Democrats & Liberals Archives

Some things are just wrong

I, for one, am not nearly as frightened as Congress and President Bush seem to believe.

The president now has the power “to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them”. Those indefinitely imprisoned without charge can include not only those convicted of crimes, but those merely suspected. They can include people suspected not of terrorism, but of merely “supporting hostilities”.

And prisoners have no right to habeas corpus - the right appear before a court to determine if one's imprisonment is lawful.

This law is just morally wrong.

Nobody should have the power to hold suspected enemies indefinitely without trial, nor the power to use "interrogation methods" so harsh that they are considered torture in most of the world. Perhaps such techniques are effective---but that doesn't make them right.

America is a world leader, in part, because of her moral strength. If we want our children to live in a world where all nations respect the rights of individuals, then America must lead continue to lead the world toward that goal, never away from it...even if that means putting aside certain practises that are "effective".

My Senator, Rick Santorum voted for this law, along with far too many others. Perhaps they are so terrorized by the bin Ladens of the world that they are willing to surrender their civil rights, and America's moral leadership. Perhaps they're only frightened of not being re-elected. In either case: shame on them. I am not that frightened. This November, I will cast my votes for candidates with a little more courage.

Posted by William Cohen at October 19, 2006 7:46 PM
Comments
Comment #189098
America is a world leader, in part, because of her moral strength.

Was.
Now, for the ROTW, she’s the superpower we have to live with, and that’s all. And, sadly, I’m not even kidding, that’ the real feeling I get when I read international newspapers from multiple nations.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #189112

Well said, William.
The Neocons have killed our Constitution. Whatever it takes, we must stop them.

Philippe, I’ve gotten same impression as you, and it makes me feel so ashamed.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #189136

Christo-imperialism at its finest. And the shocking thing is that over on the red side of the column, they’re not screaming bloody murder about it. I thought they were for personal freedom(?).

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 19, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #189152

I refuse to be afraid. Who’s with me? I’m less afraid of terrorism than I am of what is happening internally in our country. But the only way to take back our government is to stop letting them terrify us, (although there is reason to be scared, they are creating most of the fear.)

Posted by: Erin at October 20, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #189168

The president’s power to pardon criminals should be eliminated too, since it is so abused … like the 456 pardoned by Clinton (such as former Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-IL) who was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old, and Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office, along with 456 other all together; 140 on his last day in office; including Dan Rostenkowski who had pled guilty to a felony, for cryin’ out loud). Bush 41 pardoned 6 defendants in the Iran-Contra scandal in 1992, ending the investigation into the sale of arms to Iran to raise money for Nicaraguan contras. Bush 43 pardoned David McCall Jr., a former Plano,TX mayor (on his deathbed) for his role in a savings and loan fraud case, ending any future claims to his estate. Bush (last December) also pardoned Wendy St. Charles, a lawyer for Denver home builder MDC Holdings who was convicted on drug charges in 1984. Why? MDC Chairman Larry Mizel donated $39,000 to 2004 Republican campaigns, including Bush’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

These abused pardons are simply another obvious way for politicians to put themselves above the law.

It is a slap in the face of the jury, judge, and prosecutors.

It will be interesting to see who else Bush pardons. Abramoff? Delay? Cunningham? Libby?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 6:15 AM
Comment #189170
Erin wrote: But the only way to take back our government is to stop letting them terrify us…

The best way to do that is to stop re-electing them (Democrats and Republicans).

But, I can see how this is shaping up.
Democrats are giddy with joy, because a lot of them plan to keep right on voting for irresponsible incumbent Democrats, and they’re pretty sure Democrats are going to regain (see graph) their power as the “IN PARTY”. However, don’t forget that Democrats have had control for 85% of the time since 1930.

Sure, irresponsible Republicrooks need to go, but so do irresponsible Democrats too.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 6:26 AM
Comment #189175

Adrienne,

Philippe, I’ve gotten same impression as you, and it makes me feel so ashamed.

On a more positive note, it’s not irreversable and can be undone very quickly, taken will is there.
And your country is the best when in come to change.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 20, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #189190

“irresponsible Republicrooks need to go, but so do irresponsible Democrats too.”

I mentioned Santorum since he’s my Senator, and up for re-election - so if I needed anymore reasons to vote against him, I’m all set now. If you’re Democratic congress creature voted for this, by all means, vote him out. Far too many of them did.

Posted by: William Cohen at October 20, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #189201

William, in the beginning, Hitler promised the people prosperity, security, and freedom. In the end all they got was devastation, fear, and regimented lives without liberty.

I know it is not politically correct to ever bring up Nazi Germany when discussing the United States, but, I believe by not doing so, we leave the way open for the same piece of history to replay itself in its essential form.

The Republicans promised prosperity. Like Germany, we have it for the briefest of periods. But, our national debt including unfunded future obligations to Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid in 2001 was $20 trillion. Today it is $43 trillion. This is not the road to prosperity.

The Republicans promised security. Yet, 9/11 happened. Katrina happened. And a wave of horrific violent crimes against women, children in their schools, and investors has grown since 2001. And our Hezbollah is crossing our Mexican border as we speak unhampered. This is security?

And of course liberty. Well, you covered that well. Someone once said, when one person in our society loses their liberty to the abuse of government power, all persons lose that same liberty. Because such abuses have a way of becoming standard practice in the absence of revolt, eventually affecting all who live in that society.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #189210

It hard to muster up much sympathy for any real terrorists detained at Gitmo or elsewhere.
However, as we are finding out, not all of those rounded up are terrorists.
And if there is even one person, that’s one too many. So, it makes no sense to not want to find out if some of these people are really terrorists.
Habeas Corpus protects against unjust, arbitrary imprisonment, which is a favorite mechanism of tyranny, and yet another perversion of the laws and do the very things the laws were originally supposed to prevent.

This Congress, and Bush, under the guise of “the war on terror”, is marching inexorably towards a totalitarian state. It has a long way to go, but it is on its way. Who would have ever thought so many things could have happened here?
Perhaps that very same arrogance and complacency is why?
But, we keep re-electing them.
However, Republicans don’t have much (if any) of a chance in retaining the majority. While many Republicans have left that party (like myself), many Republicans won’t even bother to vote this election. So, they are toast. However, it starting to appear Democrats are about to continue to keep re-electing incumbents of THEIR party, which will continue the slow-but-sure decline that started many decades ago. Sure, they’ll do it a little different than Republicans, but all the same, they are about to continue the demise through the typical Democrat methods we saw between 1930 and 2000 (see graph). Voters that want real change should consider voting responsibly to remove ALL irresponsible incumbent politicians (regardless of party). Remember, there were many reasons why, after having a mostly Democrat controlled Congress between 1930 and 2000, that voters decided to give the OTHER party a turn at being the “IN PARTY”. Look at right side of the graph. What has been happening since 1994 to 2004? The volatility is greatly reduced since 1994. Is it possible voters are confused, or starting to learn that incumbents in BOTH parties are irresponsible? Is that why the advantage in BOTH parties has remained small for BOTH parties?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #189218

Interesting articles
Please read — will let you understand more of “how did this happen”?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/print

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12054520/the_10_worst_congressmen/print

Posted by: Russ at October 20, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #189220

It’s astounding to me that many in this country support this atrocity. Some, I realize, do so only for partisan reasons — the party before country crowd. Others perhaps see no reason for “law-abiding citizens” to fear, as if an atrocity committed against someone else is ok as long as I’m not affected.

It’s a purely rational act to be deeply ashamed of this country.

Posted by: Trent at October 20, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #189244
“interrogation methods” so harsh that they are considered torture in most of the world. Perhaps such techniques are effective—-but that doesn’t make them right.

They are effective at getting the detainee to say what the interrigators want to hear.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 20, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #189248

Phillipe and Adrienne….I share those feelings, but would like to consider them feelings of saddness and sorrow, rather than shame, Trent. The shame I feel falls more in line with disgust and revulsion for the things this administration has done to set up how we have fallen from grace in the world. Bush’s words and actions have replaced all the good and positive things we have done and set us up with responses any bully deserves.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at October 20, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #189254

The law spoken of in these responses does not apply to U.S. citizens. Our constitution was never intended to convey its rights to non citizens. Please stop with the B.S.
Many of the same people now claiming that harsh interrogation of prisoners will only result in getting worthless information were among the first to jump on Mel Gibson as being truthful while under the influence of alchohol, as though alchohol was some kind of truth serum. If that’s true, would you same writers condone getting suspected terrorist drunk as torture also?

Posted by: Jim at October 20, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #189260

Yep, that is our George. He believes that the Constitution of the United States, you know he swore to uphold it, has a an on/off switch. On for those people who are powerful or believe his lies and off for those he believes can or have harmed our country. How long before he deems the political and social opponents should be in the later category?
George will go down in history as having a totally failed administration.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at October 20, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #189266

Jim,

How one US citizen declared unlawfull enemy combatant by error could make his or her case he or she’s an US citizen and deserve Habeas Corpus without Habeas Corpus!?

And there is a well known precedent, mind you.

How do you defend yourself from such error if you have no right to defense?
That’s a deadlock.

Which will eventually lead shortly to just being dead, thanks for undefined aggressive interrogation technics allowed under such arrestation. Annonymously. All legally.

And considering the amount of people who were detained in Gitmo and then were released without being charged, we all can conclude that errornous arrestation happens, right.

My condolences, America.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #189268

I tend to think that viewing the situation today from the perspective of what happened in interwar Europe is very instructive. However, it would seem that Europe and the liberals of America have learned the wrong lessons. Is it expensive for us, in terms of Soldier’s lives and money, to confront our enemies? Of course. That being said, do you think France and Britain would’ve been willing to pay the price of a few thousand Soldiers and a couple of hundred million dollars (1936 dollars) if it would’ve prevented WWII? They refused to act against Germany even when they were strong enough to take her relatively easily, preferring instead to acquiese to her demands even as she armed herself. The result of this weakness was the most destructive and expensive war in history and genocide on a scale that defies understanding. Make no mistake about it, and the Honorable Mr. Cohen can speak to this, our weapons are far more destructive now than they were in the 1940s. Yes, things are expensive now, but we should bear in mind that the alternative is probably such to make what is happening now look like a boy scout picnic.

That being said, we do need to ensure that our elected leaders are doing the right things and hold them accountable. I too am a Pennsylvanian and I already have made my choice, primarily because I serve in Iraq and had to get my absentee ballot in already, but I encourage everyone to bear in mind the potential horrors that await us if we don’t address the tyrants and murderers who seek our destruction with every breath.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 20, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #189270

Jim,

It’s a matter of public record that U.S. citizens have been detained without charge and subjected to god knows what.

Torture is morally repugnant regardless of whether it is used against U.S. citizens or not. Locking up a suspect without charge is morally repugnant. The argument that the prisoners are terrorists does not wash. Some no doubt are, but it’s well known that many aren’t. If you have a mind to, you can find the evidence yourself. Regardless, abusing prisoners is morally repugnant.

It’s shocking that this is even a debate. No country or organization can really harm us; that power is ours alone.

Posted by: Trent at October 20, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #189277

An open letter by Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman’s brother:

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

Posted by: Max at October 20, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #189285

Max.. Thank you for that post.

Posted by: Jeff at October 20, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #189297

Is Kevin Tillman now working for the terrorists?

Isn’t that a popular argument? That he is effectively causing more deaths through his vocal dissent? That he is strengthening the will of the terrorists? That he is a traitor?

This is what they say about the Bush stalker lady (cant remember the name) and Sen. Murtha among others.

I’ll tell you that even if you could disprove 90% of his statement, it still holds a lot of raw emotional weight. Multiply that sentiment by over 3000 and you come to the effects of this war on real people. With no end in sight, and seemingly no good way to make it better without first making it much worst, I am deeply saddened. It is absolutely repugnant to me that we are losing lives, money, AND respect in such an irresponsibly costly way, and for absoulutely nothing of tangable value.

I think many people like me HATE the idea of being pessimistic about a war we are engaged in. We should be a shining beaken to the world. Instead, we have shown ourselves to be counter-effective, vulnerable, and worst of all, unsure of ourselves. Vietnam should have taught us better than to fight ANY war that was not overwhelmingly mandated by the people. We are a force to be reckoned with when we are together as one nation. Polorized, we are a shell of our true self.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #189304

We can do something. Connecticut did(see. J. Leiberman). We must vote out every single politician who has sold legislation, voted in lock-step with this administration, disregarded their constituency, broke promises, abused pork, accomplished nothing, refuses to make wholesale campaign finance reform, who’s in bed with lobbyists and has ever asked if an underage page was “horny.”
I am rallying as many New Yorkers who will listen to at least send a message to Hillary and vote independent. If she wins in the predicted land slide she will continue to do nothing, in hopes that nothing can be used against her in her failed attempt to be president.
All of us, both Republican and Democrat must be brave enough to eliminate this poor excuse of a house and senate. They have allowed the worst president in U.S. history to destroy our great nations credibility and reputation as a bastion of freedom and liberty.
We have sat back and watched this neutered excuse for a counter balance to this administration, give the green light to the executive branch to destroy some of the most important components of our Democracy.
Republicans vote out bad Republicans and Democrats vote out bad Democrats.
Pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 20, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #189308

Can’t you just feel the foundation of justice crumbling beneath your feet?

Posted by: earthquake at October 20, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #189311

As far as our conduct of the war and our policies toward enemy combatants go, we have indeed seen a radical departure from not only our own history but the history of warfare in the world. The truth is that we are far gentler and kinder to captured insurgents and conspirators than any country or any military has ever been in history.

We debate at length what legal rights and standard sof treatment should be applied to the types of people who before would have put up against a wall and shot the day after they were captured without any trial at all.

Perhaps our French friends would like to tell us about their morally superior and humane treatment of prisoners in Algieria? Perhaps a Democrat could explain to us how a few cases of erroneous detention of American citizens is worse than FDR rounding up and imprisoning the entire Japanese-American population during WWII?

1LT B is exactly right—most Euoropean and American liberals have managed to learn exactly the opposite lesson taught by history.

Since Hitler and Nazi Germany has been dragged into this, please remember that Hitler’s rise was not a result of the authorities being too vigilant but not being vigilant enough. In their early years, the Nazi party consisted of nothing more than a bunch of terrorists and criminals who got nothing but slaps on the wrists because the authorities were too weak and cowardly to confront them.

Perhaps if Hitler had been hanged or made to disappear in a place like Guantanoma after trying to overthrow the German government in 1923 (instead of being treated with kid-gloves and released after little more than a year), the world could have been spared a lot of misery.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #189312

Some things are wrong? Some things are inconscionable, such as this story:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061013/news_7m13bread.html

Gee, guess they shouldn’t have so many kids, eh?

Can’t wait for the stories of Iraqi vets who can’t get care for PTSD….

