Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Hi Matt,

Like you I’m torn. Going after al Qaeda cells in this country calls for extrordinary measures fot the obvious reasons.

Spying on Americans is problematic for obvious reasons as well.

If the Bush guys didn’t have a tendency to consider everybody who disagrees with them an enemy I’d be inclined to give Bush more latitude. That of course is problematic as if you give one president latitude then you give the next one latitude as well in most cases.

I think part of the problem with Bush is that he’s consistantly shown contempt for good government……if you have a bad government spying on it’s citizens then you have a problem.

This is one of these issues where I’m highly suspicious of simplistic opinions. I read this as a tricky one.

Bah!!! Any who disagree with our Fearless Leader are traitors who love Bin Ladin and hate America!!! We must spy on our Citizens!!! Everyone knows 49% of the population are unamerican!!! Why… just last week I saw a bunch of Quakers buy some groceries. They must be planning to poison our food!!!

It’s ironic. When I grew up republicans were anti-government involvement. They wanted it out of their lives. They were all for small government. Liberals were the ones for government involvement. Fast forward almost twenty years and now liberals are shouting about government involvement and the conservatives are shouting for more. I am perplexed.

Matt,

This is a will written piece and I applaud your courage to question this administration. I don’t think anyone in America doesn’t want our government to protect us. That goes for the red and the blue side. Most of us suspect that eavesdropping occurs. However, in order to check and balance power we have laws that should be followed. In this case an “after-the-fact” warrant should have been obtained. Ah, but alas, that leaves a paper trail….

Protect us, but follow our laws and respect our rights as Americans. I have friends that live over-seas. Will my conversations be listnened in on? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything to hide but my friends and I often talk about downloading music from share-ware sights. Okay, I know it’s not necessarily legal (but hell I bought most of the LP’s and cassette tapes years ago). Could this “eaves-dropping” result in my prosecution for downloading music I purchased on a different media years ago?

Be careful, Big Brother Is Watching…..

A word from Desmond Tutu:

“Tutu recalled teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., when Bush won re-election in 2004. “I was shocked,” he said, “because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view.” Tutu made these comments to me exactly a year ago next week. I haven’t seen any reaction from him about the latest eavesdropping revelations, but I doubt he is remotely surprised at the U.S. president’s response: a defense of the tactic, together with a warning that the government would launch an investigation to find out who leaked the news to The New York Times.”

I don’t know whether we can declare war in the classic sense against a group of people, and I’m not sure I would want to, given the puzzle of who would offer their surrender if we won, if anybody.

I think we should create a permanent policy for engaging terrorists with. No rhetoric about a war on terror, no screaming hysteria about being in a time of crisis or war (unless there’s an actual fight going on, as it is now.) No, what we should have are options laid out and defenses created for dealing with this problem.

We should be prepared to use all appropriate means at our disposal, including law enforcement, espionage, diplomacy, and if need be, war. It shouldn’t be this mess of quasi-legal, amoral, questionable policies it is now. We shouldn’t be leaving our borders and or vulnerable points wide open for their attacks. No, it’s necessary that all branches of government come together to create a sustainable, usable strategy. Nothing will be perfect, but we got have higher standards for our defenses than our enemies have for their attacks. If we look at 9/11 and other attacks, we can see their standards have been pretty high. Our standards should be, accordingly, just as elevated.

I welcome that you are willing to ask the tough questions of your leaders. We all should be willing to do so. When we fail to ask the tough questions of our leaders, we fail to exercise the call for accountability that is our birthright as Americans to use.

Matt:

Thank you for a well-thought out post. I just wanted to address one point:

One arguemtn I have heard is that getting warrants takes time, and time was a precious commodity. Hogwash!! I am no expert on the procedures to obtain a warrant, but I suspect that in emergencies warrants can be gotten in relatively short order.

Under FISA, in emergency situations wiretapping can begin immediately and continue for up to 72 hours with the approval of the attorney general as long as the AG notifies the court and applies for a warrant as soon as possible within that 72 hour period. Here is the relevant text.

Quandary? What quandary?

Matt you do a fine job of laying out some of the issues here, but any classic liberal or libertarian should not be torn about THIS reaching of Presidential power.

The quandary would have arisen if we had discovered that Bush had been using legal means - going through FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) to obtain warrants - to authorize surveillance, but had done so very widely and in possibly questionable cases, ususally beginning the surveillance and then obtaining the warrants after the fact as is allowed.

All indications are that FISA is very liberal in granting warrants, and THE PROCEDURES DO NOT REQUIRE ANY DELAY IN STARTING THE SURVEILLANCE and FISA’S DELIBERATIONS REMAIN SECRET. Following the law here would not have hampered any necessary surveillance to protect our security.

