“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.”
Yet in the single most heinous act in direct offense to our democracy that has occurred in the last decade, Congress voted to gut the core of this, our most basic right. Habeas is the gatekeeper to all our other rights we have as American citizens, without it little else matters. Right to free speech, right to a trial by jury, right to property; these all mean nothing without habeas.
We now have the chance to restore it to the full meaning our founders bestowed it with but 7 Senators currently stand in the way. Senator Norm Coleman stands with other Republicans in their filibuster of this historically important bill.
Call him now, our democracy depends upon it:
(202) 224-5641
Matt:
This post is very disturbing and people need to wake up and realize what is going on in the here and now.
Habeaus could be restored with James Broom Wellstone elected.
Even Wellstone would have trouble getting that restored.
on a good note though, We can still reform healthcare and prescription drugs among other things with this candidate.
Is this a serious comment or a joke…?
He is serious:
Got a problem at your job? Elect James Broom!
Need some work done on your car? Elect James Broom!
Are you behind on your mortgage payments? Elect James Broom!
Can’t get laid? Elect James Broom!
AIDS and famine ravaging sub-saharan Africa? Elect James Broom!
Christ, how have I gotten this far in life without consulting James Broom on everything I do?
I must’ve been horribly misguided for these last 20 years without the all-knowing James Broom overseeing my every move.
This is a “serious comment” by someone who is NOT Broom himself. Certainly, definitely NOT Broom. Yeah.
The attacks on our personal liberties in the name of “security” by this administration are far more dangerous than any terrorist group.
They have succeeded in scaring the American people to the extent that no amount of government spying into our private lives is a cause for concern for the average citizen. Security without personal freedom is dictatorship. Bush sees himself as a “benevolent dictator”, but the danger doesn’t end with him. The next administration, Democrat or Republican, will be loathe to give up any of the powers Bush and Cheney have gathered into the executive branch.
The war hawks like to say “Freedom isn’t Free”, no it’s not. The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance against those who would take away our liberties, not terrorists or foreign governments, but our own government in than name of security.
I cannot stress this enough.
His name is McBroom. It’s a subtle difference, but it means a ton to me.
Sean
If Habeaus is not restored now it probably NEVER will be thats all I’m saying.
I thought his name was Wellstone not McBroom?
Sorry Sean. I’ll rephrase. Iron Range, who is NOT McBroom, was making a serious comment. You know he’s not McBroom because his diction isn’t identical or anything. It’s really remarkable that McBroom and the only person to ever express support for McBroom would display such obvious similarities.
On the actual topic of this thread, whenever I go down that mental path, Rick, I start to seriously debate joining the Libertarians. You have to wonder what our kids will view as acceptable behavior by our government.
This is pretty funny actually. We just had a guy who was tasered and arrested for challenging Sen. John Kerry at a campus forum in Florida. You guys say nothing about it probably because Kerry is a Democrat. There is one individual in the United States affected by this issue and it will likely be resolved in the Supreme Court before it’s all said and done. I wish there was as much outrage over real abuses as there is about alleged phantom abuses.
In case you missed the article about it, here is a link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RO03CG0&show_article=1&image=large
Chris,
You are so out of touch. “Don’t taze me bro” has been so over-discussed at most of the Democratic blogs I’ve been too today. The issue is already getting tired. Your brief spin of the issue is both obvious and predictable.
Sheesh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs
Chris, don’t betray us, please.
Chris, per usual misses the point completely. The root of all of our laws is habeas corpus, it dates back to the freakin’ Magna Carta for chrissakes! Don’t you realize that without it our Constitution is a hollow shell? Sheesh open you eyes.
The Otter- you left out:
Want to know who pushed the button on the Wellstone plane crash?….Elect James Broom
Want to get free prescription drugs??? Elect James Broom
Want to know how the Minneapolis bridge collapsed? Elect James Broom
Want to see meth go bye-bye? Elect James Broom
Broom does have a question spot on his site so you never have to go through life aimlessly now.
You other people who call yourselves democrats, but hate Broom??
Didn’t Broom state he has almost taken a bullet for Paul Wellstone repeatedly???
Yet, you so called democrats mock and spit on him???
Lets try this. Dear Broom, Thank You keep it up!!!
Attn: Broom
I KNOW FOR FACT HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTS WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!
YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THOUGH DON’T YOU??