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 20, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #189320

Neo-con,

Remember, Hitler was elected. He offered popular solutions to the crushed egos and empty stomachs of the Germans. He blamed someone else for their woes. Kind of reminds me of some elected officials who blame those dirty liberals and use fear to justify attack and conquest. Thank God, we have “Good Job,Brownie” instead of Adolph.

Posted by: gergle at October 20, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #189323

“It will be interesting to see who else Bush pardons. Abramoff? Delay? Cunningham? Libby? “

bush will be needing to pardon HIMSELF by the end of his term.

Posted by: Observer at October 20, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #189329

“bush will be needing to pardon HIMSELF by the end of his term”

The mere fact that I know this would be so personally satisfying to so many people, myself included, is exactly why I must caution people to not go overboard in this way. This is, in fact, an extreme last resort scenario. But, that being said, if anyone in recent or modern time has got a legitimate chance, I think it is Bush and co.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #189331
Andre M. Hernandez wrote: Republicans vote out bad Republicans and Democrats vote out bad Democrats. Pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!

Yes. Please.
Right there, right under the voters’ very own noses, as our founding fathers originally intended, what many risked life and limb to give us, is the is the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, no-brainer, non-partisan, inexpensive, and responsible mechanism that voters were always supposed to use to make government responsible too; the one simple, responsible thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.
Stop repeat offenders.
Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians.
Put your party loyalty aside.
Look closely at YOUR politicians.
Why is that so difficult?
Well, some of us know the real answer.
I didn’t always.
I’m guilty too.
The problem is blind party loyalty, ignorance, laziness, and selfishness.
Yep, that’s most of us.
If that weren’t true, we would not have the corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, irresponsible government that we have now.
If that weren’t true, we would not be in a steady decline.
If that weren’t true, we would not have so many pressing problems going ignored, year after year, growing in number and severity.

If we, the voters, continue to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, then we can only conclude that government is exactly what we make it; government is a true reflection of its people. We can only conclude that we, as a whole, are corrupt and irresponsible too.

Bad_Voters = Bad_Politicians = Bad_Government = Bad_Nation

There will be consequences for so much irresponsibility. Just the fiscal picture, alone, should be cause for alarm. But, it isn’t, because politicians and their hacks are telling us this is a “goldy locks economy”, everything is “good” or “very good” or “just fine”. They throw out a couple of cherry-picked statistics (like low unemployment or low interest rates), and tell you everything is Rosy, but they conveniently choose to ignore a myriad of glaring problems, and the fact that this “goldy locks” economy is all an illusion funded with future debt on your you, your children, and your childrens’ children, and your childrens’ childrens’ children … so, so, so much debt, it would take 143 years to ever pay down the $8.6 trillion National Debt (not to mention the $12.8 trillion Social Security debt, the $450 billion Pension Benefit Guaranty debt, hundreds of billions of Medicare and Medicaid unfunded liabilities, etc., etc., etc.; totaling over $22 trillion in federal debt). Where is the outrage and alarm? Where’s the money going to come from? You should be worried, because the chances are, they will simply print more money.

And knowing all this, what does Congress do?
Politicians vote on some more pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, and borrow some more, and spend some more, and run up debt some more, and print some more money, and keep telling you how wonderful the economy is. It’s a huge lie. Those telling you this are elitists. They are the political class. Politicians don’t really care about the economy, becasuse they will always be just fine, because they are rich, and getting richer while you are getting poorer. They have cu$hy perks and pensions that YOU paid for. Politicians are selling you out every day, with unfair trade deals that make them richer, but cost you. Politicians don’t care about stopping illegal immigration or the $70 billion in net losses to U.S. tax payers (per year). Politicians only care about profits by exploiting an underpaid underclass, regardless of the burdens it places on schools, education systems, law enforcement, prisons, hospitals, welfare, Medicaid, and voting systems. Politicians want votes and cheap labor. Screw you, the voter, because you keep re-electing those very same irresponsible, incumbent, career politicians, regardless. Even manslaughter (negligent homicide) isn’t enough to be voted out. Lying is OK. Breaking promises is OK. “Read my lips”. Having sex in the oval office is OK. Even with Hillary. Going to war on bad (or trumped up) intelligence is OK. Writing hot checks is OK. Bribes and $90K hidden in the freezer is OK. Pedophilia is OK (like former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) who was merely censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters still re-elected Studds 6 times! What is the deal with Massachussetts? And, even if any of them ever get indicted or convicted, they can get a pardon, like the 456 pardons by Clinton (140 on his last day).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #189336

D.A.N., no offense, but your posts are beginning to sound like a broken record.

I think we get it already: we have bad leaders. Okay. How about even one suggestion for who to vote for instead?

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 20, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #189337

You know, we killed about 42,800 people on our roads in 2004. Seems to me if I should be terrorized about something, it’s driving my car on American roads.

The actual threat from Dubya’s kind of terror is vanishly small in comparison.

Don’t get me wrong - there are muslim wackos out there that we have to be on guard against, but statistically speaking, we’d get better bang for our bucks (read less human deaths) if we’d spent some o’ that “Homeland Security” largess on car & road safety, traffic enforcement, etc.

Posted by: markl_me at October 20, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #189347

“The law spoken of in these responses does not apply to U.S. citizens. Our constitution was never intended to convey its rights to non citizens.”

I didn’t actually say the bill was unconstitutional. I said it was wrong, and that the US should never lead the world away from basic human rights. Arlen Specter, Republican chair of the judiciary committee, said the bill would “set back basic rights by some 900 years”.

If I had said that it was unconstitutional, however, I would have been on pretty solid ground, Jim. Specter voted for the bill after his amendment to restore habeus corpus was voted down. He says he’s hoping “the court will clean it up” - ie, he thinks it’s unconstitutional. He’s probably right. Too bad he didn’t have the guts to vote for what’s right.

Max - thanks for the quotes. If anyone wants to read the whole letter, follow that link, it’s better than anything I ever wrote. And if you don’t remember the details of Pat Tilman’s amazing story read it here.

Posted by: William Cohen at October 20, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #189349

markl_me-

You’re not going to get all “common-sense” on us now are you? Hell, who knows what scary lack of priorities we’d discover if we actually started questioning the construction of the federal budget.

It is much easier to be passively judgemental than to be proactively insightful. I think the problem is that things in government are so out of hand that the most insightful advice is immediately dismissed as crazy talk or unrealistic.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #189351

Wait…is Adrienne really gone?

That is upsetting.

Everything about it disappeared. Will this disappear too?

Well let me just add to this topic then to say I will not be voting for Phil Angeledes. Anyone who insults me by putting an ad on TV that does nothing but loop Arnold saying “George W. Bush” over and over needs to go.

These new ads are just getting rediculous. They’re polorizing rather than trying to sway moderates, which is exactly what you’d think both sides would be desperate to do right now.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #189352
Neo-Con Pilsner wrote: How about even one suggestion for who to vote for instead?

First, that’s up to every individual, and the goal should be to vote for the most responsible and most quailified.

Therefore, my suggestion is to vote for challengers, since most incumbents are not responsible, as evidenced by their many failures, fiscal irresponsibility, starting unnecessary wars, violating the Constitution, etc., etc., etc.

However, IF your incumbent(s) are responsible, then they deserve to be re-elected. But there aren’t many, which is why no one has yet named 10, 50, 100, much less 268 (half of 535) in Congress that that are responsible, that don’t pander, troll for big-money-donors, and don’t look-the-other-way. Polls show most eligible voters agree. So, re-electing the irresponsible ones doesn’t make much sense.

So, my suggestion is really to merely do the one simple thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along, always. Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians. Give challengers a chance, because:

  • (1) Most (if not all) incumbents are irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, and look-the-other-way.

  • (2) It sends a clear, unmistakable message to Congress.

  • (3) It provides the peaceful force no other method can.

  • (4) It is simple; the one simple thing we were supposed to be doing all along.

  • (5) It creates peer pressure among their own ranks within Congress.

  • (6) It creates immediate term-limits; why wait for Congress; they’ll never pass it.

  • (7) It balances power between the people and government, instead of Republicans and Democrats

  • (8) It reduces the stranglehold the two party system has on government.

  • (9) It’s a non-partisan approach; it reduces the excesses of the “IN PARTY”

  • (10) It can reduce corruption and waste (or face being voted out and a short career). It may finally be possible to pass many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that Congress has refused to pass for decades (e.g. campaign finance, tax reform, election reform, balanced budget, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, immigration reform, etc.)

  • (11) It’s inexpensive; no need to even send money to any politicians. Besides, most of us can not compete with the wealthy. A mere 0.15% (300,000) of all eligible voters (200 million) made 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 more; $2 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004).

  • (12) It is quick.

  • (13) It eliminates the truly bad career politicians immediately.

  • (14) It cures the “jelly-brain” disease that some pandering politicians are almost immediately stricken with shortly after being elected to office, which makes them forget many (or all) of their campaign promises (i.e. “read my lips”, “no nation building”, etc.).

  • (15) It reduces the cu$hy pensions that each congress person will receive after only a few terms in Congress.

  • (16) It will encourage more people to get on the ballots.

  • (17) It reduces the effect of Gerrymandering.

  • (18) It is better than doing what we are doing now, which is not working.

  • (19) It levels the playing field; incumbents have vastly unfair advantages (time, visibility, perk$ of office, big-money-donors, etc).

  • (20) It increases the number of newcomers, who are always vastly out-numbered by incumbents that won’t allow any reforms that may even remotely reduce the incumbents power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats.

  • (21) It increases accountability. Incompetent and/or poor performers should be fired. Know any in Congress now? It’s actually almost laughable.

  • (22) It creates unpredictability, which reduces the big-money-influence on a government that is already too FOR SALE.

  • (23) It doesn’t require that many people. Only 5% (4 million) of all eligible voters (121 million) voting for challengers could change the political landscape significantly. There is power in small nubers after all. It’s not herding cats, expecting bi-partisan cooperation, or expecting the most brain-washed to become un-brainwashed. Only a few percent of the population is needed to kick things off.

  • (24) It is the only thing we haven’t yet tried that we were supposed to be doing all along, always. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents due to blind party loyalty, partisan brainwashing, laziness, complacency, apathy, or ignorance, or distracting petty partisan warfare.

  • (25) It might be fun to see some truly bad, career politicians finally get the boot?

  • (26) It may eventually enable someone to name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible, accountable, not bought-and-paid-for, and don’t look the other way.

Perhaps, if enough newcomers, who are always vastly out-numbered, can get elected, then perhaps they will finally pass some badly-needed, common-sense reforms.

As for my incumbents, I’m not voting for any of them, because they have all been carrying the water for their big-money-donors, or flip-flopped, broke a promise, or lied, or refused to enforce existing laws, or abused their influence in some way. For Texas governor (incumbent is Perry), it’s a toss up between Strayhorn, Bell, and Kinky Friedman. Perry had plenty of time to do something, and hasn’t, so he’s not getting my vote. Perry also has a commercial running that says Texans are going to get an average of $2000 off their property taxes. It’s a lie. Most people won’t see even a $100 reduction in property taxes. Property taxes in Texas are high and pay for public education. Also, Perry did something naughty a while back when stopped by a highway patrol for speeding (Perry wasn’t driving, but hassled the police officer who was writing his associate a speeding ticket). And, a while back Perry called some reporter a [explicative] and it was caught on tape.

For other challengers in other states, go here.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #189362

1LT B,

First, I fail to see your point regarding the Military Commissions Act. Are you saying we should tolerate it because we’re on the verge of WWIII (or is it 4, sorry I’m lost) and doing it now will give US a critical advantage?!

Lawless arretations combined with no Habeas Corpus is violation your constitution because even an US citizen arrested as an unlawfully enemy combatant, wrongly or not, can’t prove anymore he’s an US citizen and should have Habeas Corpus under US constitution because, well, his arrestation under this qualification denied him Habeas Corpus.
Is US under rebelion or invasion? Because denying Habeas Corpus is allowed by constitution only under these situations AFAIK.

So I guess you really think US is invaded or in rebelion.

Let’s hope it’s the second. Because it’s needed.

do you think France and Britain would’ve been willing to pay the price of a few thousand Soldiers and a couple of hundred million dollars (1936 dollars) if it would’ve prevented WWII? They refused to act against Germany even when they were strong enough to take her relatively easily, preferring instead to acquiese to her demands even as she armed herself. The result of this weakness was the most destructive and expensive war in history and genocide on a scale that defies understanding.

That’s too easily forgetting that in World War One, France and Britain choosed the strong way and the result of this choice was the most destructive and expensive war in history. It influenced their second choice, very different indeed, in 1936.

It’ always easy to say “if they had known!”. If US had known about vietnam quagmire (sp?), I’m sure the decisions made in 63 will had been different too. And what about Iraq 2003? What about the 70 soldiers killed this month?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 20, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #189365

The law spoken of in these responses does not apply to U.S. citizens. Our constitution was never intended to convey its rights to non citizens. Please stop with the B.S.
Many of the same people now claiming that harsh interrogation of prisoners will only result in getting worthless information were among the first to jump on Mel Gibson as being truthful while under the influence of alchohol, as though alchohol was some kind of truth serum. If that’s true, would you same writers condone getting suspected terrorist drunk as torture also?
Posted by: Jim at October 20, 2006 12:27 PM

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” - American Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” - Abraham Lincoln

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’ ” - Martin Luther King

It seems that some of Americas greatest citizens feel that “all” men are created equal. “All” is not exclusive of non Americans. Pity a non American has to remind an American of American ideals as enunciated by American greats.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 20, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #189367

1LT B: What you have done is indulge in historical speculation,and draw conclusions from it. This is always dubious as events have a way of defineing logic,not the other way around. Others have speculated that if the US had not entered WW1 the European powers would have exhausted themselves and reached a stalmate. This would have eliminated the punitive reparations Germany had to bear that led to the rise of the Nazis and ww2. Maybe but we will never know. There were many in the US at the time arguing for peace.They were hounded,attacked and even imprisoned for simply being against the war.Daschunds were kicked in public for being German dogs(note they did not kick sheppards). Excuse me I digress. My point is that one can support any action one cares to by useing scenarios instead of facts.
We do have some facts regarding the Iraq war: the country was and is devided,the public was misinformed as to WMDs etc., there was no connection between Saddam and Al queda,we were already at war in Afganistan and underestimated the enemy, we underestimated the enemy in Iraq,wehave created more anti-American feelings in the Islamic world,we have created greater instability in the region,we have spent many billions of dollars much unaccounted for,there is no clear exit strategy…….

Posted by: BillS at October 20, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #189376

So what you are saying is that we should have tried German, Japaneese POW’s in American couts while the war was going on?

Posted by: Keith at October 20, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #189382

Keith-

Be fair. That is not what was just said. I believe the point is that there are certain protections that are supposed to be guaranteed by all civilized nations. One is to not torture enemy soldiers. Another would be to not sentence anyone to death without showing them the evidence against them. Yet another would be to provide a fair trial. Etc. If there is no review by our courts (who are responsible for upholding the law…all law) when there is evidence showing misconduct, or even if that review is just discretionary, the net effect is to erode the legitimacy of our law. After all, what good is a law without accountability, limits and protection from abuse or mis-use.