The only explanations I see for Bush going around the secret security court are either that he was initiating surveillance that he knew was questionable, or that he simply wanted to extend the power of the Presidency and flout the law.

I’m all for spying on the truly bad guys to keep us safe, but we had a system that allowed the executive branch to do just without tipping our hand, while remaining accountable for its actions through an independent secret court. Judge James Robertson, assigned to the court by Justice Rehnquist has resigned in reaction to this news, expressing through friends “deep concern that the NSA surveillance program, which was personally authorized by President Bush in 2002, was legally questionable and may have tainted the court’s work.”

In the George Will column you reference Matt, Will suggests that “conservatives’ wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.”

What quandary indeed!

A few more classic liberals, libertarians, and conservatives, and indeed any lovers of the Constitution are now having to recognize that this Administration is not defending our precious freedoms when they operate outside of the law, avoiding the accountability that all Americans should demand of our government.

Thanks for the clear-headed post. I think that most nonblogging Americans probably feel a similar ambivalence to yours (and mine).

Thanks for the clear-headed post.

Sorry, I should have specified that this was directed at Matt’s article.

Good post Matt.

I want to make two additional points about the ‘restrictions’ that this administration thought were a hinderance - first, the FISA court has rejected 4 requests since its inception - that’s about as close to a rubber stamp as you can get; second, 11 of the 12 judges were appointed by Rehnquist.

If Bush did not think a near rubber stamp, right-wing court would not cooperate with his wiretapping, what exactly was going on?

Matt, you make some very good points
one that you have left out on the side of not getting warrants is the very reason we are dicussing this….secrecy…the more people that know about this wiretapping, the greater the chance of the enemy finding out about it….and the very fact that it is out now, proves my point

actually David,

the fact that it is out proves my point - it was leaked by agency insiders who had real concerns about the legality of the policy.

The fact that the NYTimes kept it quiet for over a year proves that there are people outside the West Wing who can keep secrets better than the people inside the West Wing.

I’m sorry, but if this were done by any beloved leader of the US, I would have to say it’s time for impeachment and conviction or abdication. The constitution, which he is sworn to uphold and protect, has been flagrantly violated by this president, and, unfortunately, there is no legal justification for unilaterally undertaking domestic surveillance in contravention of the Bill of Rights, other than the naked arrogation of power. It is EXACTLY this abuse for which the Bill of Rights was created. It is especially sad that this has occurred in the midst of our ongoing struggle with terrorism and the intractable situation we have forced in Iraq.

My only hope is that somehow Dick Cheney is also involved and that both will be removed so that a more responsible member of the Republican party can take over the reins and straighten out the mess this administration has created. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, would be in charge, I believe.

David:

Matt, you make some very good points one that you have left out on the side of not getting warrants is the very reason we are dicussing this….secrecy…the more people that know about this wiretapping, the greater the chance of the enemy finding out about it….and the very fact that it is out now, proves my point

Let’s accept your premise for a moment, that applying for a warrant increases the risk of that information getting out to the enemy. I’d like you to pretend, just for a moment, that you are that enemy. Exactly what would the information that Bush is wiretapping internation calls to and from America do, for you?

First of all, you can’t possibly be surprised by the news. Your boss is Osama bin Laden. He was trained by the CIA when they were fighting Russia. Do you really think there’s anyone in the world who isn’t aware that wiretaps were used by the US during the cold war against Russian spies? So it’s pretty likely that your boss would be aware of this possibility and have briefed you on it long before now.

Next, even if it was completely new information that the US uses wiretaps in these sorts of investigations (an idea belied by various old action movies that yes, you can even get in the middle east by now) what good does that information do you? Without phone calls how do you communicate internationally? Snail mail? That can be searched too. Email? Wiretapping can get that as well. Unless you’re buying up old KGB toys to make secure calls, chances are you’re screwed, and even if that were the case we’ve probably already cracked their security by now. Especially with modern computer power at our disposal.

Seriously, short of switching over to carrier pigeon for communication, which would be rather impractical at these distances, how would you benefit from knowing any of this?

CPadams wrote:
The fact that the NYTimes kept it quiet for over a year proves that there are people outside the West Wing who can keep secrets better than the people inside the West Wing.

They kept it quiet because the white house told them to. They wanted to run with it when they first found out.