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, MORE PEOPLE LOVE YOU THAN YOU THINK!!!
rick,
The root of our laws is not habeas corpus. The root of our laws is human beings’ desire to be free. Read Locke’s Two Treatises on Government; it might shed some light on why we need to protect our country from the outside forces trying to kill us and our way of life.
Nitro,
Somehow your response doesn’t surprise me any. Why would you care about the kid who got tasered for challenging a Democrat U.S. Senator? Afterall it doesn’t fit the template you’ve been pushing that Republicans steal lawn signs and kick protestors out of campaign events blah blah blah.
This site discusses theoretical and unproven abuses of rights while you ignore a clear violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. Tasering someone for speaking out? Give me a break. If that doesn’t send chills down your spine, nothing will. Drop the phony outrage over phony abuses and speak out over a real abuse. You like to talk big, Nitro, so here is your chance.
The outside forces are always trying to wreck us Chris,
Habeas is a convienant way to make it easier.
With or without Habeas we are all in for hardships in the future……….I bet BROOM could provide some temporary relief.
NOT ONLY DOES HILLARY LOVE YOU BROOM!!!! WE ALL DO!!!
Chris,
What Andrew Meyer wanted to discuss with Kerry was the stolen election of 2004, that’s what he was speaking out about. Isn’t that the type of person you frequently ridicule here, Chris O’Lielly?
Read up on it. There’s a lot of questions that havn’t been answered, and I think you’re going to see a lot more about the information in this article next summer.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
I know you righties like to twist and spin anything having to do with John Kerry’s alleged gaffes, however it was not his decision to taser the guy. If anything, he possibly made the mistake of not doing enough to keep the police from using overwhelming force.
When I unroll my giant size banners in St. Paul next year at the convention, for example, and the police order me to take them down, I’ll listen. What Andrew Meyer did wrong was not listening to the police. Tasering him probably went to far. Your party’s desparation is why you’re trying to make some vague argument that slams the left, or Kerry maybe. I’m not quite sure what you and you ilk are trying to accomplish at this point, Chris “big talk” O’Lielly.
As far as Habeas Corpus goes, remember, this right has been removed and is not only being utilized by your “strong steady leader” George W. Bush, but will possibly be used against free people by every President down the line. It is difficult, once our rights have been taken away, to get them back. This, in combination with some very serious trust issues your Republican party has, is quite troubling.
Voting against restoring Habeas Corpus is a serious issue. Normy’s going to regret that vote.
Chris: The taser incident has been covered thoroughly elsewhere and we have nothing to add. Moreover, Senator Kerry was personally outraged over the treatment of the kid and has spoken extensively on it. This is a story about jerk campus police, not a student trying to challenge Senator Kerry and the Senator then tasing him…
Additionally, I find it somewhat frightening that you claim to be an attorney. I have read Locke’s treatise, many times, and those treatise, while incredibly important in the political philosophy of our country, do not demand a democracy. Locke believed that the social contract could be maintained by a variety of governmental forms, including monarchy. But, that’s a little beside the point, because even if we accept your assertion that a person’s desire to be free is the basis for our laws, habeas still forms the lynch-pin. I never asserted that habeas is “the basis” of our laws, merely that it is the gatekeeper of our rights. Without habeas we cannot question why we are being detained, we cannot enter into the legal system, in short, we cannot assert our rights. So, if a person’s desire to be free is the basis of our law, habeas is still clearly the gatekeeper. For how can we be free if we can be detained without being allowed to question the merit of that detainment? Habeas is the most efficient guard of liberty — it may not be the only guard, but it is certainly the most significant.
Repeal of Habeas is the latest an most egregious attack on our individual rights for all the reason Matt talks about. The support of this measure by Republicans shows how far they have fallen since the days of Goldwater. Goldwater was a branch in the road for Republicans and they chose poorly. That choice as enacted over the next few decades is a major reason folks like myself, fiscally “conservative” and socially liberal will never vote to support them on a national level. Nationally they have become the party of Christian Neo-Can nut jobs who believe they have a destiny to transform the world into their vision of utopia. Democrats have their issues with this sort of thing as well but the clearest assault on our rights at the moment is Bush and habeas.
