identified as unAmerican is the refuge of those who do not have the law behind them.

This issue is one that goes to the very core of our system of limited government. One would think that those of you with a more conservative bent would see this.

But apparently not.

Agreed.

But not racial profiling as such. Rather criminal profiling -- which, I believe, more correctly defines it. If we find that there is a rise in elderly hispanic women undertaking terrorist acts, they should be included as well.

The profiling has little to do with race. It has a lot to do with the criminal profiles.

Uh George, in all the wars you mentioned, how many civilian deaths occurred in the contiguous United States?

I'll tell you - One. Japanese balloon bomb, WWII, West Coast.

And that was in a declared war.

These guys do not play by the rules. And while you are standing there wringing your hands over the moral outrage of the loss of our constitutional rights - which I have yet to see - somebody else is going to die. And the only people I want to see die in this war are the terrorists.

If a citizen chooses to take up the terrorist cause, he has become a combatant, a traitor, a spy. He has forfeited his rights as an American. Rights are products of particular arrangements, and apply only to those who are subject to and respect those arrangements. When the citizen takes on the cloak of terrorism, he rips asunder any claim he has to his constitutional rights.

As I said, convict them in a military court, shoot 'em, wrap 'em in pigskins and bury 'em deep. The only point I feel is debatable is the method of execution. Would you rather have a high limb and a short rope?

George,

First of all, my name has one 'r' and one 'i'. You spell it differently, and incorrectly, everytime.

As long as you are mentioning 'powers', Clinton decided to take on a few himself. One, that I can mention on a family forum, is lying to the entire US on national TV (and under oath). The chief lawmaker put himself above the law.

Why do you mistrust Bush so much yet fully trust a proven liar?

All of the wars you mentioned are completely different than this war. That aside, would it really make a difference to you if the President declared war?

You would still have the same objections to how Padilla is being handled. Moreover, you'd argue that the war on terror will never be over, therefore our civil liberties will be intruded upon forever.

Isn't that right?

It is and you know it.

Derick

Derick

(Sorry about the mispelling)

First, I have NEVER said I trust (or trusted) Bill Clinton. I have said I trust NO politician. The only comments I have made that could be construed to support Clinton is when I have supported a specific action he toook -- like his administration arresting the Millennium Terrorists.

Indeed, the Clinton Administration proposed legislation to increase the surveillance of the Internet by the FBI and I wrote letters in opposition to it. I have expressed the same opposition to Attorney Generalissimo's new regulations. But at least Clointon requested public debate. The Generalissimo has done it by executive fiat.

Would it make a difference is Il Duce declared war? Nope -- because that is not what the Constitution calls for.

Would it make a difference if Il Duce requested of Congress a formal resolution of a declaration of war and the Congress approved it? You bet!

If after Il Duce requests it and the Congress debates it, with all of the public coverage and public pressure on each Senator and Representative, and the Congress passes a formal resolution, pursuant to constitutional provisions, to declare war, then the President has been given these powers by someone else who can also take them away from him. He has not taken them unto himself.

Why? Because we, as a people, would have expressed a consensus to give him the ability to do so. Also because the Congress then always has the right to end the war when they rescind the declaration, as they do at the end of every war.

Yes, Derick -- it makes a BIG difference if we have debated and agreed to allow the President to suspend civil liberties for a period of time. A BIG difference compared to him deciding on his own to take them to himself because he wants to.

Tell me, Jolly---

Why is it that a US Citizen is denied a criminal trial under the laws of the United States for conspiring to use a dirty bomb while a French citizen who the Government claims was the 20th high jacker is given a criminal trial with all rights of an American citizen?

We now have an Administration that denies civil liberties to an American citizen while granting them to a French citizen?

What the heck is going on? Is this what you people are all supporting? French citizens are first class citizens and Americans are second class?

I can't remember where in the Constitution it says that Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court is given the power to take away or suspend peoples rights when war is declared.

The brief thoughts of Jonah Goldberg:

I think one reason why people are so split over military tribunals, detentions-without-trial etc for al-Quaeda terrorists is the essential chicken-or-the-egg-legal problem. Clearly, known and dangerous terrorists shouldn't be treated with all the rights and benefits which accrue to normal civilian defendants. But it is very difficult to feel comfortable with the government's word that someone is actually one of these terrorists. In effect you can't know someone doesn't deserve a civilian trial until you give them one. I am not entirely unsympathetic to this point. Still, at bottom, the issue is one of trust. Do we trust the government of the United States to use this power at this time. My short answer is, yes.