OK, color me simplistic on this one…

I cannot find any constitutional justification for spying an Americans within our borders. In fact, we are protected against warrantless searches by the 4th Amendment.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I suppose someone could argue that wiretapping international communications is not “unreasonable.” But for those of you who are ready to concede that point, then why not simply allow the government to listen to all of conversations? After all, it might be equally reasonable to assume that ANY conversation might involve some sort of national security risk. I caould be calling a terrorist in Indiana just as easily as one in Pakistan. Additionally, modern communications enable me to be mobile and agile: why sit at home, and call from a land-line? So, that opens the Pandora’s Box; the government would need broad authority to listen in to everyone at all times. George Orwell’s worst nightmare come true. (VOIP and cellular technologies allow anyone to make a call from anywhere to anywhere; by “skipping” the signal between IP addresses and cell carriers, the call can be virtually untraceable!)

Sorry, but I am not torn by this one. I do not want the government listening in to me or my neighbors without could cause. My privacy is one of those freedoms I cherish above any other, and government intrusion cannot be tolerated. There is a reason that right is protected in the Bill of Rights; it was one of the principle grievances levied against the British Monarchy by the Founders. I am not ready to cede what they fought for.

Sorry, Mr. President. I respect the fact that you feel obligated to protect us from our enemies. But trampling on the Constitution is not the way to do it! Go to a FISA court (hey, the law allows you to begin a tap, as long as you get a warrant within 72 hours), get a warrant, and proceed. If the court says no justification, then go back and try again.

We elected you President; we did not coronate you!!

David,

The white house ASKED them to keep it quiet and the NYT and the journalists agreed and made sure that no one heard about it until they were ready to publish. Even the publishers writing the book by the journalist kept the story quiet.

By the way, people on left are questioning the NYT for keeping it secret in the middle of the 2004 election (this point is for all who think the NYT “timed” the release for maximum political impact - they missed that bullseye by 15 months!)

My point was that Bush’s “need” for secrecy is belied by the fact that people in the private sector had this information and did not reveal it - so explain to me again why conservative judges can’t be trusted?

I’d like one person to attempt an explanation for why Bush went around the conservative surveillance court?

The people he avoided/thought would leak information are conservative judges appointed by Rehnquist. It’s not like any of them were picked to navigate some crazy confirmation process. Nope, Rehnquist answered to no one when he appointed them.

11 of 12, bonafide conservative judges that Bush went out of his way to circumvent. And conservatives on this site don’t think there might be more here.

OK, here’s one more for you, related to the Bush administrations abuse of power:

J Michael Luttig, ultra conservative judge from Tyler, TX, so conservative he was on the Democratic fillibuster list for SCOTUS, with a judicial record long enough to guarantee a deep, acrimonious partisan battle, REJECTED the Bush administration’s attempt to transfer Jose Padilla’s case out of military jurisdiction and thus prevent the Supreme Court from hearing his case.

Folks, there are all sorts of smart, partisan, impeccably credentialed conservatives who are raising questions about the Bush administrations approach to rights.

What does that say for the conservatives on this site who say “fine by me, do whatever you want”?

I applaud your courage to question this administration

It should (and does) not require courage to “question this administration.” In a true democratic republic, it should be standard operating procedure for everyone.

It’s kind of funny talking about things like this so many years after 1984.

Does anyone remember the evil empire and the fact that they had 1000’s of warheads pointed at us? Do you remember that it was reported that the evil empire had a warhead in it’s embassy in D.C.? Wasn’t that a more fearful time then a couple of rag heads with box cutters storming a cockpit. Wow, imagine Bush as president against the Russians. We’d all be dead by now. But hey, keep preaching the FEAR FACTOR, everyone is buying it, well at least 51% of the idiots in this country. Good job republicans, you make me proud.

All those excuses are BS, even a 3rd grader knows how to talk in “code”. The only point in eavesdropping on everyone is Big-Brother McCarthyism. Like Jeff alluded, the next thing is omnipresent “telescreens”.

I think alot of regulars are either on there way home for the long weekend (Merry Christmas to all!) or possibly waiting for another topic because there is no comfortable place to go on this issue.

Dave

Define for me what you mean by McCarthyism.

CPAdams,
While I hope for the sake of the Republicans that this issue is just another example of the “Total Incompetence,” I can not say that the thought of something involving the WHIMP group in the Whitehouse and the “Race to War” campaign of 2002 hasn’t crossed my mind a time or two.

It is for this reason that all Americans need to stop and think over the next week or so and ask themselve if “We the People” for a moment can even think of our “Establishment” acting above the law. Because is that not the exact same reason given by the current Establishment in our Society to their Elders back in the Late 60’s ane Early 70’s?