I disagree with most posters here about how much review needs to be done, but there needs to be a realistic way to prevent corruption of the stated point of the law.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #189396

People who would coddle, aid, and assist enemies of this country should just leave and go live someplace else. Someplace where their views of tolerance, peace, and social justice can be appreciated by all. Some place where enemies of the Nation- aka people who are trying to kill us- are treated with kid gloves. They can join these prisoners of conscience in a rousing chorus of Kumbayah.

Me, I am proud that the President and the Legislature passed a law for the detention and interrogation of enemies, suspected enemies, and supporters of enemies of this Nation. Terrorists are enemies of every country on earth. They have only one goal; to sow chaos, fear, and bloodshed in order to get their messages of lunacy across. These people are more than criminals and we must do what ever it takes to stop them and prevent their acts of death and destruction. New methods must be found to fight this insidious enemy. We, as a people, must do whatever it takes. Period.

The Democrats would just negotiate with them, appease them, and let them continue their murderous rampages. Just like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did.

Posted by: Middle Class Guy at October 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #189398

Show me a country anywhere in history who has extended the right of Habeus Corpus to foreigners captured in the course of a conflict.

It simply has never happened—anywhere. That we even have such a debate in America shows that we go far above and beyond what other nations do.

Even soldiers fighting in uniform for another government do not qualify for Habeus Corpus. Lawful POWs are simply held and not brought up on charges. In fact, putting them on trial would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And this act does not do anything in regards to POWs.

Paul in Euroland, according to your idea about the American ideal of equality, non-citizens should be given the right to vote, receive government benefits and hold public office in the United States. That is not, however, what our ideal of equality means. Liberty and equality before the law is given to those who live under our laws. No country behaves any differently, and the US has never behaved any differently either—so nothing here is new.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 20, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #189409

“Wait…is Adrienne really gone?

That is upsetting.

Everything about it disappeared. Will this disappear too?”

Huh? What? Duh? I musta missed something!

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 21, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #189411

William,

I apologize for straying from the intent of your article, but I read the Republican “defense” BS and I can’t help but think, “sheesh”!

The economy: holy shit, we’re in bad shape as a nation, not to mention an ever widening gap between rich and poor. Home foreclosures are on the rise nearly everywhere and existing home sales are nearly stagnant. Ownership society? Hell’s bells an ever increasing part of America is owned by foreign interests.

Iraq is clearly dissolving into a civil war or worse and Bush refuses to consider any alternative plans. If this alone doesn’t prove his insanity I don’t know what will.

Afghanistan is “slipping” into the same type of chaos that brought the Soviet Union to her knees, but we refuse to see the truth.

Just whose side do you think China is on ie: North Korea?

And, just what is our policy on Iran?

Holy SHIT!

Just keep the Republicans in power it’s too late to turn back now. We’re all screwed.

KD

PS: my aplogies to Keith for confusing him with keith.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 21, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #189414

Funny how it’s a war when it suits an agenda, and not a war when it doesn’t.

No one should have war powers when no war has been declared. I understood that to be something congress does.

If it’s a war, have congress declare war and all that entails. If they don’t, then it’s not a war. If congress doesn’t declare war, then I would think any presidential “war powers” don’t apply.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 21, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #189417

Pilsner,

I don’t think that’s at all what Paul is trying to say. It’s a matter of being the better “man” or really in this case being more moral than your adversary.

If you must “become” as ruthless as your enemy then you’ve already lost at least part of the fight. Whether it’s a political fight or a military fight seems to matter very little to Bush.

His fervor in declaring the Democratic party as “the party of cut-n-run” could be much better spent on intelligent thought to find a solution in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but…….sigh……..politics is more important than human life, even American troops lives.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 21, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #189418

“If it’s a war, have congress declare war and all that entails. If they don’t, then it’s not a war. If congress doesn’t declare war, then I would think any presidential “war powers” don’t apply.”

womanmarine,

And maybe reinstate the draft so we can increase troop levels to half a million? Or increase taxes to pay for the war we’re fighting today?

Better to be a Republican and kep patting everyone on the head while saying, “don’t worry, it’ll be OK”!

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 21, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #189421

Phillipe,

I’m saying the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in the Civil War and this was dealing with US citizens. The idea that foreign born illegal combatants have rights under the Geneva Convention, to say nothing of the US Constitution, is laughable.

It is true that Britain and France suffered terribly in WWI, but based on that, they chose the road of appeasement and failed to recognize the inevitability of another war with Germany. I can understand that France and Britain were under great pressure, but the idea that weakness could deter Hitler was foolish. If you can find a more tragic and horrible scene than Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich waving about a piece of paper claiming to have peace in our time, I’d love to see it.

Bills,

I think you raised an interesting point in your digression about Daschunds and German Shepherds. Its easy to kick around and abuse a weakling, not quite so much to bully a big dog.

Back to your point, yes, one can spin almost any scenario based on history, but at the same time, no country has ever prospered or got its way by being weak and appeasing hostile neighbors.
I don’t dispute most of your facts about Iraq, and I think the war could’ve been much better planned to secure the peace. On the other hand, we do know that Saddam had these weapons, and we should be more concerned about what happened to them than whether or not they had them as we know they did.

As far as an exit strategy goes, we did have one, it was just stupid and based on rosy predictions more than fact. On the other hand, the only difference that I can see between Bush and the Democrats is that the Democrats would put a timetable on the pullout. Whether or not this would make things any better is debatable, I tend to think it wouldn’t.

I also think a far larger problem that Iraq indicates is the abrogation of Congressional responsibility. It is in Congress’s power to declare war, but since the 50’s Congress has given more and more power to the President and completely turned over its power to an increasingly imperial presidency that seems to me to be less and less accountable to the public.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 21, 2006 4:54 AM
Comment #189422

1 LT B,

I’m saying the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in the Civil War and this was dealing with US citizens. The idea that foreign born illegal combatants have rights under the Geneva Convention, to say nothing of the US Constitution, is laughable.

I see two logical fallacies contained in your argument above. The first is that, when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, the country was literally at each other’s throats and the fate of the entire nation hung in the balance. A possible attack, one that may occur sometime in the future, does not, in my opinion, rise to the same level of emergency.

3,000 people died on 9/11. For some perspective, 100,000 Americans die every single year in this country as a result of properly administered prescription drugs in our nation’s hospitals. Are you arguing that the first scenario is the greater threat, one worthy of the trampling of human rights?

The second comes with your phrase “illegal combatants.” If everyone we had in custody was definitely a terrorist, hell-bent on destroying America and killing her citizens, very few people would object to locking them up and throwing away the key.

This necessary premise, however, is sorely and demonstrably lacking. What of Maher Arar, an innocent Canadian citizen sent to Syria, where he was tortured for over a year and forced to live in 6’ x 3’ concrete box? Or all the detainees rounded up from both Iraq and Afghanistan (many of whom were simply the enemies of local warlords, who handed them over to us as an act of retribution)?

Many of these detainees have been subsequently released, showing that we are either holding innocent people for years without cause or that we are letting guilty people go free. Either option betrays all sense of justice, foresight and competence.

In order for anyone to claim indefinite detention without trial, they must first claim perfect knowledge of guilt. Without the latter, the former is an affront to both American and basic humanitarian ideals; the latter is, as is evidenced by the workings of our court system every day, impossible to achieve.

Mankind, throughout the millennia, forged and refined our systems of justice for a plethora of reasons, one of them being the simple fact that men are not Gods, though they oftentimes seek the power of one. It is our duty to stop them.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 21, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #189423

David,
Why does it always come back to comparing Bush and our current administration to Germany and Hitler? That is why the Republicans keep winning, the radical statements make the Democrats look silly and childish. Everyone knows Bush is not Hitler, so stop the nonsense if you want the average middle of the road citizen to vote for your party.

Posted by: Maxcroft Squire Muhldoon at October 21, 2006 6:00 AM
Comment #189444

LD

You and d.a.n are starting to sound like broken records. Is there any argument that you can enter into without bringing you venom against the pharmaceutical companies. I don’t hear you talking about how many lives are saved and made better through the work of these same companies.

Posted by: Keith at October 21, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #189446

So what you are saying is that we should have tried German, Japaneese POW’s in American couts while the war was going on?
Posted by: Keith at October 20, 2006 08:43 PM

Japanese and German pow’s were not criminals per se. They were not amenable to criminal charges as such, unless there was evidence that they breached the laws of war. In any case, in that situation, there was a conventional war going on.

In the present case, there is not a conventional war going on, and there are no state actors on the other side. Therefore, what we have is a criminal conspiracy acting contrary to law in the case of 9/11, Bali, Madrid and London for example. The proper way to deal with this is throught the criminal law. And if the criminal law in not adequate to deal with this situation, then it can always be amended. However, to cast aside the protections that give meaning and force to Westen Justice, is to hand victory to terrorists on a plate. When we do that, they have won. To try such people in military tribunals gives them a military status, which in itself is an honourable status. It is an honourable status because societies devolve the power to exercise violence in their defence, subject to internationally agreed laws of war. Those who breach such laws, are like all criminals, subject to prosecution before the law, with all of the safeguards that our laws have developed over many centuries of experience.

Terrorists have no such power devolved upon then by lawful authority, thereore they are outlaws ab initio, and should be dealt with as such. In the way that all outlaws are supposed to be dealt with. Unlawful combatants caught on a battlefield in flagrante delicto are a different matter, as they are caught red handed. Many of the detainees in Guantanamo were in fact bought and paid for by US forces from Afghan tribal leaders, with little or no evidence of guilt.

If we cannot uphold our standards in dealing with this threat, then we lose what are our defining values, and hand victory to terrorists.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #189451
Everyone knows Bush is not Hitler, so stop the nonsense if you want the average middle of the road citizen to vote for your party.
Here’s an thought! Maybe Democrats will stop making comparisons between Bush and Hitler… as soon as Republicans stop trying to compare their pathetic mess in Iraq to the noble causes we fought for in WWII.

Oh, and let’s not forget Rick “Yoda” Santorum… He should stop trying to compare Iraq to the noble causes fictional characters fought for in The Lord of the Rings.

Posted by: Introspective at October 21, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #189453

Republicans are almost certainly going to lose the majority.
So, after 7-Nov-2006, Democrats can turn around this Habeas Corpus for detainees.
Hopefully, Democrats will also work on some other badly-needed, no-brainer, common-sense reforms too.
If not; if real reforms aren’t made before 2008, this economy and the shrinking middle-income-class, and many voters will grow even more unhappy, and start voting out Democrats too. If fact, Democrats got their work cut out for them. The usual excuses won’t be sufficient, unless some earnest steps are take to pass some of the most obvious, no-brainer, common-sense reforms that Congress refuses to pass, year-after-year-after-decade-after-decade.

Reversing Habeas Corpus should be an easy thing to fix quickly.
Then, Congress should take some serious steps to put and end to government FOR SALE.
Then stop the massive borrowing, debt, spending and money-printing.
Then pass a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment.

If Congress would do just those four things, it would help a lot, and many other improvements would probably follow.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #189464

Keith (or keith?) wonders if POWs in WWII should have been tried in American courts. I submit that the line that separates you from POWs in a conventional war is brighter and clearer than the line between you and residents who are “supporting hostilities” in the “long war”. Further, that issue had been solved - conventional POWs have been treated according to the Geneva conventions for 50 years. There’s a huge body of legal precedent for how to treat them. It’s Bush and Congress that want to change that precedent.

Paul in Euroland says “Our constitution was never intended to convey its rights to non citizens.” Paul, look it up. I recommend that you follow the link I gave to Wikipedia’s entry on habeus corpus. Some quotes: “US courts have also ruled that many rights under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment apply to ‘all persons’, not just US citizens”. Also, habeus corpus was “originally understood to apply only to those held in custody by officials of the executive branch”, and then extended to those “held by any government entity” if the imprisonment violates constitutional rights. It’s applied to prisoners of the US, not citizens of the US.

This law is not simply a “clarification” of existing conditions, as some would have us believe. It’s a big step back from how we treated people five years ago. If you don’t believe that, ask yourself why this “clarification” law includes amnesty for - ahem - “harsh interrogation” that happened last year. Or ask yourself this: we’ve been keeping the existence of these prisons secret for years. Why? I don’t see how just knowing the prisons exist helps bin laden a bit, do you? It looks to me like they’ve been hiding this from US voters and US allies.

One more comment. I don’t know where you are in Euroland, Paul, but I’d like to ask you: what rights do you expect to have where you are (France? Italy?) if you were accused of terrorism? How do you other Watchbloggers feel about France locking up Paul indefintely, without legal counsel, keeping him naked in cold rooms and waterboarding him, to (maybe, somehow) save French lives? Is that how you want to see US citizens treated? To you consider that morally right?

What goes around comes around, Paul - and we, as world leaders, have a big influence in what will go around.

Posted by: William Cohen at October 21, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #189467

William, you’re incorrectly attributing remarks to Paul of Euroland which he didn’t make, so I would say that locking him up naked in cold rooms and waterboarding him as a result would definitely be a miscarriage of justice.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 21, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #189478

It’s not often we agree neo con! But i’m with you on this one. William, you clearly haven’t read my comments. The first part of my contribution is a quotation from Keith, and the second part was my response.

I’m not a US citizen, and I’m in Ireland. I believe that human rights are indivisible and apply to all people, no matter what nationality. I think if you actually read my post, you will see where I’m coming from. In fact, if you check back higher up the page, you will see in my answer to Jim that I make this point very clearly by quoting Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Jim hasn’t see fit to respond. I guess his silence is pregnant with meaning.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 21, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #189480

Paul in Euroland, according to your idea about the American ideal of equality, non-citizens should be given the right to vote, receive government benefits and hold public office in the United States. That is not, however, what our ideal of equality means. Liberty and equality before the law is given to those who live under our laws. No country behaves any differently, and the US has never behaved any differently either—so nothing here is new.
Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 20, 2006 11:07 PM

Neo-Con, I said nothing about the right to vote. One of the most fundamental rights of citizenship is the right to vote. It is the mark of the sovereignty of a nation and the foundation of the legitimacy of government. For that reason, it is almost always restricted to citizens. The right to fair procedures and the right to liberty however, are universal and the law, at least in liberal western democracies, for that reason protects them. It is part of what we are as a civilisation. For this reason, it is not restricted to citizens. If a person comes within the control of a countrys’ legal system, then they should have the same rights as all other accused persons within that legal system. And all of the common law countries, including yours and mine, as far as I am aware, use the habeus corpus procedure as a check on executive power. And you are happy to see a bedrock of our legal system for centuries casually cast aside?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 21, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #189500

Keith,

I did not realize that if someone saved lives, that that then granted them the right to kill one hundred thousand innocent people a year and seriously injure millions. Better alert our police officers and firemen, as some of them may want to take advantage of this turn of events.