Matt,
Your assertion that the right to habeas corpus has been removed is ridiculous. There is one American who is being held as an enemy combatant for plotting terrorist attacks against other Americans. He is the only person being held without habeas corpus. His name is Jose Padilla and the Supreme Court has refused to take up his case, if that tells you anythihng about him. For crying out loud, we just let O.J. Simpson post bail and leave a Las Vegas jail. If you think we are losing our right to habeas corpus, look at O.J.
As for my comment about Locke, there is no dobut that Locke and other philosophers influenced the Founding Fathers as they set up our form of government. The notion that habeas corpus is the foundation of our form of government is crazy. It is one spoke in a whole wheel that has miraculously held together for over 200 years.
Kerosene Hat,
I agree with you sometimes, but in this case you sound like Ron Paul. To quote Dick Smothers, “That was not a compliment.”
Chris,
So it is alright to give the president the power to ignore habeas as long as he uses it sparingly? Plus, how can you know there is only one if the others would have no right to ever see a court room. You argument is the one that is ridiculous as it justifies the power by stating that it isn’t being used. If it isn’t being used why is it needed? Habeas is the only check we have as citizens on the power of the executive as it at least promises us a day in an open court.
Plus Matt never stated or implied habeas was the foundation of our government. You are making that up to make your own point appear less extreme.
Chris, I’m not referring to Padilla; I’m referring to the act that allows the President (whoever he or she may be) can revoke habeas for enemy combatants at will. Then factor in the fact that the President has the power to unilaterally declare an individual an “enemy combatant” (with the important exception that he cannot declare US citizens enemy combatants) and all of a sudden you have a very substantial erosion of habeas, and a codified one, at that. This means that a non-citizen legally living in the United States can be detained without access to the courts and without being told why he or she has been detained on a whim. And while it’s easy to cast this aside as a minor offense because it cannot happen to a citizen (currently) I think that it is a transgression that our legal system, and hence our society, should not and cannot sustain.
And, again, I do not claim the writ to be the foundation of our government; I simply called it the “gatekeeper” or our rights. Which I stand by and you have yet to refute. Moreover, I am comfortable calling it the foundation of our court system.
Matt,
I’m glad you aren’t saying that Habeas Corpus is the founcation of our government. I am confused about one thing. Are you saying that you think people captured outside the United States should have Habeas Corpus? Or are you just concerned about U.S. Citizens having Habeas Corpus?
Also, in the Padilla case, at least seven justices of the U.S. Supreme Court turned down his case. For a case to be heard by the Court, at least three justices must vote to hear the case. I think if the issue of Habeas Corpus and taking rights away from Americans was such a problem, Padilla could have gotten at least one more justice to vote to hear his case.
Kerosene Hat,
I don’t mind you taking a shot at me after I needled you about being like Ron Paul. But about 3/4 up the page a guy named Rick said this:
Chris, per usual misses the point completely. The root of all of our laws is habeas corpus, it dates back to the freakin’ Magna Carta for chrissakes! Don’t you realize that without it our Constitution is a hollow shell? Sheesh open you eyes.
I merely responded that the root of all our laws is NOT Habeas Corpus.
As for the substance of your argument, there is one American held as an enemy combattant. His name is Jose Padilla. He’s being held in South Carolina. His attorneys have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the enemy combattant law. The Supreme Court turned down the case. Currently, Padilla is the only citizen held as an enemy combattant. However, should there be another terrorist attack I would expect that the government would potentially hold others as enemy combattants.
Chris,
The Padilla petition was initially dismissed on technical grounds. The second time around the Bush administration brought him to court because they were afraid that the decision would have gone against them.
More importantly. Why are you defending the removal of a basic tenet of our legal system? You are the one advocating the removal of our rights so I would hope you can give us a better reason than just not to worry about it.
Chris,
This is about Gitmo too, you know, not just Padilla. There are people there who were captured for profit who haven’t had any due process.
“If the Court reverses the D.C. Circuit and upholds the historic right of habeas corpus against congressional interference, the Guant√°namo endgame will enter its final phase. Once habeas is restored, the government will be compelled, at long last, to provide evidence to a neutral court supporting its assertion that the detainees are, uniformly, “enemy combatants.” And if the quality of that evidence resembles the government’s submissions in the CSRT process, no judge will conceivably permit the indefinite detentions to continue.