Congress and the Whitehouse needs to hear a clear message from all Americans that states No One can operate above the law regardless of their actions and beliefs. In this manner our generation can at least attempt to keep Common Sense in The Law.

You alleged conservatives and alleged classical liberals, who are “torn” and conflicted, calling this situation a “quandary” and a “dilemma”, are an embarrassment.

It’s very simple, people: there are laws against wiretapping and spying on US citizens without a warrant. The laws do not and should not make exceptions for time of war. The constitution’s fourth amendment says the same thing, with no exception granted for time of war. Where’s the quandry?

I mean this stuff is so obviously wrong it’s like reading about the Soviet secret police or the Nazi brown shirts. How can you possibly have any difficulty calling this spade a spade?

You’ve probably heard this before but it’s so true and so pertinent that I cannot resist posting it yet again on yet another so-called conservative blog site, from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither.”

If you sincerely believe that the little temporary security you will gain from accepting warrantless wiretapping is worth the sacrifice of liberty, I sincerely believe you deserve neither. And you’ll probably get neither.

“Necessity is the plea of every infringment of human freedom. It is the arguement of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt

Past and present government officials and employees have spied on American citizens.

Robert Bork was spied upon during his confirmation hearings.

Clarence Thomas had his trash gone through while he to was going through confirmation hearings.

Michael Steele had credit records taken illegally by employees of Sen. Charles Schummer.

Aldrich Ames had his home broken into at the order of Janet Reno who did not have the authority to do so.

The IRS has had surveillance on me from 1975 to 1997. They audited me every year during that span and took liquid assets that amounted to more than they claimed I owed. The claims BTW were bogus. I am still waiting for thousands of dollars they took illegally from me. I will never see it. They reason for the IRS action is that I got a state revenue agent fired for illegal activity. It was retribution. My case was not national security related.

This goes on all the time. Clinton used the IRS to brow beat people during his presidency.

Have the wrong doers been punished in the Bork, Thomas, Schummer, Ames cases? NO. Should they? Off course they should. But they won’t be.

National security is one thing and political hackery is another.

THAT CRAZY AMERICAN QUILT

The Extreme Left: “He’s a terrible leader! Where are the true greats such as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot when you need them?”

The Nader Left: “You know, this could all be avoid by yoga in the public schools, nuclear freezes, legalized hemp, instant runoff voting and solar-powered Segways.”

The Regular Left: “He’s a fascist dictator who abhors freedoms and tramples Constitutional law. And, even if he didn’t break the law, he’s still a lying, religious zealot nut who should be impeached. It’s all a conservative plot. Let’s use this for political advantage!”

The Moderate Center: “This is worrisome but let’s find out what really happened. Start with closed hearings, then move to a full investigation if nececessary. Let’s keep the pressure on to find out what’s been happening but not use this for political advantage. After all, there really are terrorists out there. Be careful but don’t sell our national soul out of fear.”

The Regular Right: “He broke no laws, and even if he did, he’s a tough guy we need in a time of crisis. You’ve got to crack a few constitutional eggs in times of terror. The world has changed. He’s modern-day Lincoln with a learning disability and funny ears. It’s all a liberal plot. Let’s use this for political advantage!”

The Libertarian Right: “He did what???? Damn it, next time I really do vote for Badnarik!”

Far Right: “Heil Bush! Forty more years! Forty more years!”

I still can’t believe that anyone thinks this is a topic that needs debating. Folks, the only thing debatable here is whether or not this President has acted in an impeachable manner.

As far as I can tell, he has directly violated the terms of the 4th Amendment. I heard his speach regarding how Article II gives the President the authority to wiretap us. It was eerily reminiscent of another President, 30 years ago. The only thing missing was the “I am not a crook” tagline.

And the only thing scarier is that he honestly believes he has not done wrong. He is becoming Big Brother, George Orwell’s compendium of the leader gone mad with power who believes that he is looking out for the common man while tearing out the common man’s soul.

BTW, great Franklin quote!

The fact is the government has amazing latitude when it comes to wire tapping and survaling us. Hell they can pick out a suspected cell and start listening in on them right away, they can even take the weekend off and then some before asking for a warrant(they have a 72 hour window) I am hard pressed to think of a rule this flexible when it comes to dealing with a bureaucracy. Yet it wanst good enough for W. This is just one more shameful over reach by this adminstration in an attempt for absolute power.

Go ahead spin this one out of control ditto heads but if this was Clinton doing this the blue dress would never have been an issue, he would have long since impeached.

I’m not torn at all.