You too would sound like a broken record if you were completely, and probably permanently, disabled simply because you took a prescription drug nearly 2 years ago; if you were in constant agonizing pain simply because these companies are allowed to conduct their own clinical trials and then present manipulated and false data to gain FDA approval. You wouldn’t shut up about it either if you cared about the fact that babies and children were being poisoned as well so that someone could make a buck.

Maybe over 100,000 deaths a year doesn’t bother you. Maybe you think that corporations should be granted carte blanche to maim, torture, poison and kill human beings for profit (to the tune of over 3 million people a year). Maybe the rampant and egregious conflicts of interest at the FDA, the ones that end up giving you a 1 in 13 chance of being seriously injured by a prescription drug if you live another decade, don’t bother you at all. Yes, a 1 in 13 chance for every single American alive today if they live until the year 2016. Maybe you like those odds.

It’s pretty funny to see someone defending mass murder and horrible atrocities, when normally they claim to deplore it and consistently demean anyone who even wants to grant the most basic of human rights to those who are even peripherally engaged in such acts. Hell, I’d grant a fair trial to the soulless entities that did this to me.

Oh wait, they help some people too, so that must make it all OK. I guess you wouldn’t mind it if someone grievously harmed you or your loved ones so that some other people could be healthier.

Moral relativism at its finest, folks.


William Cohen,

I apologize for the preceding message, as it is off topic. However, the title of your post is “Some things are just wrong,” so perhaps it is somewhat fitting.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 21, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #189509

Liberal Demon:

Thank you for sharing that. May I assume that you take a dim view of the Republican assault on lawyers and what they call ‘nuisance suits’—the one way the average Joe can call murderous corporations on the carpet, since government oversight has been totally hollowed out by cronies, lobbyists and other wolves watching the proverbial chicken coop?

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #189512

Kevin23:
“Wait…is Adrienne really gone?

That is upsetting.”

No, I’m not gone. I was banned (I feel unfairly), but was told I could return. Things will be different now though. I’ve decided I won’t be debating or arguing with anyone in WB any longer, because the next opinion I give might mean I’ll be permanently blocked. Since I like reading the articles here, I’m going to stick to simply posting info rather than my opinions from now on.

“Everything about it disappeared. Will this disappear too?”

Hasn’t so far. But this might. I don’t know.

“Well let me just add to this topic then to say I will not be voting for Phil Angeledes. Anyone who insults me by putting an ad on TV that does nothing but loop Arnold saying “George W. Bush” over and over needs to go.”

Arnold saying this seems a bit more important:

On September 7, 2006, it was revealed that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to Latina Republican Assy. Member Bonnie Garcia as being fiery and hot-tempered because “black blood” mixed with “Latino blood” equals “hot.” He further stated “I mean, they [Cubans and Puerto Ricans] are all very hot…they have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them and together that makes it.” It was a front-page story on the Los Angeles Times and was revealed by reporter Robert Salladay. Schwarzenegger then apologized for the remarks the next day, in a joint press conference with Garcia in Santa Monica, California.

Ads are about politics. But look at Angelides education, his record, and who is endorsing him:

A graduate of Harvard University, Phil Angelides is a Coro Foundation Fellow.
As Treasurer, Angelides is a trustee of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (the nation’s first and third largest public pension funds[5]). He has been a leader in the corporate reform movement[6] and has advocated for investment in socially and environmentally conscious businesses and for businesses with increased standards of financial disclosure.[7] [8] For example, on April 7, 2006 CalSTRS board members unanimously supported Angelides’ motion to divest from Sudan to pressure an end to the government backed Genocide in Sudan.[9] His Green Wave Initiative invested $950,000,000 into environmental businesses and technologies[10] and his Double Bottom Line Initiative invested 14 billion dollars into inner-city and underserved communities. [11] In 2003, the CalPERS investment committee approved of Angelides’ Investment Protection Standards, which require that investment banking firms who do business with CalPERS separate their research and investment banking practices.[12] New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer complimented Angelides’ plan saying, “I applaud Treasurer Angelides for his actions. Today’s announcement is an important first step in ensuring that these reforms become the new market standard.” [13] Angelides, along with 10 other state treasurers and controllers, has also called on the SEC to approve a rule giving shareholders the right to nominate candidates for corporate boards of directors.[14]

Group Endorsements for Angelides: The Sacramento Bee, The Los Angeles Times, The California League of Conservation Voters, the California Teachers’ Association, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Sierra Club, California NOW, Vote the Coast and Clean Water Action.

On July 7, 2006, Angelides expressed his support for gay rights, and pledged to legalize same-sex marriage if elected governor, stating “I would sign the marriage equality bill because I believe if we can get behind people to build a lasting relationship, that is a good thing.” [22] Angelides has also called for reducing tax breaks for corporations and individuals earning $500,000 or more per year, in a plan to earn revenue to increase funding for public K-12 education and higher education. The plan would halt and repeal increases made in the tuition fees of the University of California system, and the California Community College system. [23] He has stated his opposition to sending National Guard troops to the California-Mexico border and wants to seek closer ties with the President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, claiming that it will help both the economies of California and Mexico.[24] On May 22, 2006 in Santa Monica, Angelides announced his support for Vinod Khosla’s Clean Alternative Energy Initiative (prop. 87) which, if enacted, would assess oil company profits by $4,000,000,000 over the next ten years and use the proceeds to invest into research for alternative energy such as ethanol. The measure makes it illegal for oil producers to pass the cost onto consumers.[25] It also would reduce California’s oil dependency by 25% over the next ten years, and would increase the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. On May 23, 2006 Angelides wrote Barbara Boxer, a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, urging her to support net neutrality.[26] Angelides has also endorsed the Clean Money Initiative (Prop. 89). The initiative would provide public finances to candidates who can obtain at least 750 $5.00 contributions from voters and who have participated in at least one primary and two general election debates.[27] It would also place new restrictions on contributions and expenditures by lobbyists and corporations.[28] Throughout the campaign, Westly and Angelides were both accused of engaging in negative campaigning. Angelides presented himself as a more progressive and liberal candidate, and accused Westly of working too closely with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom Angelides shall face in the November elections. Westly accused Angelides of being an anti-environment real estate developer. Westly’s ads in that matter were later criticized by the executive directors of Vote the Coast, Sierra Club, California League of Conservation Voters, and California Coastal Protection Network in a letter saying “All of the environmental organizations who do endorsements believe Phil has the vision to be the greenest governor California has ever had. Don’t let Steve Westly’s attacks prevail over the environmental movement’s best judgement in this election.” Garry South, Westly’s campaign manager, who also presided over Gray Davis’ rather negative campaigns in 1998 and 2002, was also criticized over using such tactics, with the environmental groups chiding him for using “false accusations.” On June 6, 2006, Angelides won the Democratic primary over Westly with 48 percent of the vote over his opponent’s 43 percent. [29] Angelides’ republican opponent, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has since used quotes from Westly’s campaign to attack Angelides. Westly, who endorsed Angelides after the primary, countered, “Governor Schwarzenegger has shown great interest in what Steve Westly has to say about the governor’s race in 2006. He’s right to say that and I’m here to tell you we all need to vote for the Democratic candidate, Phil Angelides for Governor in November 2006.”[30] On August 16, Angelides announced his plans to cut taxes by $1.4 billion for California’s middle class and small businesses.[31]

quotes from Angelides’ Wikipedia page

Posted by: Adrienne at October 21, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #189513

Paul in Euroland, you’re welcome to believe, if you wish, that “If a person comes within the control of a country’s legal system, then they should have the same rights as all other accused persons within that legal system.”

My point is that such a notion is completely new in the history of the world. We’re not talking about “casting aside” a bedrock of our legal system. You are talking about reinventing it entirely.

No country anywhere does such a thing, and certainly not on behalf of enemy combatants. Not even POWs, under the strictest possible interpretaton of the Geneva Conventions, are given the full rights afforded to a nation’s citizens, including the right to a writ of Habeaus Corpus.

Further, the quotes you used by Jefferson, Lincoln and Martin Luther King, however, are irrelevant to this belief of yours—they are about other things entirely. King was campaigning for civil rights for American citizens; Lincoln, at one time, suspended Habeas Corpus entirely. But our Supreme Court’s recent Hamden decision explicity reaffirmed the right to Habeas Corpus—it’s hardly been cast aside.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 21, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #189514

Adrienne:

You were banned?! BANNED?! I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it.

I don’t even know what precipitated it—but I already know it was bullsh*t!

I think that just about tears it for me, folks. Life is too short for this nonsense.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #189518

Adrienne

I’m not sure what precipitated the “banning”, but glad you’re back.

I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Angelides’s problem is he has no message that will resonate with the voters. He spouts the same tired cliches, tax the rich, more money for schools. But he doesn’t come off as really having a plan. As more and more people are seeing you can’t get far running as the “anti” somebody. At some point you need a message.

Also, as someone said the other day, Phil Angelides is just like Gray Davis without a personality, if you get the drift.

Posted by: Keith at October 21, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #189523

Tim,
Believe it. And using curse words (even though they contained asterisks rather than vowels) was one of the two main reasons given, so you might want to quit using them yourself.

Keith, I don’t agree.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 21, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #189524

Tim Crow,

May I assume that you take a dim view of the Republican assault on lawyers and what they call ‘nuisance suits’—the one way the average Joe can call murderous corporations on the carpet, since government oversight has been totally hollowed out by cronies, lobbyists and other wolves watching the proverbial chicken coop?

I don’t think you want to get me started on the evils of tort-reform here, even though it, too, would fall under the heading of “Some things are just wrong.” I’ve already gone far too off topic here, so suffice it to say that, despite what you hear, it is nearly impossible already for the little guy to acquire justice in this country, especially when a pharmaceutical company is involved. You did a pretty good job of summing it up yourself above.

If you would like more information on what I posted about in my response to Keith however, please click on my name below, which will take you to my AOL journal (and more information than you will probably care to learn).

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 21, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #189526

It’s surprising to me that Schwarzenegger has proven to be such a popular governor in California. I thought he was probably going down after the debacle with his public initiatives, but no Republican governor in a deep Blue state like California can succeed like he does without enormous support from Democrats.

The flopped controversy over his comments about “hot-blooded” Latinos reflected the growing irrelevance in our society of canned PC outrage.

“Hot-blooded Latinos” may be a stereotype which is not always accurate, but I doubt many Latinos were actually offended by it. Some might have even seen it as a compliment. What’s wrong with being hot blooded anyway?

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 21, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #189527

Liberal Demon:

Thanks for that tip—I often don’t think to check out people’s links. The one out of thirteen stat is truly scary.

I am very sorry this has happened to you.


Adrienne:

I think you will be seeing less of me here. Perhaps that is good—give some newcomers and some lurkers some opportunities to express themselves.

I admire your mind. Thanks for sharing it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #189529

Tim:
“I think you will be seeing less of me here.”

Yes, me too. No fun to be had — but still a great way to share news articles and op-eds with each other.

“Perhaps that is good—give some newcomers and some lurkers some opportunities to express themselves.”

Maybe you’re right.

“I admire your mind. Thanks for sharing it.”

What a lovely thing to say! Thank you so much, and likewise, sir!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 21, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #189534
Keith wrote: You and d.a.n are starting to sound like broken records. Is there any argument that you can enter into without bringing you venom against the pharmaceutical companies. I don’t hear you talking about how many lives are saved and made better through the work of these same companies.
Keith, You should research it. You may be surprised by what you find. Death by pharmaceutical side-effects kill over 106,000 people per year. That is the 5th or 6th leading cause of death. And, a lot of it is unnecessary, because MDs are prescribing newer, less safe meds. I even had a doctor tell me this very thing. Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #189536

d.a.n.

So if doctors are unprepared and uneducated about the drugs they are selling, who is responsible? The doctor or the company.

Posted by: Keith at October 21, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #189537

And can someone please show me where to find that number (106,000) and don’t say the Lancet.

Posted by: Keith at October 22, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #189538

It’s unfortunate but true that side-effects of medications kill a lot of people. Just as its true that radical surgery kills a lot of people.

To meaningfully crunch the numbers, however, you have to look at who would have died anyway with no treatment or no medication. A lot of times people opt for dangerous medical treatment that may shorten their lives—they’re willing to role the dice in the hopes of long-term success. Physicians are supposed to explain all the risks of any risky medications or operations, and in the end the patient him or herself makes a lot of these final decisions.

It’s not as though medications are being forced on otherwise healthy people and then killing them.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 22, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #189540

Adrienne-
Don’t fret too much. It likely wasn’t the content of your opinion. Just don’t make it personal, and you’ll be fine.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #189549

Keith,

The doctors AND the pharmaceuticals AND the FDA are most responsible. These days, the patient really needs to do some research too. Their life may depend on it. I will never take another antibiotic (especially a Quinolone) without doing some research on it, and asking about the alternatives, and how long has this drug been on the market, etc.

We have an environment of corpocrisy and corporatism growing out of control in this nation. Some dangerous medications are getting on the market in the mad rush for profits, and even when knowledge of the dangers are known for quite some time, some pharmaceuticals are still reluctant to pull those drugs.

Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous. Pharmaceutical corporations and the FDA are becoming pill pushers that are killing hundreds of thousands in the U.S. (annually). That does not even include the huge number of patients that are irreversibly damaged and maimed. JAMA reported that over 2.2 million hospitalized patients in 1994 had serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and 106,000 were fatal, making these drug reactions the 5th or 6th leading cause of death in the U.S.! JAMA’s conclusion was that “the incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in U.S. hospitals was found to be extremely high”. On 27-July-2004, HealthGrades.com reported that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Part of the problem is the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and influence of government by corporations. Healthcare solutions are needed.

This problem is being severely under-reported, but I did recently hear a warning in the news about the growing problem with Quinilone antibiotics.

That’s not to say that these drugs should be banned. It means they need to be used more carefully. Too many doctors, being wined and dined (which I’ve personally witnessed) are too easy to talk into using some of the newer/riskier medications when older/safer medications would work just fine.

To me, some of this pill pushing (and the complicit FDA) is just as bad (maybe worse) than Habeas Corpus for detainees.

A good many problems we face today are a result of increasing tyranny in government. That might sound extreme, but the proof is there. Spying without a warrant, no Habeas Corpus for detainess, while hypocritically refusing to secure the ports and borders, eminent domain abuse (6 cases per day), selective enforcement of the laws, refusal to enforce some laws (e.g. illegal immigration), abused presidential pardons, pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare while troops risk life and limb and go without body armor, Gerrymandering, voter fraud, a dysfunctional and corrupt legal system, releasing repeat offenders to repeat crimes of rape, child molestation, murder, etc.); violation or insufficient protection of basic rights (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.), and execution and incarceration of innocent people; starting wars based on flawed (or trumped-up) intelligence, alienating our allies, exploiting other nations, plundering of Social Security and pensions systems, an unfair and ridiculously complicated tax system that benefits the wealthy, influence peddling, massive waste, massive debt, borrowing, money-printing, and massive fiscal irresponsibility, and a Congress that is FOR SALE, and consists mostly (if not completely) of irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, do-nothing incumbent politicians.