But the administration is unlikely to allow such a public dismantling of its claims that Guant√°namo houses the world’s most dangerous terrorists. If yet another Supreme Court loss seems likely, watch for renewed White House attempts at a political solution to the Guant√°namo mess.”
http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/235-Guantanamo-The-Road-to-Closure.html
Nitro,
Club Gitmo should stay open forever. I, for one, do not want the terrorists in Club Gitmo to end up on U.S. Soil even if it’s a trip to Leavenworth. Moreover, I do not support giving people captured on the battlefield in a foreign country rights to lawyers and courts. What would have happened during WWII if we had given the Nazis rights to lawyers and courts?
Moreover your concerns demonstrate a fundamental difference between the left and the right. I believe we are in fact fighting a war. Even under the Geneva Conventions, we can hold the people we capture until the end of hostilities. Some on the left don’t believe we are fighting a war. They apparently think our troops are cops arresting people or something.
P.S. Nitro,
Did the people who perished when the World Trade Center collapsed get due process? I wish you were concerned about their due process as much as you’re concerned about the so-called due process terrorists should receive.
Chris,
Those talking points are so 2004.
Pulling a 9/11 bandstand or having my patriotism questioned is one of the mistakes your party makes over and over again, and is one of the very large reasons your party is not polling very well. Guess what, Chris, your party doesn’t own 9/11. It was traumatic for everyone, and when I look at how YOUR party used 9/11 for political gain I find it disgusting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L2FwHqDjSw
Due process and a high profile trial might just help the American people understand exactly what is really being done in this war on terror and offer some form of closure. There is an accountability issue there that, for some reason, hasn’t been addressed.
When is the end of hostilities going to be, Chris? By the looks of things right now I might not even live to see it.
Nitro,
I didn’t question your patriotism - you’re a liar for saying that I did. There will be no closure on the war on terrorism until the people trying to kill us are defeated. If you want to see the end of hostilities for the sake of having hostilities ended you are dangerously naive. Nitro, the more I hear from you the more I think you want us to lose the war on terrorism. If that is the case, I don’t question your patriotism I question your sanity.
Chris O’Lielly,
“Nitro, the more I hear from you the more I think you want us to lose the war on terrorism”??
That’s completely insane. I want an end to incompetent leaders making poor decisions.
Your leadership is losing the war because of incompetence and poor decisions. That is why we fight your Party and their bullshit.
Insults such as that are why your party is doing poorly at the polls, and apparently, you’re so blinded by ideology you can’t see that.
Tell me Chris, when will the terrorists be “defeated”? What does “defeated” mean to a Republican?
Chris,
“I didn’t question your patriotism - you’re a liar for saying that I did.”
Here’s what I said.
Pulling a 9/11 bandstand or having my patriotism questioned is one of the mistakes your party makes over and over again, and is one of the very large reasons your party is not polling very well.
Where does that mention you, Chris. I refer to “your party”.
Matt,
What is your definition of enemy combatant? The non-citizen legally living in the country doesn’t fit the definition I know for an enemy combatant, which is a citizen of a state with which the Nation is at war and who is a member of the armed forces of that enemy state.
A non-citizen legally living in this country is unlikely to be a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, so your hypothetical doesn’t pass muster.
I would hope our government is smart enough to imprison individuals who are part of a military force with which we are warring until the conflict ends.
Chris,
So by your own words the war will never end and the governments incremental movement toward martial law is justified for all time. There has always been and always will be some number of people who wish us harm just as there is for any group or individual on the planet. That is why your definition of the “war on terror” is seen as nothing more than a naked grab for power. We cannot defeat a violent ideology with bombs or compromising individual rights. It is not the fight against the ideology of the terrorists so many are against it is the naive neo-con method we are against. The to protect your freedoms we must take them away method. The trust us you don’t need the protection of law because we promise not to abuse our power method. The create more terrorists than we kill method. The everything we have ever done is a failure method.
KH,
What personal freedom(s) of yours have been taken away, in a concrete manner, by the government in the name of the war on terror? Further, can you tell me the number of attacks this country has experienced since 9/11?
wtm,
No attacks on America since 9/11 doesn’t really concretely prove we are safe, or that we are winning the war.
One could argue that we havn’t been attacked because Al Qaeda is a small band of losers that live in caves and have already been destroyed. If they wanted to come here, all a terrorist would have to do is get to Mexico and cross the border.
Others might say their freedoms have been attacked on many levels, from NSA spying to habeas corpus, to the Patriot act, a fair and balanced media.