As a classic liberal (libertarian) it is perfectly clear that we have a set of rules and codes that the government must live by. They can not just be simply ignored. If during a time of war or need the government goes through the specific set of rules to allow increased surveilance, then it must do so. It cannot simply ignore these processes as it sees fit to do so, otherwise NO limits or laws are hard-fast and dependable. Any could be ‘resoned’ around.

So, if the administration broke those laws, they should be punsihed. If not, if they stayed within the laws then even though we might disagree with the actions, they were legal.

Really, it is just that simple. I guess I don’t understand the dilema.

Rhinehold,
“So, if the administration broke those laws, they should be punsihed. If not, if they stayed within the laws then even though we might disagree with the actions, they were legal. Really, it is just that simple. I guess I don’t understand the dilema.”

Partisan bickering is always going to cloud sound reasoning. That’s why such a big deal is being made of our President ordering NSA to listen in on international phone calls from or to known members of Al Qaeda, and this is AFTER 9/11. AFTER! There’s proof right there that “sound reasoning” is trumped by political, partisan inanity.

So, that’s the dilemma we’re in and it looks as though it’s impossible to get out of.

No, Rahdigly, it doesn;t matter if it was before, after, or DURING 9/11, I see no reason why the government has to be breaking the law when there is no need for it. If they WANT to they can suspend Habius Corpus. But they didn’t. If they WANT to they can suspend the constitution temporarily, etc… But there are steps that the government has to go through. If they do that, then fine, they operated properly. Otherwise they didn’t. I don’t care that it was after 9/11, there are simple processes that the government can take to stay legal. I don’t accept that they can’t follow the law.

Rhinehold,

Well, the terrorist like to hear that coming from Americans; that means it’s easier to attack us and the harder for the US to stop them.

I for one see reason for the gov’t to protect us and do what they need to do to keep us safe. In fact, many, many Americans feel that way. I’d like to see a poll on how many Americans are in favor of the gov’t spying on Al Qaeda’s int’l phone calls to terrorists cells in the US. Now, that would be an interesting poll, don’t you think?!

After reading this I have gained a considerable amount of respect for the conservative base. Well thought out and non apologietic. It just goes to show at out heart both liberals and conservatives are the same AMERICAN. I agree there is very little in the way of defending violating the very heart of what he was supposed to be defending. I also can understand, to a small degree, why it happened. In a sense it started with the cold war. We have been in a war without boarders, more agianst ideaology that countries, for more than fifty years. The cold war, the war on drugs the war on terrorism, it’s no longer a war but a way of life. The lines all of a sudden became clearer when we had a clearly defined enemy in Al-Queda and Osama Bin Lauden. We rightly went after him full guns blazing and were willing to do anything to stop him. It gave the president a moment of clarity of mission. That moment has past. We are now back to that vague no real dicernable enemy that lurks somewhere on the edge of our concious reality. We as Americans want our president and our rights to reflect that. We are not willing to comrimise our rights indefinately with only the vague notion of war as a rationalization.
Just my humble opinion anyway take it for what it’s worth.

Will someone please tell me why Bush didn’t get a retroactive warrant.

“Will someone please tell me why Bush didn’t get a retroactive warrant.”

If he can’t answer that to the satisfaction of the American people he should face impeachment.

Jeff, Clinton certainly did push the enevelope of “civil liberties” at Waco and with Elian Gonzalez, not saying that he was wrong in doing that. He also circumvented the FISA process with his warrantless search of Aldrich Ames, again he was right in doing that. Had Clinton “surveilled” foreign communique, we might have known a little more about what Al Qaeda was up to.

I have a better poll to propose…let’s find out how many Americans would vote in favor of keeping our Constitution. I’d wager right now that fifty-one percent (Bushe’s Babies) would vote against it.

Why not take a poll on this blog?

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa…I meant that poll post to be directed to rahdigly.

I for one see reason for the gov’t to protect us and do what they need to do to keep us safe. In fact, many, many Americans feel that way. I’d like to see a poll on how many Americans are in favor of the gov’t spying on Al Qaeda’s int’l phone calls to terrorists cells in the US. Now, that would be an interesting poll, don’t you think?!

Yes, many Americans see reasons for the government to keep us safe. In fact, many classic liberals/conservatives would argue that’s one of the few legitimate roles for government. But that doesn’t mean it should be done outside the law. If the government wants to spy on calls to al Qaida operatives inside the U.S., there is a legal mechanism to do so.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” We’d be wise to keep that in mind.

I am thrilled to see such generally common ground regarding this topic. Too often, our partisan blinders keep us from criticizing those of our political persuasion, but blind faith is a dead-end road.