But we keep re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #189551
Keith asked: And can someone please show me where to find that number (106,000) and don’t say the Lancet.
Data Synthesis.- The overall incidence of serious ADRs was 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2%-8.2%) and of fatal ADRs was 0.32% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.41%) of hospitalized patients. We estimated that in 1994 overall 2 216 000 (1 721 000-2 711 000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106,000 (76 000-137 000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.

That’s an old figure (from the mid 1990’s).
The death rate due to ADRs (Adverse Drug Reactions) is now over 195,000 .

That’s a lot of deaths from medications.
Many of these are avoidable since older/safer drugs are available. My own doctor told me he was reluctant to prescribe newer medications any more because of ADRs (he said he’d been burned too many times by prescribing some of the new medications that the pharmaceuticals were trying to push him to push to patients).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #189556

As I read the law that went into effect, the term “alien” was mentioned ten or eleven times in the actual bill. Alien was defined and clearly is not a US Citizen. I could go back and search the bill again for the exact number of times but it means little if it’s ten or eleven. What’s clear is that this bill does not deal with those who have American citizenship neither does it take away the habeas corpus rights of American citizens. The idea that we should extend those rights of citizenship to alien terrorists is ludicrous.

The idea that is being floated around by many on the left that any US citizen can be identified as an “enemy” and swept up off the streets and disappeared is dead wrong. If you take the bill as a whole, look at all the applications of the term alien, it’s clear that this is not the way US Citizens will be dealt with.

The law is clearly aimed at foreign terrorists, or those among us who are aliens and lend support to foreign terrrorists. I say good riddance.

There is no surrendering of MY civil rights in treating alien terrorist as prisoners of war and those aliens who support them as prisoners of war.

I am not frightened either, William. Not by Bush and not by those who want me to be afraid that all my civil liberties are being taken away from me. That’s a misleading attempt by the left to defeat the war against terrorism. A war I feel must be fought and must be won. I would feel this war needs to be fought no matter who is president. Be it a Bush, a Clinton, or a McCain.

This act does not do remove a US Citizens civil rights. I also am not afraid to wage a war against terrorism.

The fact that these people can be questioned in a tough manner or held for life does not bother me in the least.

Quite frankly I think the terrorists ARE going to WAGE WAR against us for generations and it bothers me little that some of their ranks would be held in prison for the duration of the war.

There is a clear difference here between those who oppose the US terror policy and want to see a US that does not wage war on terrorism and those who support a war on terrorism.

This idea that the US would wage a war in which each and every terrorist can enter our legal system and bog us down with costly law suits and appeals by the thousands that could bankrupt us and bog us down is outrageous. In WWII we held hundreds of thousands and we did not attempt anything so silly. Neither did we attempt this extension of citizen rights in WWI, Vietnam war, Korea war, Spanish American war, or the Civil war.

Demanding citizenship rights for terrorists is the lefts way of opposing the US in it’s war against terror and by the way, it does help the terrorist.

I don’t think the left wants to support terrorism, I think it views actions which support terrorists as necessary to oppose US policy. That they also view the aiding of terrorist as just an undesired consequence of their actions which they are willing to tolerate to achive their goal of ending the war against terror.

Posted by: Stephen at October 22, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #189562

Stephen,

Demanding citizenship rights for terrorists is the lefts way of opposing the US in it’s war against terror and by the way, it does help the terrorist.
Nobody—right or left—wants to give habeas corpus rights to terrorists. The unfortunate fact is that, in order to protect the rights of the innocent and falsely accused, everyone must be given habeas corpus—even if they prove to be terrorists. It is patently and demonstratably true that we have jailed completely innocent people for 3+ years now. Many on the right will never be able to conceive of this critical distinction because in their minds every person accused is a guilty. You’re also ignoring another key point made in this thread—that unless habeas corpus is given to all prisoners you might not get the chance to prove that you’re a citizen, and thus the fact that you may have habeas corpus rights would be moot.

Posted by: Introspective at October 22, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #189565

Introspective

First of all, my response was to the original post not the “thread”. I”m not going to get bogged down in responding to thinly veiled add-on arguements designed to support the crowd that is anti terror-war. I think my first post covered all the basics.

Secondly I don’t buy into your arguement that “Nobody—right or left—wants to give habeas corpus rights to terrorists”.

Of course they do, the left is DEMANDING it day and night. And they clearly are doing so because they want to bog the process down, the process of fighting a war against terrorists. A war which they openly oppose. Hasn’t it been argued on this very blog that this is NOT A WAR but a police action? That the evil George Bush calls it a war to ‘scare us’? So lets be honest here. We know why the left wants to extend these rights to terrorists. The left is dead opposed to the war against terrorists and wants it stopped dead in it’s tracks.


Declaring that those who voted for this law are surrendering our civil rights is an outrageous spin of reality since it does not apply to US citizens at all. Again, oppostion to the bill is largely a deliberate spin designed as a propaganda tool to oppose a war against terrorists.

And we all are grown up enough to know why those facts are being spun in this fashion by the left. They are’t you say? Read the first post, it says just that!

I had a co-worker come in outraged that the “neocons” had taken away his civil rights with this bill. What crap! And he ultimately admitted he hadn’t even read the bill and had no idea what that it only pertained to aliens who are fighting the US. Yup, he also stands in the streets with his wife holding candles opposing all wars except the ones that occur when a democrat is in the Whitehouse.

The people killed by terrorists have lost all rights, including their right to live! All the rights of all the victims of terror are stripped from them without regard by a cruel and intollerant fanatical enemy that wants to do nothing but kill innnocents and to terrorize us. The terrorists have declared war on us, I want us to wage war on them. I want us to fight them with bullets and bombs and kill them over there not fight them as they kill us over here.

I have no problem whatsoever with terrorists and terror supporters being locked away for as long as terrorsts are at war with US. I have no problems at all in locking up those dedicated to killing us in this war at least until the war is over. I have no problem with allowing the military system deal with these people and sort out who is and isn’t a citizen in the rare case we pick up Harry Smith from DC. Gee, maybe they will just look at his drivers liscence and figure out he is US ehh? We have already seen terrorists released turn up on the battle field once again trying to kill more of us. That should not continue to happen.

Hold them until the terrorist attacks against the US stop. Hld them until the war is over. Let them know that we may hold them the rest of their life if they come up against us, let them know we may kill them.

Posted by: Stephen at October 22, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #189566

Tim Crow,

Thanks, although if you take anything from my posts, take them as a warning; no one should suffer the same fate as I. Also, I don’t normally put that link there, simply because I can’t remember the damn thing.

Tim Crow and Adrienne,

I’ve been reading at this site for a lot longer than I’ve been posting, so I’ve seen more of your posts than I could ever count (yes, people are watching you, lol) and I have to say that neither of you should disappear; it would be a terrible shame.

Neo-Con Pilsner,

It’s unfortunate but true that side-effects of medications kill a lot of people.

Stubbing your toe as you walk across your bedroom in the dark trying to find the light switch is unfortunate. The number of people being seriously, sometimes permanently, injured or killed by prescription drugs is an outrage, a travesty and, in my opinion, a horrific crime against humanity.

To meaningfully crunch the numbers, however, you have to look at who would have died anyway with no treatment or no medication.

There is some truth to this statement. Although in the end that mindset can (and has) lead to “They were gonna die anyway, so why not pump them full of chemicals and see what happens.” Also, it relies on what might have happened; a realm of hypotheticals and conjecture which can never be fully verified and therefore will forever remain unquantified.

Experimental treatments are a different subject from what is being discussed here; attempting to conflate the two is somewhat disingenuous.

It’s not as though medications are being forced on otherwise healthy people and then killing them.

This argument is not always true. Over the course of the last 70 years, millions of unborn babies have been poisoned even after the dangers of the drug given to their mothers were thoroughly established. DES, Cipro, Thalidomide, Accutane, etc…

I’m sorry, but looking at medicine from the standpoint that one would approach buying other consumer products, such as a new television, is a false argument. There is no freedom of choice in most instances, especially when emergency rooms are taken into account. If you took your child (assuming you have one) to the doctor because she had an ear infection, and he prescribed her an antibiotic, wouldn’t you expect at least a modicum of safety? Would you expect your child to still be developing new crippling side effects a year after she’d finished taking the drug?

Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument can be used to say that drug companies should then be allowed to prescribe arsenic or cyanide to people, and if the patient is already sick or just simply not educated enough, then too bad for them.

There is a huge difference between basic levels of safety (and disclosure) and perfect safety. The latter is impossible, and anyone who seeks it wastes their time. The problem here is that the former does not exist.

d.a.n.,

I had to leave my computer earlier (can’t sit here for too long), and the whole time I was gone I was formulating some of my responses in my head. You beat me to many of them. Thanks, it’s really heartening to see that my efforts here really did rub off (even though I see that some people don’t like this information); and you saved my fingers a workout.

I would be interested in hearing where you heard about fluoroquinolones in the news though. Was it referring to Public Citizen’s and the Attorney General of Illinois’ recent (woefully inadequate) petition regarding them?

And yes, the key here is that many, if not most, of these problems are completely preventable. Giving the same drug at the same dose to anyone who walks in the door is insane; allowing the drug companies to conduct their own safety trials is only slightly crazier. There are reasons why some people react and some people don’t; some of these reasons are known, some are not, and those which are not should be studied thoroughly (they aren’t, no money in that). Simple blood tests (checking Cytochrome P450 and other liver enzymes for instance) and altering dosages based on the patient’s weight (like they do in some European countries) would prevent some of these reactions.

All

This has gone on too long; I apologize once again to Mr. Cohen for hijacking his thread. My original reference to prescription drugs was meant to merely provide perspective about what American’s are afraid of these days (i.e. terrorism), compared to what will actually kill or hurt them. I could have used car accidents, influenza, etc…, but prescription drugs kill more people and are my specialty and my pet cause; everyone has at least one, welcome to mine.

Unfortunately, these issues are almost never addressed, anywhere, which is why I bring them up so often; I am not engaging in hyperbole when I say that millions of people are either dead or suffering horribly because of this issue (I could tell you stories that would shatter your heart); awareness both for myself and my fellow victims is only a small part of my goal, the rest is a warning to everyone else who sees my writings, so that they do not stumble onto the same path.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 22, 2006 5:55 AM
Comment #189568

Stephen,

First of all, my response was to the original post not the “thread”.
Read: This is the rationalization I am making to avoid addressing the point.
Hasn’t it been argued on this very blog that this is NOT A WAR but a police action?
Read: But when it serves my purpose, it’s okay to reference the greater “blog”, even though I disregard your point for doing so.
Of course they do, the left is DEMANDING it day and night.
Point to one source, anywhere, where the left is demanding this. Hint: the word “prisoner”, does not mean the same thing as the word “terrorist”.
Hasn’t it been argued on this very blog that this is NOT A WAR but a police action?
Only Congress can declare war, and Congress has not done so. Look it up. How you think this translates to those on the left supporting terrorism is beyond me. I suppose you think there’s a literal (or even figurative) war on Christmas as well, just because someone says there is?
Declaring that those who voted for this law are surrendering our civil rights is an outrageous spin of reality since it does not apply to US citizens at all.
And when the experts in Constitutional law that have spoken out against this are proven right and our conservative leaning court strikes it down as unconstitutional as it almost certainly will…that’ll be a prime example of judicial activism, I suppose?
I have no problem with allowing the military system deal with these people and sort out who is and isn’t a citizen in the rare case we pick up Harry Smith from DC. Gee, maybe they will just look at his drivers liscence and figure out he is US ehh?
Oh, hey…that’s a great idea! You do realize that almost every single 9/11 terrorist had a driver’s license, don’t you? You do also realize that many terrorists are citizens, don’t you? You do realize that if you happen to be detained because, say, your political ideology differs from those in power, that it would be oh so easy for your driver’s license to get “lost”, don’t you? It’s ridiculous that I even have to try to explain the problem here to you. It’s even more ridiculous that I’m trying at all, because I know you will never get it.

Posted by: Introspective at October 22, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #189570

Adrienne
Sorry you’re banned. Anyway in response to your thing about the California gubernatorial race, I have a few things to write.
1)Way over-negative campaign distanced lots of voters.
2)Most of Shwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives were good ideas defeated by unions protecting their own before they protected the people. Teachers union, for example.
3)The environmental organizations you name as supporting Angelides are not good organizations in the eyes of all voters. Many people in my area of California revile the Sierra Club.
4)Angelides was a State Treasurer. Like anyone really cares about that. Shwarzenegger was an action hero. And the governator. People do care about that. Its more visible.
5)Republicans have put out way more noise. I regularly see their campaign ads. I have seen a whoping one democrat ad. Who do you think is winning in terms of publicity.
6)Lots of big-name dems almost don’t want Angelides to win, cause they want to run next election. Villaraigosa, Garry Newsom, etc. If Angelides wins they may have to push their run back, which they don’t want to do.
7)Angelides supporting gay marriage isn’t exactly universally popular
8)The Shwarzenegger-Bush loop was obnoxious. This election is about Shwarzenegger and what he can do for California versus Angelides and what he can do for California. Shwarzenegger supporting Bush 4 years ago is irrelevant. It is an appeal to widespread loathing of Bush and in my mind an attempt to target that hatred at Shwarzenegger in a rather desperate try at winning.

Sorry you can’t debate this. Maybe Tim Crow will.

Posted by: Silima at October 22, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #189574

“William, you clearly haven’t read my comments. The first part of my contribution is a quotation from Keith, and the second part was my response.”

My apologies, Paul. I did indeed mistake your quotation from Keith for your own statement.