Me, I prefer to just simply say Republicans are incompetent and can’t be trusted. That’s why I want my personal freedoms to remain intact, down the road Americans might need every one of them to defend our constitution against those who keep lying to us and are attempting to turn the White House into the RNC.
So, if I read your post correctly Nitro, you prefer a return to the ’90s do-nothing strategy that resulted in multiple attacks on the U.S. (both here and abroad)?
Chris:
If O.J. doesn’t jump bail he’s gonna do at least 3to5 in prison, just to get the murdering bastard from his Court T.V. trial.
O.J.’S only chance at freedom now is to run and hide under a rock.
Speaking of murdering bastards, Has Broom released his foul play PROOF from the plane crash yet.
I heard Larry King and Michael Moore are in the works.
wtm,
Well the destruction habeas is a good start and finish since if taken advantage of it removes the ability to enforce any of our other rights. Plus how would I be able to tell if some of my rights like the one to unreasonable search ans seizure have been tramples since the executive branch would never have to tell me they have collected information since they would simply call it classified. My rights are valuable to me before they are infringed upon not just after. Should we remove the constitutional right to free speech as well and only worry about it after our speech is restricted? The problem with that scenario is of course once the right has been eliminated you can’t complain about it being abused.
As for terrorist attacks after 9-11 there have been none. Of course there have not been any attacks by space aliens or pandemic flu outbreaks either so by your implied reasoning we have the Bush administration to thank for that as well. The truth is of course that tens of thousands of our troops and innocent Iraqis have been killed in the name of 9/11. After the fact of course since the original rational ended up being B.S.. By that estimation (not including money spent) we could have simply withstood another few 9/11s and been no worse off than the “protection” the Bush administration has given us. If you include the monetary cost, which is likely to surpass a trillion dollars even if we leave this year, the Bush method looks even more ridiculous.
Our rights are over……..
UNLESS JAMES BROOM WELLSTONE COMES TO OUR RESCUE!!!!
Superman where are you we need you. We are all screwed.
Sign of the times boys and girls.
Then again should we choose not to elect Broom to deal with the real demon’s of this world, it will be intresting regardless.
I’m stocking up on popcorn regardless before the buy and sell chip comes.
I’ll be enjoying the show regardless. GAME ON!
Yeah, Yeah, let me guess Batshit crazy
Nitro,
You act like because the Democrats won an election that the war on terrorism is over. This assertion demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two parties. Moreover, it demonstrates why Democrats still are not trusted by the American people on National Security issues. Even Mort Kondracke has said that MoveOn.org’s meanspirited and personal attacks against Gen. Petraeus set the Democrats back even farther on national security.
The war will not be over until radical Islamofascists are defeated. Do you pay attention to the Middle East, Nitro? Do you not hear the threats issued daily by al Qaeda, Iran and other rogue nations?
You sit and lecture me about incompetence. Do you know what’s incompentent? Having six major terrorist attacks against our country and not responding to any of them. How about turning down the Sudan’s offer to turn over Osama bin Laden? Now that is incompetence.
P.S. Nitro,
I beg to differ with your polling numbers. Congress just hit 10% approval rating in the Reuters/Zogby poll yesterday. Bush’s approval rating is higher than Pelosi’s and Reid’s combined.
Nitro:
Checked out your site-LOVE IT
Chris,
You live in a disturbing right wing fantasy land plagued by your own political party’s incompetence, fraud, and dishonesty, and yopu continue to trust the information you are spoon fed without question. I find you and your comments here quite over the top and disturbing.
Why on earth should you trust any of the information you are given?
Move on has 3.2 million people behind them and are growing by the minute. Bill O’Reilly’s ratings have been plummeting and his radio show is on the chopping block.
Yet you plod on.
Is winning he war on terror important to me? Of course it is. I have trouble with people who think that their way of fighting the war is the only way, and anyone who disagrees wants to lose the war. I find that immature and unrealistic.
As far as incompetence goes, I’m confident that the incompetence of the Bush administration is what is on everyones mind. Even Guiliana spoke about just that on CNN this morning, much to my suprise.
Nitro,
Pretty lame, man, pretty lame. Bill O’Reilly’s radio show on the chopping block? Now that’s a new one for me considering he has over 400 affiliates. I’ve noticed that whenever you’re presented with an argument you can’t counter you rip on Bill O’Reilly.
As for fighting to defend the country, not one Democrat running for President has articulated a plan different from the President’s except for those who believe we win the war on terrorism by cutting and running.