I for one see reason for the gov’t to protect us and do what they need to do to keep us safe. In fact, many, many Americans feel that way. I’d like to see a poll on how many Americans are in favor of the gov’t spying on Al Qaeda’s int’l phone calls to terrorists cells in the US. Now, that would be an interesting poll, don�t you think?!

rahdigly,

Phrasing it that way, yes you will probably get very high poll numbers in favor. What would more interesting is if your poll question was: Would you be in favor of the government conducting warrantless surveillance on Americans making international calls?

Rhinehold,

Well, the terrorist like to hear that coming from Americans; that means it’s easier to attack us and the harder for the US to stop them

Oh what a load of crap. The terrorists are more happy to hear that their actions, or just threat of action, have us ready to turn on each other, tear up our constitution and limit our freedoms, the ones they hate us for having, than they are to hear that someone is questioning the legality of an action by the government.

And there was no reason that the president didn’t follow the law, it wouldn’t have prevented him from the surveilance. i don’t know if he needed to or not, that’s being investigated I’m sure. But if he did and could have avoided breaking it by simply getting after the fact warrants, then it sounds more to me like he was lazy and broke the law for no reason.

Either way, don’t come at me with the ‘it makes the terrorist happy garbage, we are giving them what they want already.

What if the president did technically break the law by spying on domestic AQ without a warrant? Should we then release said AQ so that they may carry out their plans? Or merely estimate who they planned to attack and execute them? Sometimes I really do think the ACLU and these far left types are breathlessly waiting for the Republic to fall.

Release the Barrett Report! Freedon of information act!

Hi All,

I do believe that this is not a partisan issue. Each side should and (for the most part) is concerned with the balancing act of defending our principles and our safety.

This debate should make all of us uncomfortable. If it doesn’t then I fear for us.

Conservatives for the rule of law and minimal government that they have championed for so long.

Liberals for the insistance of protecting the “Bill of Rights” even if it might mean we lose a criminl to a “technicality” once in a while.

Libertarians that any role for government is natinal defense and stay our of everything else, including our phone calls and e-mails. If it must be done for national defense then use the law. (I really hope I paraphrased that right. If I didn’t, then please forgive me and it is really not central to my argument.)

In other words, all Americans have an interest in minimal governmental interference and protecting us from enemies.

The changes in beliefs of the parties that has been mentioned is the same problem that is seen in parlimentary governments. Neiter major pary is stong enough to win on their own.

Thus, steps in the extremests on both sides. If a party wants to have their support then they need to adjust the party’s position enough to satisfy this small minority.

The tail is now waving the dog.

I believe this is how the Republican party came to be considered the only “Christian/Moral” party.

Evidence the Holiday Card stink! The Conservative-Christian element believes that they were the ones that brought the President to power and he owes them!

Evidence the abortion issue. I am a Democrat. Okay? It has become a plank in the platform. Whether or not most moderat Democrats and/or Republicans believe in the right to choose… it is now a tool for the Republicans to claim the “Moral” title and also get the votes of the people that are more concerned about other things..

In other words, Republicans that might believe in the right to choose along with the Dems. but are voting Republican because of other issues.

Same with the gun control issues. I live in a state that loves to hunt and cares about the 2nd Amendment but not about the rest of the Republican agenda… but because they see the Demcrats wanting to eliminate all guns (a distortion of the Democrats based on silly 30 second commercials), they are willing to vote Republican.

Adherence to our laws and form of government must be first! This should not and cannot be a partisan issue.

If the laws are inadequate, then the executive branch MUST go to congress and let them create the legislation that they are mandated to do. If they do, great for everyone. If they don’t, then that is how America works and we need to deal with it.

Terrorists are not some insane illogical beast. We wish to think so. But that would not help in dealing with the issues and finding solutions. People kill themselves as well as others for a reason. We may not understand or agree with the reasons and they may be or seem to be insane to us.

Disruption of the victims lives. Fear that their government cannot protect them. Forcing America to alter its behavior… it might be to change their ways in the Middle-east, to make America an Islamic state, whatever.

They understand that it is a process. They DID NOT BELIEVE that crashing those airplanes on 9-11 would cause the immediate achievement of their goals. Their thinking is longer termed than that.

Brick by brick, attack by attack, limiting one speech in Congress because of “concern” of giving aid to the enemy or not supporting our troops, one civil liberty at a time, one law at a time ignored…

ONCE AGAIN
This debate should make all of us uncomfortable. If it doesn’t then I fear for us.

The way Repubs post here, you’d think there was a plank in the party platform encouraging Presidential eaves-dropping and key-hole peeking…have they no pride in conservativism?