Posted by: William Cohen at October 22, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #189575

This is just wrong

SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A Democratic congressional candidate accused in a political ad of billing taxpayers for a call to a phone-sex line suggested he may have misdialed the number while trying to reach a state agency.
But Arcuri’s campaign released records showing the call two years ago from his New York City hotel room to the 800-number sex line was followed the next minute by a call to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. The last seven digits of the two numbers are the same.
The ad’s sponsor, the National Republican Congressional Committee, stood by the 30-second message.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 22, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #189576

Adrienne, I’m sorry about what happened to you, and, in my opinion!!! ludicrous!!!! After all, this whole blog is about opinions and beliefs. Who else would agree that having to tolerate trolls and their rhetorical, venomous posts, yet denounce an abviously intelligent and articulate supporter is not cool??? I couldn’t even begin to guess how many times I’ve seen S**T posted this way…and often as part of a name. GO FIGURE………just hang around because I personally find you refreshing !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at October 22, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #189577

I remember the 1960’s and 70’s when we were willing to fight for freedom, for African-Americans, others and ourselves who were disinfranchised from the American dream. It now seems that anyone who stands up for freedom ie: the Bill of Rights in general, or habeus corpus in particular, is branded a traitor ( please remember Lt. Commander Swift who was sacked from the Navy for standing up for his client.) If the rules that are now in place were the standard in the 60’s and 70’s we would have never had the advancement in social programs that we have today. The Freedom Bus Riders and the demonstrators against civil injustice would still be sitting in some unidentified prison to this day. If the rules that are now in place would have been there in 1776, we would still be subjects of the British Crown. President/King George W. The First has finally made good on his promise to destroy the freedom of the average citizen, in order to promote the agenda of the Conservatives Without Conscience (see John Dean’s book of the same title). It is now time for the population of this great country to rise up at the polls and reclaim our moral imperative of the 60’s and 70’s; to replace the arrogant and/or cowardly members of Congress, those who have failed to hold in check the attempt to recreate and promote President/King George W. The First’s version Nixon’s idea of an Imperial Presidendency by replacing those members of Congress who have failed to follow their Constitutional directive. I am very afride of where this nation is headed. It is beginning to look very much like Germany of the 1930’s, just before you know who came to power. When will the troops begin to take the average citizen away to the camps? When will we lose more of our Constitutional rights? It is now time to fight back at the polling Booth. Do not forget our national heritage! Do not forget our Declaration of Independence! Do not forget our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Get up off your butts on November 7th, walk into that polling booth and vote your conscience for the sake of ourselves and the nation. God bless America!!!

Posted by: Roy T. at October 22, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #189591

Stephen, I’m afraid I can’t see taking it in any way other than personally. I also can’t help but think that “gratuitous cursing” is an arbitrary reason to be banned because many people curse in this blog, and some don’t even use asterisks. Reposting the gist of my comment but self censoring it like this: [censored] was the other reason — this was interpreted as mocking the manager, although this was actually never my intention.

Thanks very much Liberal Demon and Sandra.

Liberal Demon, what happened to you after taking doctor-prescribed antibiotics is a truly terrible thing, and I’m so very sorry you are now forced to live with such pain as a result. While the subject of deaths and permanent disabilities due to prescription drugs might be considered off topic for this article, discussing the subject is vitally important one. The alarming message you are delivering is a heads-up that truly should be viewed as public service announcement. Thanks for sharing your experience, your webpage and those stories with all of us.

On a personal note, have you ever thought about trying accupuncture or Chinese herbal medicine to alleviate your pain? Please understand, I am in no way suggesting quackery to you here, but I have read many articles about fully licensed professional MD’s who have also studied such traditional Chinese medicine, and who have begun incorporating such techniques into the regular treatment of their patients. (Btw, many of these doctors can be located on the Pacific Rim of the US.) As a result, some amazing things are being reported about them alleviating the pain and suffering of chronic and debilitating illnesses such as yours. I have even heard of vast improvements being affected on folks who had previously been given little hope regarding their chronic pain, severe allergies, or extreme toxic reactions to things they came in contact with.
Just something you or your family may want to read about or possibly consider looking into further.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 22, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #189596

Hello Everyone,

It is very sad to see all of these liberal democratic individuals to be offending and apologizing to each other when the real enemy of our freedoms is sitting there in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Come on, get over yourselves and focus on the real job here. Are we going to get our freedoms back, or are we going to continue as we have over the last 10 years and fight amongst ourselves and allow President/King George W. The First to win again??????????????? Or maybe the Repubilcans and the Press are right, that with all the Liberal infighting, we can never take control of Congress again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s time to get over our ego-centric selves and do something good for the country. Vote Democratic on November 7th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: roy t. at October 22, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #189604

Pilsner-

“The flopped controversy over his comments about “hot-blooded” Latinos reflected the growing irrelevance in our society of canned PC outrage.

“Hot-blooded Latinos” may be a stereotype which is not always accurate, but I doubt many Latinos were actually offended by it. Some might have even seen it as a compliment. What’s wrong with being hot blooded anyway?”

You know what? I have to admit that that is pretty much exactly what I am seeing to be the case. Many see it as an admittance that they are a force to be reckoned with. I’ll also be brutally honest and admit that after having dated many latina women in my day, they do tend to be on the feisty side. Especially if compared to white women alone. Of course, there are exceptions to any general rule.

I think it showed honesty from our governor, whose popularity seems to derive much more from his personality than his political achievements. I did not agree with his first few years, but he has since gotten almost entirely new advisors and has made huge efforts in latino communities to reach out and bridge the gap. That is something that republican governors from liberal states have been doing increasingly well in recent years (NY and CA notably), and I think the result of what has been coming from the white house during that time has been to work against that and diminish the importance of working with as opposed to working against political rivals.

Adrienne-

Let me just say that I much prefer your posts when they are less passionate and more educational. You do have a good habit of putting interesting things in your posts. And I would never want to see you have to go somewhere else solely because of frustration. Just imagine the politicians who are literally on the record 24 hours a day. Its no wonder they are all alcoholics. We have it pretty good when we can comment honestly about these issues without putting our lives and reputations on the line. But the more we comment, the more we put out there, the more we start having to defend that screen name we use. And I for one want to see “Adrienne” continue to post her honest opinions because I think without you, only that for which you believe in suffers. And even beyond all those of us who enjoy your posts, those who hate them still enjoy reading them too. I guarantee you.

Last thing, about Angeledes, I must say that the guy comes across like a tool. And even, I dare admit, Grey Davis like. The governor in CA is very constrained without backing from the state legislature, and due to our vast use of the amendment process, the people as well. So the best role for a governor to take is that of a unifying leader. This is where the governator shines. He’s a liberal republican who is constantly putting his finger to the wind. Is that not exactly what the majority of people of CA want right now with our unpredictable and constantly changing political landscape?

I believe it is. I don’t hate Angeledes at all. I am insulted by his whole campaign though. And that means many people who are more republican than I am are seeing him that way as well…maybe worst. I really wanted McClinctock in the special election, but I was in NY at the time voting for Bloomberg and Pataki (and I’d vote for Guiliani for pretty much anything at this point). I mention this because I see them to be the best bridge builders. In today’s world, and in complex states where most people are very educated and socially versatile, I find they value that a great deal.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 22, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #189606

Liberal Demon,

I thank you for what you are doing.
Having been prescribed Levaquin once (Yikes!), it opened my eyes to do a bit of research, and the number of deaths (195,000) annually is shocking. But, what is equally shocking is the lack of attention it gets.

This rush to profits via unsafe pill pushing is yet another of many symptoms of growing tyranny, corpocrisy, and an arrogant and elitist government (i.e. elimination of Habeas Corpus for detainees, spying without warrants, starting unnecessary wars, fear mongering, etc., etc., etc.).

The nation is in decline, and politicians of BOTH parties did it, and WE keep re-electing them.

That’s simply the truth. It saddens me when some people still say “VOTE REPUBLICAN” or “VOTE DEMOCRAT”.
Isn’t it immensely apparent yet that party is unimportant?
Here’s the proof.
Look at this graph.
Look at the last 12 years (from 1994 to 2004).
The numbers in both parties are close.
There’s no doubt Republicans have been more corrupt, but he “IN PARTY” usually is.
The main point is that BOTH are corrupt.
Look at how they vote.
Many Democrats helped by going along to get along.
If you really want to help reduce tyranny, reverse things like this elimination of Habeas Corpus for detainees, and get back on a better path, don’t just merely shift power from one party to the other. That is not working. Democrats had the majority for over 70 years before the Republicans got a tiny lead in 1994. Letting them simply take turns is not working. Most (if not all) politicians don’t care about you. They only care about their big money donors. Only 300,000 people in the U.S. make 83% of all federal campaign donations ($2.0 of $2.4 billion in 2004; an average of $6667 per person; what good is your $50 or $150 donation?).

Instead, shift power between government and The People. Send a clear message to Congress.
Consider the PROs and CONs.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #189607

Introspective ,

You are wrong in so many ways. Why does that not surprise me?

I responded to the original thread, I dindn’t even read the discussion that followed. My intent was to respond to the original post and that’s what I did. Your accusation that I was trying to “avoid” a specific point made in further discussions is fabrication on your part. It’s a dishonest statement because not only could you not know that, your statement was false.

I had never read the points that you apparently, emotionaly need me to respond to. I wasn’t interested in them at the time as I was work and did have limited time. I still have not read them, only the responses that followed my post. My goal at that ungodly hour was merely to fire off a responce to the major topic, the original post.

Secondly, in responding to you (we thus move further from the original post and my respoce to it) I referenced the fact that this very blog from time to time has accused Bush of waging a war when it should be a police action. I made that referece to what some of you have posted on this blog because I have read that here and know I am correct. I made a decent point regarding the fact that the left is against the war on terror and using habias corpus as a tool to hinder the war on terror. A point you would rather hide from as you did in your first point, with personal attacks.

Cute point that only congress can declare war. Guess what, they DID when they gave Bush permission to use force in Iraq and Afghanastan. Congress for decades has abdocated it’s war declaring responsibilities by instead permitting the use for force. I think that’s wrong, that congress should get it’s head out of the ground and openly declare war in all these situations where their permission to use force is in reality, war.

Bush went to congress, congress said go ahead. Very flimsy point saying Bush didn’t have permission from congress to fight a war when this very blog has attacked Hillary and Lieberman for giving Bush permission to wage the war he is waging in Iraq. Bush has permission to use force, because congress is afraid of the war term. but not afraid to wage it, as long as they don’t have to say war.

you see, this is why I didn’t read on and attempt to respond to all this add on arguements that you and others would put up after the original post. The number of points that you and the rest of the anti war crowd and prop up from moment to moment are ENDLESS. And my responding to each and every one may give you some emotional satisfaction as you get to attack me and obtain your emotional release…but it’s really a futile exersize. I make a valid point…you move on to the next week straw man, anti war arguement. I know how this game is played.

I prefered my response to be to the original post. To the misleading idea put forward that this bill was an attack on our civil liberties. Or to the misleading idea that this bill was not aimed at Aliens who either are terrorist or support terrorists. And to specificaly address the ver misleading idea that giving US Citizen rights to terrorists was somehow a noble and needed action. It’s not, it’s a slight of hand from the anti war left to make waging a war on terorrist too dificult to continue. A war the left on this very blog has made it clear they oppose and declare Bush does it just as a scare tactic.

I think my original post was very well thought out and i’m not suprised you attacked me for not responding to something elese rather than dealing with my responce to the leading post.

Posted by: Stephen at October 22, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #189612

Again, my response to Williams article without dealing with all the add on issues of others. Hey, now I can clean it up a bit.
————————————————-

As I read the law that went into effect, the term “alien” was mentioned ten or eleven times in the actual bill. Alien was defined and clearly is not a US Citizen. I could go back and search the bill again for the exact number of times but it means little if it’s ten or eleven. What’s clear is that this bill does not pertain to those who have American citizenship, neither does it take away the habeas corpus rights of American citizens. The idea that the US should extend those rights of citizenship to alien terrorists in time of war is ludicrous.

The misleading “fact” is being floated around by many on the left that any US citizen can be identified as an “enemy” and swept up off the streets and disappeared and that claim is dead wrong. The idea that those who voted for this bill surrendered our rights is wrong. If you take the bill as a whole, look at all the applications of the term alien, it’s clear that this is not the way US Citizens will be dealt with and that this bill does not apply to citizens.

The law is clearly aimed at foreign terrorists, or those among us who are aliens and lend support to foreign terrrorists. I say good riddance to them.

There is no surrendering of MY civil rights in treating alien terrorist as prisoners and those aliens who support them as prisoners.

I am not frightened either, William. Not by Bush and neither am I frightened by those fear mongers on the left who want me to be afraid that my civil liberties are being taken away from me.

I see that “civil rights fear” as a misleading attempt by the left to defeat the war against terrorism. A war I feel must be fought and must be won. I would feel this war against terrorists and against those who support them needs to be fought no matter who is president. Be it a Bush, a Clinton, or a McCain.

The fact that these people can be questioned in a tough manner or held for life does not trouble me in the least.

Quite frankly I believe the terrorists ARE going to WAGE WAR against us for at least another generation and it bothers me little that some of their ranks would be held in prison for the duration of the war.

There is a clear difference here between those who oppose the US terror policy and want to see a US that does not wage war on terrorism and those of us who support a war against terrorism.

This idea that the US would wage a war in which each and every terrorist can enter our legal system and bog us down with costly law suits and appeals by the thousands is outrageous. In WWII we held hundreds of thousands and we did not attempt anything so silly. Neither did we attempt this extension of citizen rights in WWI, Vietnam war, Korea war, Spanish American war, or the Civil war.

Demanding citizenship rights for terrorists is the lefts way of opposing the US in it’s war against terror and by the way, it does help the terrorist.

I don’t think the left wants to support terrorism, I think it views actions which incidentally support terrorists as necessary in order to oppose US policy. They view the incidental aiding of terrorist as a necessary byproduct of their actions to oppose the Terror war and the left is willing to tolerate that to achive their goal of ending the war against terror.

But this is a side issue. The main point is that this bill is being deliberately misread in order to support the anti Terror war movement. Anyone who read it can clearly see that this bill does not restrict our civil liberties by any stretch of the imagination.

Read the bill, read all the references in the bill to aliens. It’s wrong to argue against a bill based on facts that are simply invented to support an anti-war point of view. The left is crying that this bill is stripping us of our rights…but they aren’t crying it very loudly because a careful reading of the bill proves that is a false reading of the bill.

Posted by: Stephen at October 22, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #189614

Both parties, and their offspring that hatch, have diluted and distorted the important principles embedded in the US Constitution.

Posted by: ubermike67 at October 22, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #189624

Stephen-

I don’t know of too many people who feel sorry for the terrorists. It is just the simple fact that alleged terrorists and actual terrorists are treated equally under this law. Seeing as how this administration is prone to going forward with bad intelligence, it makes sense that a lot of people would oppose their having the power to use classified information with cannot be seen let alone refuted by the suspect, the power to use coerced evidence, hearsay evidence, and have no mandatory review by a court regardless of a showing of even the most heinous showings of misconduct.

Now I’m not arguing that the government is out kidnapping people and charging them with bogus crimes. I am saying that when this administration gets frustrated or greedy, they do stupid things. So congress should have at least demanded SOME mandatory oversight that makes practical sense. There is so much room for abuse under this current law, it should really raise a lot of red flags around the world. American citizens do travel…even do business overseas. It’s something to consider before backing this new law solely because it MIGHT make it easier to charge and convict terrorists (as well as a lot of innocent people).