Chris,
Iraq’s roll in the war on terror was created by the invasion. It did not exist before hand. I agree that the Democrats running for president have had few realistic suggestions for the disaster they (with a few exceptions) helped the Bush administration create. The problem is that you use the Democrats spinelessness as an excuse for past errors by Republicans. The war in Iraq was a mistake that had nothing to do with terrorism. Habeas is a vital link in our constitutional justice system that Republicans are destroying. You have yet to give any rational for these actions and instead choose to react to the shallowest parts of Nitro’s posts. I assume that is because you have no defense for the Bush administration.
Kerosene Hat,
It’s pretty simple really. The Bush administration has done a bang up job of using technology as well as human intelligence to infiltrate groups plotting against our country. Whenever a government charges someone with a crime, the information used against that person becomes evidence along with the methods and practices used to collect that information. Do you really want our intelligence systems to be scrutinized in open court? Even if you close the proceedings, there is no way to safeguard the information. We’ve seen cases, like that of Lynn Stewart where lawyers have aided terrorist defendants they are representing. Personally, I don’t want our methods and practices aired in open court. I don’t want terrorists to know how we found them and rolled up their cells. Otherwise you run the risk of having the information to go further and further underground. It’s pretty simple, Kerosene Hat. I’m surprised you needed the explanation.
As for the rest of your argument, nobody is destroying our system. Our rights are not being eroded. I guarantee you that you have a better chance of being hit by another terrorist attack than you do of being rounded up and jailed just because some bureaucrat thinks you should be jailed.
Now who is being naive Chris. You talk about our constitutional government as though it is an obstacle to avoid rather than the object we are protecting. You throw away the safeguards of our rights and hope nothing will happen. Do you think the safeguards were there for no reason? Have you never seen abuse of power by our government before? Do you really think it isn’t possible? What level of abuse of these powers would be upsetting to you? Since you can’t actually destroy all “Islamo-fascists” without a high risk global war involving dozens of countries and billions of people do you really see a way to victory using your method?
The danger you talk about from terrorists is so over blown as to be laughable at this point. The Bush administration has created more terrorists than it has captured or killed. Terrorism is not an army or country but an ideology. That ideology feeds off of the hypocrisy of those in power and the United States has been supporting oppressive and unpopular regimes for decades in the name of Freedom. That is the hypocrisy the Bush administration, along with a good number of Democrats, continues to support. You then claim that to protect us from the consequences of these mistakes we must relinquish the protections of our own liberties in the name of safety. I for one am willing to live with the risk of a terrorist attack is we can keep our constitution intact. If we remain a target for terrorists it is only a matter of time before another attack is successful no matter what we do in the name of security. The only way to significantly reduce the threat is to stop being a threat to others.
KH,
A tip of the hat….That was very well said.
The newspapers that have interviewed BROOM do not say he is crazy or delusional. They print the interviews with little to no slander.
ALSO: Apparently BROOM is meeting with one of Al Gore’s best friends Jeff Fisher in regards to additional proof obtained in July of 2004 in regards to the Wellstone plane crash.
This is going to get very intresting people.
Chris:
The Bush admin has did a “bang up job” on this one.
What’s very funny and sad about this is everybody has been fed some grade A bullshit on this Wellstone crash issue.
THE MEDIA CAN NO LONGER HOLD THE TRUTH BACK.
BE PREPARED FOR HILLARY AND JAMES BROOM WELLSTONE
P.S. Governor Tim Pawlenty could surpise all of us and be the next President. Otherwise welcome back Hillary.
Nitro,
thanks, that is truly appreciated. By the way this is a much more pleasant site when you and Chris make the effort to be civil while disagreeing. Thanks to both of you for that.
Kerosene Hat,
The argument that the Bush administration has created more terrorists than it has captured or killed is laughable and it is dangerously naive. It’s a lot like saying that the Jews created Nazis. After all if the Nazis had not blamed the Jews for the problems in Germany prior to WWII, there would not have been a Nazi movement.
The terrorist ideology, as you put it, (or as I put it Islamofascism) is a threat to peace and stability in the world. Bush was in office for less than nine months prior to 9/11. Are you saying he did something to piss off Al Qaeda and we invited the attacks? I don’t think you are saying that Kerosene Hat. But your argument claims that we are more threatened by this boogieman that the President is going to go around and randomly arrest people than we are by fanatics looking to start a nuclear holocaust. I don’t buy the argument Kerosene Hat. It’s the same argument that kept us out of WWII until the Nazis had already marched across most of Europe. The isolationists are the same today as they were seventy years ago and just as wrong.