Marysdude

If that is a plank then it makes for a very unstable platform.

I don’t want to talk bad about another person’s party, but in this case I will make an exception. (Full disclousure, I am a life long Democrat, possibly Liberal depending on your definition, a diabled Vet and close to getting my teaching license to become a social science teacher. This is just so people may choose their favorite stereotype if they wish to attack)

I was telling my daughter if you wish to follow the logic of a Conservative be sure to leave bread crumbs and take some asprin.

Conservative attack the Liberal/Democrats for “relative morality”. Their belief? That the law is the law is the law. That the beliefs are based on Christian morality and our laws and rules of behavior may only be valid and adhered to from this perspective.

Please all, this is NOT my saying this.

Evidence the judge in Alabama that insisted on the 10 Commandments. His reasoning? That our laws were based on Juedo-Christian beliefs and this would reflect that. I guess he believes that he cannot judge the rules of law without this. Could make a Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddist pretty uncomfortable, don’t you think?

Supplemental thoughts: This judge along with Meirs (whom the President listed as one of her qulaifications for being a Supreme Court Judge was she was a “Good Christian”.

If a person who is a “Good Christian” takes and oath to God to faithfully apply the law without prejudice runs into a situation where the law conflicts with their religous beliefs do they:
a) Side with the law (which makes them the same as a Liberal where they violate God’s law for secular purposes and that is “relative morality”.
b) Violate their oath to God and rule based on their religous convictions and not on the law? (This entails breaking an oath to God where they do something they swore they would not do.)

Evidence the instistance that schools cannot teach morality if the Christian context is taken out. Morality cannot be based on what is good for the individual or society, it must be based on a God and be absolute values.

Evidence it wasn’t about the oral sex, it was about the lying. The main point here is that honesty is absolute and cannot be shaded. Personally, I did not like what was done, but I could not argue about the lie and let the President take his lumps wihtout saying a word.

I can understand a Republican wishing to defend his President. I support that.

What I do not support and which shows the inconsistency in the Conservative stance is those not willing to see IF a law was violated.

Most people and politicans are not saying that he DID break the law. What is being said is that there are concerns based upon what we know now and the only way to find out is to investigate.

A Republican and a Conservative SHOULD say (and the Liberals and Democrats are saying) that if a law was violated then there needs to be a trial. This can only be determined by going through our legal process.

As so many Conservative like to point out in a clear loud voice, “If a person has nothing to hide then he shouldn’t fear if the government…”

Let us see if the Conservative are more concerned with the consistency of their beliefs or are willing to sacrafice them for partisan politics.

Morality isn’t what you think… it is what you do! (Outside of the religous belief that God knows our thoughts and we can sin in our minds).

Merry Christmas

I am not near as worried about the President using the surveilance against terrorists and their friends as I am about the damage that pornography, anti-religion and teaching that there is nothing wrong about homosexualism and allowing teachers and school textbooks to teach that the USA is totally wrong about nearly everything….
fredc

Fred,

Please cite some examples so I can make sure that when I teach I can consider these things. I really do want to be as fair as I can in the classroom.

Anti-religion would imply that there was an active attempt to censor or persecute religion. As far as I know, there has not been incidents of this by our Government. Not wanting to participate in the holidays, rites or observances of a religion is not anti-religion.

*People are still free to worship
*Churches still have tax free status
*No religous leader submits his sermons or opinions to a governmental agency for approval.
*People are still allowed to say that homosexuality violates their religion or nature or whatever.
* Pat Robertson is still free to go on TV and suggest the killing of another nation’s leader (whether we like what he says or not)

As a point, we seem to want to demand that the government respect our place as the majoiry in our society. This is in violation of the Constitution. Please think about the Christians (especially on Christmas day) who live in a country where they are the minority.

Do you not think that they would love to live in a country where REAL censorship and persecution wasn’t being done to them?

Sir, the only hope they have is that one day there might be a rule of law in their nation which separates the church/mosque from their government and lets each person worship God in their own way.

Anyone insisting that the government needs to support their beliefs because they are the majority gives up the right to demand that another government respect the religion of their minority.

A light touch by government in our lives would be a good thing. Would it not? Are you suggesting that the government be involved in who loves who? Does that also maybe include race? Inter-racial marriage were once legally banned. I would believe that this is not a role for government. Some countries (Greece when I was married there restricted the marriage to Christian to Christian marriages only. My Christian friend had to come to America to marry his Jewish girlfriend).

Sir, I have completed a couple of Masters degree classes in education. Also, as an educator I have a collection of textbooks used over the years so I can understand the differences that time has on what is taught.