That doesn't mean the press, Congress and the public shouldn't do their best to make sure the government isn't abusing this power. And, that doesn't mean we can't change our minds if it appears that the government is being reckless. But, for now, since the government has the legal right to detain agents of foreign powers bent on killing Americans, the only argument for opposing the government's detention of people like Padilla is a slippery slope argument. And that is not sufficient. Saying "what's to stop the government from designating you or me a terrorist?" is at best a bad argument and at worst knee-jerk paranoia.

The criminal trial of Zaccharias Moussaoi(sp?) poses no danger in terms of exposing intelligence sources and methods. A criminal trial of Jose Padilla, on the other hand, does. That should only reinforce the view that the Administration is using military courts only when security is an issue rather than because they derive some perverse enjoyment from depriving someone of their civil rights.

George,

Apology accepted (about the mispelling ONLY!)

When I asked the question about the President declaring war, I meant thru formal channels. Perhaps the President can declare war on his own, or he needs the approval of Congress? I really don't know, but I meant the latter.

Assuming he gets Congressional approval, how long does this war go on for? Probably forever.
Consequently all the Padilla's of the world will get the same treatment Mr. Padilla did. And, therefore, based on your own words, you would approve.

Right?

Derick

How do you know this JBryan? Because the Attorney General (who after the past few weeks has a vested interest is making it sound like his agency has accomplished something) tells you so?

There have always been was in criminal trials to allow for secret testimony when national security is an issue. Indeed, it is possible for a judge to review the Government's case and decide the entire trial is secret -- under criminal justice procedures, not military justice procedures.

The issue of secrecy simply does not hold water because the Courts have always accommodated the national security need for secrecy.

So says Jonah Goldberg who made his name by saying a President was lying on a whole host of topics based on very flimsy evidence.

Amazing how skeptical one can be if one wants to get new coverage and how one losses that skepticism if one is being paid to present a certain viewpoint in a televised argument.

Goldberg's is nothing more than a paid opinion whore, like all the other pundits. To even take his (or any of their) opinions seriously is to say one can make love to a prostitute, as opposed to just having sex with her.

Derick

if the people, through debate and public discussion, give the president the authority to suspend certain civil liberties, then yes, I can accept that -- whether I approve of it or not.

But that is NOT what is happening now.

Tell me, Derick, why do you think Il Duce does not go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war? Or,easier still, go to Congress with a law to suspend certain civil liberties and get their OK before he does so?

I know that Padilla was captured entering the US and his co-conspirators were captured in Pakistan which would imply the use of intelligence sources and methods. Moussaoi was caught pursuant to a suspicion he aroused at a Minnesota flight school thus not involving such methods. There was a closed session of the Senate Congressional Intelligence Committee last week concerning the Padilla case where the decision to keep him incommunicado was actually made.

In the case of the first World Trade Center bombing secrecy was not maintained and sources and methods were revealed. What you are suggesting is pure fantasy.

Talk about attacking the messenger. Might you have something substantive to say about his specific arguments?

No, I do not waste my time dealing with paid pundits ideas. They make money off selling their opinions to the highest bidder. And what sells them? If they are controversial and make good TV or radio.

So, no. I have nothing substantive to say about his arguments because anything he says is tainted by his desire to cash a check and get wealthy. That is fine. But I do not have to buy his product any more than I have to buy Kellogg Raisin Bran instead of Post Raisin Bran.

I would say the same thing about any other pundit as well -- liberal or conservative. They pimp their thoughts for cash. Nice job if you can get it -- requires very little work other than being a quick thinker and a good wordsmith. But I do not consider their opinions as anything more than a product they sell and certainly not worth spending time on.

I see. And using the Criminal Justice System for Mr. Hanson, the most nototrious spy in FBI History who damaged this country far more than even Padillo could ever hope didn;t work either, did it?

That seemed to me to work VERY well.

But maybe it was because Hanson was an FBI agent --and the FBI just could not bring themselves to throw one of their own into a military prison, with no legal representation and held indefinitely without being charged. Why? Because they know full well, that if it happened top Hason it could happen to them as well.

You all, however, seem to feel you are free of such indignities -- but then, maybe you are all French citizens who are treated so much better by the Il Duce Regime than American Citizens.

Come on George. This is all a smoke screen. You just don't have any effective counter argument so you resort to calling him names. Then when you are called on it you obscure the point by painting all columnists with the same broad brush. You can do better than that.

If your problem is with who said it and if it helps you to focus on the point just pretend that I said it and confine yourself to the specific arguments.

Comparing this to the Hanson case is apples to oranges. Hanson was a rogue agent who was working with the Russians. The only sources or methods that could be revealed in the course of his trial were Russian. There was no great intelligence work involved in finding him out (much to the shame of the FBI). The padilla case is altogether different.