BREAKING NEWS!!!
The president of Iran said in world news tonight that if he cannot visit ground zero in N.Y. that he would visit as a “tourist”
OH GEE WHAT A SURPRISE. JAMES BROOM WELLSTONE WILL BE GOING TO IRAN AS A “TOURIST”
WHEN IS THE LOCAL MEDIA GOING TO TAKE BROOM WELLSTONE SERIOUS!
THE NATIONAL PRESS DOES! I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE BROOM WELLSTONE SCENERIO IS VERY OVERWHELMING….HAS ANYONE THOUGHT OF WHAT BROOM HAS TO GO THROUGH???
I BET NOT!!! PEOPLE ARE TO BUSY HATING!!!
ATTN: BROOM WELLSTONE
WE LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never claimed Bush invited 9/11 so you can put your straw man away. But yes, the foreign policy, some of which has horrible, of the United States over the last century or more is part of the reason we are the targets. NO it does not justify what was done but it does help explain it. Unlike the Nazis which were primarily a standard military force driven from the top down by a charismatic leader Islamo-terrorists are an embedded grass roots organization driven by the distortion of a major world wide religion to combat the centuries of colonialism and western supported dictators. Other than simply being bad people the “terrorists” and the Nazis have virtually no similarities and neither should how we deal with them.
As far as Bush creating more terrorists than he has destroyed I think there is little doubt about that. Even his General said as much about Iraq. They did not have a significant presence there before our invasion and they do now. You don’t really think all the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq already were members before the invasion do you? Many of them weren’t even old enough to fire a weapon at that point we have been there so long.
p.s. Chris, your earlier comment about the small chance that I might be arrested and not given a court date might be true. However with the new rules in place I can’t do anything about it after the fact so the smart thing to do would be to change the rules before it happens. Our nation and liberties are protected through our critical observation of our own government rather than blind faith in our leadership. To do this we MUST have an open government and court system. Short periods during crises may call for a well regulated suspension of certain protections (multiple checks and balances in all branches with a hard sunset date) might be understandable but that is not current situation. If the “war” is not severe enough to call for a draft or an increase in taxes then we should not believe it requires the suspension of the most basic rules that protect ALL of our rights.
p.p.s The United States is not a religious organization and Bush is not the Pope. We as a nation are fallible we have and do make mistakes which due to our power can have disastrous affects. To imply that either we don’t make mistakes or that there will not be unintended consequences when we do is unrealistic. I am a true conservative unlike most of the neo-con crowd. I believe our country is best when it’s government restrains from using it’s power both on it’s own population and in foreign affairs. The Bush administration breaks both of these most basic rules of conservatism.
Kerosene Hat,
I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with you about the Nazi movement. Hitler didn’t use military might until the end of the movement. Hitler used charisma and brain washed a whole society into thinking that Jews were the root of their problem. How else could anyone on this earth justify and then kill 6 million people right under everyone’s noses? It’s the same kind of mentality that’s preached in radical Islamic mosques and is imposed by radical Islamic states on their people. If you don’t understand the similarities here, I would encourage you to go back and study Hitler’s life and read his speeches.
You say our foreign policy has been terrible and has added fuel to the fire. My point is that it doesn’t matter what we do. The Islamofascists are already putting plenty of fuel to the fire. If we were a “nicer” country, they would still hate us. And they wouldn’t tell their people how “nice” we are anyway. Which, actually, we are pretty nice. We’ve helped so many people around the world during so many disasters - including in Islamic countries. But they don’t care about that. We can’t change the hearts and minds of the radical terrorists who want to take the world back to the 5th Century. In my opinion, we have to defeat them. And I think we defeat them by ending their sanctuaries in other countries and by tracking their money and movement.
I would like to know, Kerosene Hat, how you would have handled 9/11 differently from the Bush administration.
Chris,
I did state that the Nazi moment in Germany was base off of a charismatic leader. The Islamic terrorist model is not, it is grass roots based. The mechanisms the Germans then used to project power was standard military, Islamic terrorists do not. these are very important differences. It is the difference between a cold and strep throat, one you take soup for and the other antibiotic. Using the wrong cure because of a misdiagnoses often will make you sicker.