After all, we have a pretty decent system already in place which was hardly used. Doesn’t this raise any red flags? The fact that they tried what they thought to be their “slam dunk” cases in federal court and the evidence was considered shaky should make a reasonable person think that there are many cases waiting to be tried with even shakier evidence. All this tells me we need to really focus on information gathering. Good old fashioned work is required. It sucks, but there are no short cuts if you want to get it right. And since we are the most powerful country in the world, I think it is our duty to strive to get it right.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 22, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #189629

Stephen,

Your accusation that I was trying to “avoid” a specific point made in further discussions is fabrication on your part.
Nope. Your original response was not addressed to me, and I have no problem with you saying that you didn’t read the other posts and didn’t want to address those points. Your first paragraph in response to me summed that up nicely, but then you went on… After using that excuse to circumvent my argument, you went on to repeat the same points I was responding to, and even referenced other posts on this blog (without actually linking to anything, I might add) as some kind of proof. I was merely pointing out your inconsistency. If you can’t take the time to read the rest of the thread to formulate a response to me, no problem. But if you’re not going to respond—then don’t respond!
I made a decent point regarding the fact that the left is against the war on terror and using habias corpus as a tool to hinder the war on terror.
You gave an opinion and I asked you to substantiate it with a source that backs it up. You still have not done so.
A point you would rather hide from as you did in your first point, with personal attacks.
I can’t find anything I said to you that is any more of a personal attack than what you’ve said to me. I don’t think either one of us has violated the WatchBlog policy. I disagree with you—but I assure you it’s not personal, and I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
Very flimsy point saying Bush didn’t have permission from congress to fight a war when this very blog has attacked Hillary and Lieberman for giving Bush permission to wage the war he is waging in Iraq.
I didn’t say he didn’t have permission, I said war was not formally declared. I agree that Congress is afraid of the war term (at least when they’re voting), and they are the ones you should have a problem with…after all we wouldn’t be having this discussion if they had done their jobs and actually declared war rather than giving Bush a cop-out rubber stamp. I might add here that the majority of the Congress is certainly not leftward-leaning.
And my responding to each and every one may give you some emotional satisfaction as you get to attack me and obtain your emotional release…but it’s really a futile exersize.
It’s no emotional release, it’s actually quite exhausting and equally futile and I’m sorry I jumped in. Let me repeat once more my point from above—please be consistent! If you can’t be bothered to respond, then don’t respond! What you’ve actually been doing is responding without discussing the points.
I think my original post was very well thought out and i’m not suprised you attacked me for not responding to something elese rather than dealing with my responce to the leading post.
Again, I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I’m not aware of any personal attacks I’ve made against you.

I’m not interested in merely trading personal opinions here. I’d be more than happy to continue this discussion, but only if you’re willing to point to some sources that back up your claims. Otherwise, I’m sorry to have interrupted your talking points.

Posted by: Introspective at October 22, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #189635

Adrienne,

Thank you for the sympathy and your concern.

The alarming message you are delivering is a heads-up that truly should be viewed as public service announcement.

I truly hope that it is taken that way, and that people heed the warning. Every time I find someone who listens, it really lifts my heart. If someone had given me this information two years ago, I’d still have my life, so now I go around and try to give that to other people. Nearly 1 in 10 people worldwide have ingested a drug in the class that hurt me; a 1% reaction rate (probably low) means that 1 in 1000 people in the world are suffering from adverse reactions to fluoroquinolone antibiotics; they are routinely injected into our food supply (as Baytril) as well, so nearly everyone has consumed them in small amounts. The FDA has abandoned the American people.

As to Acupuncture and other forms of Eastern and ‘alternative’ medicines, other victims of this condition have tried nearly every possible healing treatment known to man, with few results, unfortunately. Time really seems to be the only thing that helps any of us, for those lucky enough to heal at all. If it weren’t for the cost and the fact that I am basically housebound, I would consider trying some of them, although most herbs have been proven deleterious for this condition (for reasons I don’t really want to get in to here). Again, thanks for the concern and ideas.

d.a.n.,

You’re preaching to the choir here for the most part. I do believe it’s important to get a Democratic majority somewhere soon, but mostly for the reason of containing the unchecked power and abuses of the other side. I always thought it was bad enough when power was divided between these two groups, but to see what’s happened over the last six years has really made me fear for this country.

I think a lot of people want the Democrats to be the party of the people, the bastion of hope for the little guy. This is totally understandable, and shortly after Bush was elected and I started following his policy decisions, I felt much the same way; I became a Democrat for awhile simply out of revulsion. But after the dust had settled, I looked back and remembered why both parties had disgusted me for so long: the incumbency, the corporatism, the manipulation, the barely contained lust for money and power (I swear you can see some of these people almost drooling over it) and the unwillingness to even play fair and give third parties and independents a chance to compete.

I think (hope) that the Democrats time in the political wilderness will have taught them some humility, but even if that’s the case it will only be temporary; power corrupts.

Thanks again.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 22, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #189642

“Tim Crow and Adrienne, …….I have to say that neither of you should disappear; it would be a terrible shame.”

Ditto that!

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 22, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #189644

Liberal Demon,

Two thumbs up! Neuro damage sucks!

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 22, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #189647

KansasDem,

Doesn’t it? I think I read on another thread that you suffer from Myoclonic Jerks (Periodic Limb Movement Disorder, I think it’s now called)…I feel your pain. Another one of the (seemingly endless) array of adverse effects that fluoroquinlones thrust on my unsuspecting life.

Hope you’re feeling OK.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 22, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #189650

Liberal Demon,

Still reading. Used Dragon Nat Speak for years. Now voice tremors.

I read daily.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 23, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #189677

Stephen,

The law is clearly aimed at foreign terrorists, or those among us who are aliens and lend support to foreign terrrorists. I say good riddance to them.

Wrong.
The law is clearly aimed at foreign “unlawfull enemy combatant” suspects.
Suspect, as not proven guilty yet.

But, yeah, without any rights under Habeas Corpus anymore, thanks to this new law, just being suspect is as being guilty. They don’t even needs to be charged, as under new law, the suspects charging could take, well, forever. No limit on charge qualification. No Habes Corpus.

Being suspects = being guilty.
Being suspects = being legally tortured.

And you agree with that.
Nice of you.

Now check the number of people released of all charge from Gitmo since 2002!
All these former suspects were very lucky in fact, because under new law they’ll be guilty at government will. And we all know how much this government and the people supporting him (you included, it seems) wants it!

The fact that these people can be questioned in a tough manner or held for life does not trouble me in the least.

Say bye bye to any moral high ground for your all lifetime, my pro-suspect-torture friend.
Oh, and don’t forgot to send your CV to KGB CIA & NSA, I’m sure they could find a position for you.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 23, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #189699

Stephen:

“this bill does not pertain to those who have American citizenship, neither does it take away the habeas corpus rights of American citizens. The idea that the US should extend those rights of citizenship to alien terrorists in time of war is ludicrous.”

It’s true that the bill does not apply to US citizens, and I didn’t say that it did. However, it is also not true to say that extending habeus corpus to non-citizens is “ludicrous”. These rights were in fact extended to all people - not citizens, just all human beings - detained by the US, including accused “enemy combatants” at Gitmo. In fact, there are (or were) hundreds of habeus petitions pending from Gitmo detainees, two of which - Rasul v Bush and Hamdan v Bush - went to the Supreme Court.

The bill does indeed take away those rights, my friend, and as such it is a huge step backwards. However, habeus has not been revoked for US citizens, yet.

While we’re on misinformation, it is also not true that detainees have a right to timely trial by a military tribunal - as some on the right claim. Bush can try detainees by tribunal, or he can just leave them to the “harsh interrogators” forever, without presenting any charges at all, ever. Again - that’s not the way we expect other governments to treat our citizens, and it’s not the way we should treat others.

Posted by: William Cohen at October 23, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #189705

So, we’re not to fear terrorists, oops, freedom fighters over here in the blue column, sorry about that, but we are to fear our fellow Americans?

Well, that explains why so many of you are ashamed to be Americans. I would be to if I were to put my country and fellow countrymen second to the murderers who wish us dead.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #189709

Tim,
It’s BECAUSE we’re proud Americans that we do not want to incarcerate and torture innocents. We stand for liberty, for justice, for the American way. What do YOU stand for, my friend?

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #189715

When people who stand accused of something are given rights, it doesn’t mean anyone else is placed second. All of us are placed first that way. That’s why we live in the greatest country in the world. Don’t be ashamed, Tim.

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 23, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #189716
Liberal Demon wrote: d.a.n., You’re preaching to the choir here for the most part. I do believe it’s important to get a Democratic majority somewhere soon, but mostly for the reason of containing the unchecked power and abuses of the other side. I always thought it was bad enough when power was divided between these two groups, but to see what’s happened over the last six years has really made me fear for this country.

True, but voters can accomplish much MORE by refusing to re-elect any irresponsible incumbents in EITHER party (Republican or Democrat).

It is a mistake to re-elect any irresponsible incumbent politicians simply out of fear of the OTHER party. That is exactly why incumbent polticians enjoy a perpetual 90% (or more) re-election rate. BOTH parties understand this, which exactly why they fuel the partisan warfare.

Remember, we have already tried one-party control. Democrats had it for 70 years. Republicans have now had it for 12 years. Republicans had it about 12 years before the Great Depression. We can’t afford to have short memories. BOTH are irresponsible because we keep empowering incumbents of BOTH parties with very high re-election rates (about 90%).

Things like this elimination of Habeas Corpus for detainees is just one of the many other injustices by BOTH main parties.

By re-electing Democrat incumbents, we are merely shifting power from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Do you think that will solve much?

Wouldn’t it be better to balance power between government and The People?

I’d wager now that if Democrats get the majority in 7-Nov-2006, government:

  • will reverse Habeas Corpus for detainees, will end spying without a warrant, but not accomplish much else between 7-Nov-2006 and Nov-2008.

  • will still refuse to pass many of these badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer, reforms
  • will still refuse to enforce existing laws to restrict illegal immigration

  • will increase taxes on the wealthy (perhaps everyone), but will still refuse to pass real tax reform.

  • will still refuse to stop misusing and abusing our U.S. troops for nation-building in Iraq.

  • will still refuse to implement any form of campaign finance reform

  • will still continue massive borrowing, debt, spending, waste, and money-printing; growing the $8.6 trillion National debt even larger.

  • will still refuse to stop eminent domain abuse.

  • will still refuse to stop plundering the Social Security surpluses (now $12.8 trillion in debt).

  • will probably try to implement another, huge, inefficient, mismanaged government healthcare system; have we not learned anything from the gross mismanagement of Social Security and Medicare? It would be better to get the middlemen out of it, and only let government oversee it.

  • will still keep growing government ever larger, to even more nightmarish proporations.

  • will still refuse to stop selling out Americans by giving more advantages to foreign competition.

  • will still keep carrying the water for their big-money-donors, continuing the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and corporate welfare.

  • will still refuse to provide any leadership to reduce our dependency on oil.

  • will still allow the pharmaceuticals and complicit FDA to kill 195,000 Americans per year in their pursuit of profits with inadequately tested drugs.

  • will still continue to allow the plunder of pensions (the PBGC now $450 billion or more in the hole).

  • will still continue to look the other way.

  • will still continue to be the do-nothing congress.

  • will accomplish little (or nothing) and will still blame the OTHER party for everything.

  • will still be irresponsible, corrupt, and fiscally and morally bankrupt.

And, by 2008, voters will be even more unhappy, poorer, deeper in debt, National Debt will be over $10 trillion, the 1% of the U.S. population with 40% of the wealth now will grow to 43% (or more), total nation-wide debt will grow from $42 trillion to $50 trillion, Iraq will still be a quagmire, and the nation will still be in decline.

Maybe by then, voters will start to learn.
Too bad they have to learn the hard way.
Regardless, the voters’ lesson is on the way.
Learn the smart way (stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians, regardless of party) or learn the hard way (keep empowering and rewarded irresponsible incumbent politicians by re-electing them). Take your pick. Which of those sounds more logical. Still, watch blind party loyalty continue to force us to all learn the hard way.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #189720

Steve
Then why should I fear my own President over those who have already proven they wish to destroy our country and have already succeeded in destroying some of us?
Why should I understand, respect and presume suspected terrorists are “innocent” until proven guilty, but yet the left won’t offer the same to their own President?

The left wants suspected terrorists to be treated more fairly than they are willing to treat their own President, how is that not placing a fellow American second?

I’m not ashamed to be an American, I’m ashamed of how the left is so willing to have different sets of rules in order to push their political agenda and how nothing else matters except getting power.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #189732

kctim,

Why should I understand, respect and presume suspected terrorists are “innocent” until proven guilty, but yet the left won’t offer the same to their own President?

So far, Bush is neither arrested or tortured or charged or detained or had lost his Habeas Corpus right, AFAIK. Right?
So what are you talking about?!?
Respect? Are you really arguing the “left” don’t respect Bush as much as they want we respect suspects human rights?

Stop kidding yourself.

The left wants suspected terrorists to be treated more fairly than they are willing to treat their own President, how is that not placing a fellow American second?

Back this claim, because it’s too hillarious to even considering argue about it!
I’m already figuring Bush being treated “fairly” like any suspected terrorists. Bush waterboarded, live, 8PM on FoxNews: “I dunno where are the VMDs. I swear Sir, I’m not these military guys you think I am!”

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 23, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #189738

President Bush seems very confident that Reps will win on election day, how can we be so sure that the election is not already rigged.

Posted by: gobi at October 23, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #189743

PH
The left does not offer their own President the same understanding and respect that they offer the “poor” terrorists they say the US creates.

To hilarious for you?
No viable proof has come forward which shows President Bush knowingly lied. Is the left waiting for an investigation before they start condemning him? Nope. Are they assuming he is innocent until proven guilty of these charges? Nope.
So why do they demand terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but they won’t demand the same thing for their own President?
Yeah, thats real hilarious.

Gobi
“how can we be so sure that the election is not already rigged”

If the left wins, then they will say the elections weren’t rigged. If the left loses, then they will say the elections were rigged.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #189769

kctim,

The left does not offer their own President the same understanding and respect that they offer the “poor” terrorists suspects they say the US creates imprisons.
Nobody is asking you to respect or understand anyone, we’re just asking that these suspects are given the basic rights we all deserve for being human beings.
So why do they demand terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but they won’t demand the same thing for their own President?
Key difference here, see if you can grasp it: the President is not on trial or being punished for any crime. Terrorist suspects are being tortured and punished without evidence, and with little to no chance of ever getting a trial.

The evidence that the President lied is far stronger than the evidence that many of these captives were involved with terrorism.

Posted by: Introspective at October 23, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #189792

Tim,
GIANT difference between thinking someone lied, and locking them away incommunicado. Maybe throw in some extreme interrogation methods. No one on Watchblog has called for throwing Bush in jail with no lawyer and throwing the key away.

Who is asking you do do that to the prez? Certainly not me. I want him to have all the due process and habeus corpus he wants. In fact, I want that for everyone, because they are American values.