Possibly you could give me some examples where we are teaching that America was wrong about just about everything?

I have no problems wishing you and all a Merry Christmas.

Please pray for those who really do need the protection a Constitution and rule of law allows in their practing their faith.

I, personally, don’t like the “flip-flopping” on this issue either, but let’s not forget that we all don’t absorb at the same rate. I have posted this on another thread, but it applies here as well so here it goes:
CHECKS & BALANCES! CHECKS & BALANCES! CHECKS & BALANCES! CHECKS & BALANCES! Doesn’t anyone hear this?! This is one of the basic fundamentals that our country was formed on. What has happened to it? All in the governement are accountable! Forget the popular vote, lawmakers are voted in based on the electorial vote. What?! These bills that are pushed through are not even read in full by those who are voting on them?! That issue touches all party affiliations. So what IS the real issue here? Laziness? As individual citizens that isn’t true across the board, but as a mass, as a country, YES IT IS! We have CHOSEN to give away our power. We give it away to the government because we are too lazy to get more involved. We give it away to big business because we CHOOSE to be manipulated as consumers. Are you kidding me? This isn’t about President Bush. Ask yourself: When was the last time I stood up and FOUGHT for an injustice? Did I just ignore it because it didn’t directly affect my daily life? Becareful now, because the last of the patriots are being squashed out by lawmakers who overstep their boundaries and the constitution. Who, then, shall fight when there are no fighters left? Besides, WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?!!!!!!!! Wake up, America!
Please don’t confuse the passion for aggression. I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND PEOPLE LIKE CINDY SHEEHAN! So what if you don’t agree with her. I admire her ability to get attention for her cause in this country and around the world. GOOD FOR HER! To those who adversely disagree with this administration and the conduct of the rest of the government, where are you?! Blogging? How is that making demands? Why can’t we rally together? Is it too hard to uproot our families and leave our jobs? Laziness? Turn off the boob tube, turn off the radio, get up off your butts and hit the streets running. Help people like me make our voices heard as THE PEOPLE for real! After all WE are THE PEOPLE. I’m tired of the citing of past blunders and the partisan questions that subsequently follow. I don’t even need to post them. We’ve read them. Come on! DO something about it! How comfortable you must be sitting in your comfy home or office with a little extra time on your hands to “vent.” Oh, boy! Those who are corrupt laugh at you. Did you know that?
And because I can see how quickly the partisan fur can fly around here, I must reiterate these facts before I go: I am NOT attacking parties here. I AM attacking the lack of physical effort to get up and DO something. I am NOT being aggressive. I AM passionate about this country and the cornerstones upon which it was built. I do NOT care if you agree with me or disagree with me. You’ve stated your piece, so now what? Is that where the buck stops?
To most on this particular thread, THANK YOU for keeping the partisan bull crap to a minimum. I can appreciate that. I do hope, however, that those who disagree with me at least consider what I’ve said in a constructive way. I ask that much along with a plea for you to stop talking and start doing, no matter what you believe in.
Just my opinion.

Karen,
I understand and I agree. That is why I chose education here in my midlife to go into. Speficically social science and I hope middle school.

When I was in the service I was stationed in Greece. Loved the country and the people, but for the life of me I couldn’t understand why we were there.

That is when history came alive for me. I read about the Truman Doctrine… I was living the Truman Doctrine. I read the Marshall Plan.

America is not in the specifics of the Constitution… whether or not this comma means this or that. It is in the broader concepts… the ideals that inspire us. Rise us (more I wish) above partisan politics and instead of being Democrats or Republicans being Americans first.

I love what Sheehan was doing. Of the People, By the People and For the People. I loved the people protesting against the war as out troops were crossing the border into Iraq. I loved the troops risking everything by going into Iraq at the request of their government.

I did not believe the reasons leading up to the invasion. I knew enough about the Islamic faith and the Kurds, Shiites and Sunni to know that it would not be a welcome arms and new government right away.

I supported Rep. Murtha’s call though I did not agree with him. He is a Congressional Representative an he was doing what he was sworn to do.

None of these actions conflict with patriotism… our American soldiers are the most educated and best trained people in the world. They understand why they are there… and it is to protect those that do not have a popular message.

That was my experience with being in the service for 10 years. We knew what we were doing and why we were doing it. To imply that disagreeing with the war or our President because of a war situation is misleading and politicizing the people serving.

Many who hear I will be a teacher have a reaction of “Oh Dear God, those poor children.” That may be because I attempt to dialog with people of the other party but too often I hear cliches as read from some website or heard on some talk radio.

But for me, this is the America I do believe in.