After 9/11 the United States gained wold wide sympathy and support. We were able to use that support to present our case and gain allies for an invasion of Afghanistan. That in itself is a big enough undertaking that it demanded all of our attention for a couple of decades. It would have been possible to do along with the support of the international community to help with the costs of building infrastructure and trade. Both more vital to creating an open society than quick elections or puppet governments.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and nobody thought they did. Nobody but the more gullible part of the population spun by the Bush administration linking the two. Bush chose to expand the war and prove right the predictions of Osama that the United States’ true intent was world domination and the extermination of Muslims. Is it true? Not really but it sure is an easy sell to the populations of young Muslims living in dictatorial countries either propped up by or considered enemies by the United States. So instead of a hard but winnable battles, military in Afghanistan and a informational war against the ideology of Islamo-fascism across the globe we have something else. We have two military conflicts that cannot be won in a military way. Our informational battle has been damaged maybe beyond repair as we turned sympathy into hatred. We cannot track the entire world population for potential terrorists and invade every country where they might have an apartment. We have to remove the benefit they get from attacking us. That benefit is further support from their populations for fighting against an aggressive superpower.
Other things I would have us do 9/11 or not. Get our military out of Saudi Arabia and any other countries with dictatorial regimes. Unless our military is invited into another country by the citizens (or their elected representatives) we become part of the reason those people are oppressed. I imagine their are plenty of other smaller changes that could be made withing the intelligence community but nothing that would remove individual liberties or make our system more open.
I have one question? How do we know that Padilla is the only U.S. Citizen being held without habeas corpus. The only reason we know about Padilla is because John Ashcroft crowed about his arrest.
Look,I’m not a conspiracy nut, black helicopter guy. I am just very disturbed about the trend-line regarding our personal liberties. I hate the “slippery slope” metaphor but and am loathe to use it, but I feel it’s appropriate.
As far as my comment that Habeas is at the root of our laws, I would point out that it is at the heart of English common law and English codified law upon which our Constitution and laws were based. To insist otherwise or to dismiss it is foolish.
Kerosene Hat,
What did we do to cause 9/11? That’s what I’d like to know. You seem to say that our policies are creating enemies in the world. Is the flip side to that argument that we should buddy up with radical Islam and make friends? I really don’t know what your argument is with respect to this issue.
Also, you’re damned right Bush expanded the war on terrorism to Iraq. Al Qaeda and other terrorists have said that they want to attack us with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism and said that he had WMDs. He didn’t diclose his WMD programs as required by International Law. After 9/11, I strongly believe we had an obligation to take on state sponsors of terrorism.
Kerosene Hat,
I disagree with you that Islamofascism is grassroots based. It is supported by states who incorporate it in their state sponsored mosques and madrassas.
Hey Chris, Osama told us why they attacked us. It’s because we have permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, which he and his followers believe is an affront to their religion.
The Iraq was about control of oil, not terrorism. Bush was making plans to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11.
The run-up to the war in Iraq is a classic example of group-think, Iraq must have WMD because everybody thinks so, evidence be damned. I can’t believe someone as apparently intelligent as you still are trotting out the same worn out and talking points to justify this pointless ans endless war of futility.
Chris,
I think we got to the heart of the disagreement between those who support the current strategies and those that do not. Yes terrorism is supported and nurtured by certain states but I believe it is not the root, what would motivate these states to support tis ideology. The root is that the populations in the countries we are concerned with have lived with dictatorial and oppressive governments for decades. Most have either been created by or propped up by western powers for many decades whether it be the United States, England, The Soviets, France, etc.. This combination of history and current policy is used by the current round of regimes in one of a couple ways. They can be friends of the United States in trade for military assistance, like Saudi Arabia, which makes their citizens view the U.S. as complicit in their oppression as well as neighboring counties uneasy due to the U.S. military presence nearby. The other option is for the leadership of a country to use the Military threat of the United States, like with Iran and Syria, as the reason the government needs to ramp up it’s power. The combination of these conditions over decades has created a population who are more than willing to believe the United States has had anything but their best interests in mind. If we quit screwing with them and demanding they act like we do we will slowly become less of a target while the dictators we are supporting and or trying to destroy will become the targets of their own populations.
If at that point we are attacked the world would once again show support for a measured response while the attackers would gain nothing.