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 23, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #189844

d.a.n.,

You’d be proud of me today, sir. Just got done filling out my mail-in ballot: anti-incumbent all the way down the line (although it was really easy to do so).

kctim,

Arguing in favor of the suspension of Habeas Corpus is arguing in favor of the indefinite detention of innocent people; simply because, without some form of trials, there is no way to positively discern guilt.

It is truly sickening that, in light of the evidence that we have already detained and abused innocent people for years at a time (even rendering an innocent man to Syria with foreknowledge that he would be tortured upon arrival; a direct violation of the Geneva conventions), instead of reprimanding those responsible and demanding greater oversight, we have sought to codify these practices into law.

The majority of the people on the left simply want the President and his administration investigated for perceived offenses, not thrown into a detention center and stripped of his rights without due process; much of the frustration you see stems from the fact that neither branch of the Legislature is fulfilling their Constitutionally mandated task of Executive oversight. There is a world of difference between trying someone in the court of public opinion (as on this blog) and actually sentencing them.

It is our duty as American citizens to demand accountability when it comes to our elected officials in defense of our nation and the Constitution.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 24, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #189845

kctim,

The left does not offer their own President the same understanding and respect that they offer the “poor” terrorists they say the US creates.

Suspects! Not terrorists, but terrorists suspects.
It really make ALL the difference. Sad you still can’t see it.

To hilarious for you?

Okay, I stand corrected. In fact it’s very sad.

No viable proof has come forward which shows President Bush knowingly lied. Is the left waiting for an investigation before they start condemning him? Nope. Are they assuming he is innocent until proven guilty of these charges? Nope.

Show me the charge and the trial Bush got.
Otherwise, it’s just your opinion, unbacked by fact. Quite the contrary: Bush was not charged, putted on trial or recognized guilty under any US legal justice body. Prove me wrong, please.

Meanwhile, stop confusing left being very critical and eventually hatefull at Bush actions with arrestating suspects of terrorism, denying them the basic right to defend themselves and eventually subtmitting them to torture, all *legally*. Because it’s making you very embarassing, if not immoral.

So why do they demand terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but they won’t demand the same thing for their own President?

Again, prove us that Bush was declared guilty by any US justice body. Or stop this ridiculous rethoric.

If the left wins, then they will say the elections weren’t rigged. If the left loses, then they will say the elections were rigged.

Thanks for untrusty voting system, I guess whatever the side who will lost it will say elections were rigged. Bring trust back into voting system is the solution here.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #189851

20 Foot Fence Brilliant: 21 Foot Ladders: Now on Sale by Juan Garcia & Sons: A Border Store Near You

The current Republican plan to build a multibillion dollar 20 foot fence around the US border is a fantastic idea!! It should be started immediately and not a day latter!!

By the way we sell a types of 21 foot ladders, extension ladders, rope ladders, sectional ladders, fold up ladders, grappling hooks, and mesh ladders. We have the finest selection at any one of our border stores near you. We offer east terms and easy credit in fact we have lay away and pay as you go plans available.

Remember Garcia & Sons since 1821.

Posted by: Thomas Love at October 24, 2006 7:12 AM
Comment #189862

Liberal Demon
I did not argue in favor of such. In fact, I believe it is wrong to not have some kind of process for suspected terrorists who are not an American citizen.

PH
“Again, prove us that Bush was declared guilty by any US justice body. Or stop this ridiculous rethoric”

The left has been declared President Bush guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and have been working day and night to make this the belief of the people. Can they prove it without any reasonable doubt? No.
I may be comparing the court of public opinion to that of law but the way people should be treated in both is the same.

Intro
“Nobody is asking you to respect or understand anyone, we’re just asking that these suspects are given the basic rights we all deserve for being human beings.”

Yeah, I haven’t said I disagree with that have I? They don’t deserve American citizen rights but they do deserve some.

“Key difference here, see if you can grasp it: the President is not on trial or being punished for any crime.”

The left has placed the President on trial since day one and they try to punish him daily. Not for any crimes, no, but for nothing else than differing ideologies.
Can you grasp that? Or does that not really exist?

“Terrorist suspects are being tortured and punished without evidence, and with little to no chance of ever getting a trial.”

They were detained because their actions made them suspects. Even circumstantial evidence is worthy of holding someone on.
I do believe they should get a trial though.

“The evidence that the President lied is far stronger than the evidence that many of these captives were involved with terrorism”

In your OPINION, yes.
IMO, it could be that President Bush may have lied and it could be that terrorist suspects are lying.
I just prefer to side with my fellow Americans.

Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #189907

kctim,

I may be comparing the court of public opinion to that of law but the way people should be treated in both is the same.

Except people treated by the law, this new one included, are not. Not at all.
Which is the point.

“Terrorist suspects are being tortured and punished without evidence, and with little to no chance of ever getting a trial.”

They were detained because their actions made them suspects. Even circumstantial evidence is worthy of holding someone on.

Is it only me or you’re actually exchanging tortured and punished with detained here?

IMO, it could be that President Bush may have lied and it could be that terrorist suspects are lying. I just prefer to side with my fellow Americans.

I just prefer to side with human rights. You make this a binary choice limited to siding with US government or terrorist suspects.
IMHO, it’s not one, but if want me to take necessarly one of these two sides only, then I take the side of the weakest.

No! Not Bush! ;-)
The suspects without Habeas Corpus.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #189948

PH
Not all detainees are being tortured. The majority are questioned and those deemed to have valuable information are questioned harder to get that information. There is a process which is followed and protocols which are obeyed.
Call it torture if you want, I do not.

“You make this a binary choice limited to siding with US government or terrorist suspects”

Exactly. You side with the weakest, the terrorist suspects, but you are not an American. Your choice does not offend me nor does it matter to me. Just as my opinions about your country should not matter to you.

It is those Americans who demand terrorists be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty but will not offer their own President the same, that makes me shake my head.

Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #189970

kctim,

They were detained because their actions made them suspects. Even circumstantial evidence is worthy of holding someone on.
And you would know that…how? Incidentally, since you’re so keen on us treating Bush as fairly as these terrorists suspects…we have enough circumstantial evidence to hold Bush on war crimes many times over.
Not all detainees are being tortured.
Oh, just the “guilty” ones, I suppose?
There is a process which is followed and protocols which are obeyed.
I’m sure there is, but it is a process that is being determined at will by this administration, and without any consideration for basic human rights. There is no accountability here, NONE. The administration can now commit war crimes at will, and this new law waives them of culpability—for both past and future actions.
Just as my opinions about your country should not matter to you.
In my opinion, as an American, Philippe has a better understanding of America and American values than you. Your choice does not offend me but it DOES matter to me—it makes me fear that American is lost, and the terrorists have won, because so many of us have lost their grasp on what it means to be American. Bush has done more to destroy our way of life than Bin Laden ever could, and you want me to respect him for that?

Posted by: Introspective at October 24, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #189978

Introspective
Contrary to what you want to be true, we are not just rounding up muslims for the fun of it. Those who have been detained have given a reason for being detained.

“Oh, just the “guilty” ones, I suppose?”

MMM, kind of. The ones who, after initial questioning, have given reason to be further questioned. I guess you could call them the “guilty” ones if you want.

“I’m sure there is, but it is a process that is being determined at will by this administration, and without any consideration for basic human rights.”

Yes, the standard Dem line nowadays.
Fact is, our military is trained to handle prisoners and we have more consideration for basic human rights than any other country in the entire world.


“There is no accountability here, NONE.”

Yes there is. To think there isn’t is just partisan scare tactics and a total lie.

“The administration can now commit war crimes at will, and this new law waives them of culpability—for both past and future actions”

First, your wish to be able to convict your own President and fellow Americans of what YOU deem as “war crimes” is very telling and the left trying to use this for political reasons by scare tactics is very sad.

“In my opinion, as an American, Philippe has a better understanding of America and American values than you.”

No, he has a better understanding of American values as seen by YOU.
I believe in fair play and letting everybody live as they wish. No more, no less.
It is my refusing to accept to live by YOUR values that irks you.

“Your choice does not offend me but it DOES matter to me—it makes me fear that American is lost, and the terrorists have won, because so many of us have lost their grasp on what it means to be American”

Funny, I feel the same to be true of the liberals. They have no idea what the Constitution means, only what they want it to mean.

But do me a favor please, could you tell me exactly where I said I was in favor of the legislation?

Thank you.

Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #189983

kctim-

“There is no accountability here, NONE.”

Yes there is. To think there isn’t is just partisan scare tactics and a total lie.

-Where is this accountability? And a total lie? I see no mandatory review by any non-military court…seems to me to be at least partially true, and very potentially completely true.

You seem to be basing your justifications for defending the law on the idea that the US military has “more consideration for basic human rights than any other country in the entire world.” Well, I’d like to see you prove that. And also, I think it has already been made painfully clear that the whole reason people dislike these new laws is that they could be easily manipulated and corrupted in the future and with no review, we wouldn’t even be able to know about, let alone fix the problem when and if it does arise.

I for one, even despite the fact that our nation has historically been relatively just to war criminals, do not trust that the government will never be corrupt in the future.

And if what is currently being sold as “security” legislation is any indication of how trustworthy the government really is when they get involved, then I’m absolutely certain that I want checks and balences whereever I can get them. It won’t cause terrorists to go free unless the intel is bad to begin with. I don’t know too many potential American jurors who would not give the government prosecutors the benefit of the doubt when they were prosecuting actual terrorists. But the fact is they want to make their jobs easier and they don’t want to be held accountable for screwing up. Well screw that. If we’re the greatest nation, and have great respect for human rights, then we should act like it and get good intelligence, good investigators, and prosecute these bastards. We should stop acting like idiots and rounding up people based on uncredible info, and then instead of admitting as much after a few of you “slam dunk” cases are found to have huge holes, this administration tries to change the laws to effectively protect the “guess work” they are currently doing, and all the while rack up convictions so they look to the public as if they are doing something about terrorism.

It has nothing to do with protecting or being soft on terrorists. It has everything to do with knowing what we’re doing before we do it. Only THEN can we know how to put effective pressure on terrorists. And knowing what your doing requires planning and a whole lot of work. It does not require a willingness to do something, anything, and at all costs.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 24, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #189984

kctim,

Contrary to what you want to be true, we are not just rounding up muslims for the fun of it. Those who have been detained have given a reason for being detained.
First, it’s certainly not just muslims being detained. Second, in light of all the mistakes this administration has made, and the large number of detainees that have later been found to be innocent of all charges, it’s unbelievable that we would even consider detaining them indefinitely and without habeus corpus. Third, I don’t imagine you have any better idea than I do why the vast majority of suspects have been detained, so that’s just speculation on your part.
But do me a favor please, could you tell me exactly where I said I was in favor of the legislation?
Perhaps it was a (very reasonable) assumption that you were for it, considering you were taking the opposite stand to those that were against it, and because it is the topic of this thread. Are you saying you are not in favor of it?

Posted by: Introspective at October 24, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #190112

kctim,

I did not argue in favor of such. In fact, I believe it is wrong to not have some kind of process for suspected terrorists who are not an American citizen.

That is good to hear, my apologies if I misconstrued your argument; however some of your responses in this thread have been somewhat vague on this particular issue.

For example, you said:

The left has been declared President Bush guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and have been working day and night to make this the belief of the people. Can they prove it without any reasonable doubt?

Now, considering that you believe that it is wrong to not grant adequate processes for determining guilt or innocence for suspected terrorists, and we know that the Bush administration has been doing exactly that, would this not therefore make the Bush administration guilty of wrongdoing?

Again, like I alluded to in my last post, it seems you are painting with a rather broad brush, arguing from the standpoint of what “the left” is doing and wants to do, without discerning whom exactly you are referencing. Evidence of wrongdoing should immediately prompt investigations; much of the rhetoric, frustration and outright disgust that you see directed at this administration are a response to their actions and to the glaring absence of any wide-ranging Legislative or Judicial oversight.

I fail to understand why, if you oppose the actions of this administration, you now seem to be showing animosity to those who it would seem you agree with.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 25, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #190145

Kevin
Can you name one country who treats their POW’s better than we treat ours?


Introspective
I am not in favor of holding Americans without representation. I realize a liberal govt will soon be in power in our country and I don’t want them to have that kind of power.
The thought of more Americans being murdered by their own govt sickens me.
Enemy POW’s are different in my view. Holding them until the fight is done does nothing but protect our own soldiers lives.
Those detained not on the battlefield though, should be afforded the chance to prove they are innocent.

I am not taking the “opposite” side of those against it as much as I am saying our country would be better off if people were willing to apply the same set of rules to their political opponents.
I believe this administration may be guilty of some of the things the left hopes, but I will withhold judgement until they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The left wants terrorists to treated as such, innocent until proven guilty, but they choose not to treat their own the same way. That is where we differ. I believe all should be innocent until proven guilty.

Liberal Demon
I show “animosity” towards those I kind of agree with because they choose not to apply their own President the same “right” in which they wish to bestow upon suspected terrorists.
I don’t believe suspected terrorist should face a firing squad before they are proven guilty and I don’t believe my own President should be treated like crap or convicted before it is proven, with facts, that he is guilty.

Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #190168
Can you name one country who treats their POW’s better than we treat ours?

US actually hold POWs!? I though they were all qualified unlawfull illegal combatants these days.
You can’t have both way.

Beside, only a nation at war every decades could brag how its POWs are treated…

Enemy POW’s are different in my view. Holding them until the fight is done does nothing but protect our own soldiers lives.

Aka Geneva Convention by the textbook.

Those detained not on the battlefield though, should be afforded the chance to prove they are innocent.

Problem here is in urban warfare it’s hard to sort out enemies from civilians on the battlefield. Both *fields* overlaps. I say in the doubt, assume innocence, when others say in doubt assume guilty. That’s a major difference.

Anyway, without Habeas Corpus, there’s no doubt anymore. Problem fixed! Ye-ah.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 25, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #190386
d.a.n., You’d be proud of me today, sir. Just got done filling out my mail-in ballot: anti-incumbent all the way down the line (although it was really easy to do so).

Alright ! ! !
Fantastic ! ! !
I’ll be doing the same in a few more days.
Thanks !

Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #190514

kctim-

“Can you name one country who treats their POW’s better than we treat ours?”

Yes. Every other civilized nation on earth. It never used to be that way. Their law requires them to abide by the geneva convention and tell you what you are charged with, let you see the evidence against you, give you a fair trial, not engage in torture, not use unreliable evidence like hearsay, and they will even allow for some form of review if you show misconduct. Very sad that we can no longer say this, isn’t it?

All so that one party can claim to be tougher on terror than the other party. And yet again, nevermind the fact that they did not even use the perfectly good process already available to them. Why? Because they can’t prove a damn thing under legitimate scrutiny.

There is no shortcuts to getting good information, and thus good prosecutions. Changing the rules of the game to suit the player is just an ass backwards tactic for lazy, and unconfident people.

I have more respect for my great country than to say that the best we can do is lower the bar. You should too.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 2:11 PM
Post a comment