George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

that's it? that's all you got?i dunno, tal. maybe the words "declare" and "war" should be in it somewhere. i clearly outlined that declarations of war and authorization of force are two different things. this is very basic american civics and american history material, not to mention common sense. do you really not know that there has been no formal declaration since world war two? that declaration i posted was the most recent. everything after that point, the korean war, vietnam, desert storm, were all military actions, not actual wars. there have only been five declared wars in our nations history.here's two more declarations of war, one against germany, and one against bulgaria. see any similarities? here's one for italy, too. it's practically a form letter.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-02-2006 04:51 PM

---

No really, it is illegal, that is why they are now banking on the argument that we should want it, rather than direct appeals to the law. Even if war has been declared by the US, not all rights go out the window and not all power shifts to the President.But let's put that aside for a second, I'm curious about what you feel would be illegal for Bush to do at this point. Is there anything he could do, or be caught doing, that is a violation of law or of the Constitution?In post 184 above I outlined a potential plan Bush could introduce. I'm wondering if you feel that would be constitutional and anyone complaining about their rights get considered aiding and abetting the enemy?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

War is so different these days. Back in WWI, men marched in a line to their deaths, wearing bright uniforms! 1 million died in one battle! Today, the new war is a war of ideologies...loyalties...and no clear "good guy". I mean seriously....even Bush says that the U.S. is addicted to oil! It is the truth! There is the early signs of a world competing for limited resources.The C.I.A. drones in the sky are getting better at survellance....but we are spending upwards of a Trillian dollars to protect "our way" of life....the idea of Patroitism is itself almost an idolatry in a strict orthodox Christian interpretation of values!

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Then it's not really a war, is it?Don't get me wrong. There's definately a conflict of cultures and ideologies. But cultures and ideologies are always in conflict. If the principles and freedoms that define our way of life can simply be suspended any time we suspect some people don't like us, then why have them at all?People like Tal want to have it both ways. They want to rid their party of the civil restrictions we place on a peacetime president and claim for themselves the righteous indignation of being the "good guys", but they don't want any of the consequences of war, like wartime taxation, national sacrifice, and a responsibility to prosecute the war above considerations of politics. Republicans want a war that they're not expected to win, merely to give the impression of holding the moral high ground.I mean, you want to talk about "aid and comfort to the enemy" - the Bush administration literally handed over 200 tons of high explosives to the insurgency. Literally just gave them to them. Those are the same explosives now being used in the IEDs that decimate our troops (and killed one of my best friends last year.)How's that for aiding the enemy? And, of course, there were no consequences at the election, because they own all the voting machines.

quote:

---

But let's put that aside for a second, I'm curious about what you feel would be illegal for Bush to do at this point. Is there anything he could do, or be caught doing, that is a violation of law or of the Constitution?

---

Maybe lying about a blowjob?

come on schraf. take one for the team.

---

My semen-stained dress is red.Is that OK?

as long as we can match the dna.and for god's sake, don't take it to the dry cleaners!

---

Part of living is a free country is ACCEPTING the responsbilities and risks that come from having a free society.In my opinion, anyone that wants to surrender any of their fundamental rights because they fear terrorists is a coward. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin I'm really disappointed at how cowardly many Americans are. I know that 9/11 was a horrific incident... but worse things have happened before and will happen again. Force and authoritarianism do not win conflicts like this.... Ideals do. You can not beat the enemy by becoming the enemy.Everytime we surrender freedom we lose another battle against the terrorists.Part of living in the Uniited States is accepting the responsibilities and risks that come with freedom.It scares that people don't realize what is happening. The terrorists NEVER have to attack again to beat us. They have already TRICKED this country into surrendering it's own freedom buy preying on the cowardice of our citizens. Al-Queda can make empty threats and laugh as we surrender freedom after freedom.It's a very, very sad thing that is happening.... I hope that there are more brave Americans out there that will stand up for our way of life.

Well put, and perhaps one might also ask just because someone hates me, why do I have to change so that I hate myself? If my values are against theirs and I am proud of it and believe it is the KEY to a good life and success, why would I embrace theirs? Isn't that surrendering? Heheheh... you forgot. First he handed them the explosives and then he said "bring it on" (specifically meaning "attack our troops"). I don't see how a dem would have ever survived that mistake and the resulting carnage. That was not just aiding and abetting, it was incitement to kill our troops.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

But that wasn't during a time of WAR! See if he had been a wartime president Clinton could certainly have been excused. Maybe he needed to relax so that he could make better decisions for the troops, or keep morale up among his staff (uh, his people staff). And it would be absolutely essential that no discredit befall the president during wartime and so weaken our position (globally).If Bush were caught doing this I am sure it would be lauded how MANLY such an act was, and how anyone pointing out he claimed it had not happened earlier would be aiding and abedding (I mean abetting) the enemy.In any case it would not be open to scrutiny by investigators or courts. Remember Bush and Dick have been able to hide who they met with and what they talked about, because of the need for executive secrecy in private meetings. That is even with the overt shadow of financial and legal wrongdoing hanging over those meetings (which almost certainly included people later indicted in conspiratorial financial wrongdoings on the same subject as those meetings). THAT is covered by executive privelege, yet a staffer coming in to give the president a hummer is not, when the investigation relates to a financial scandal outside the white house.What would not surprise me is if such investigations were able to be launched, they'd find Bush and Dick owned a few dresses with energy exec dna splashed over them.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Awesomely delicious.I will only add that pretty much the rest of the world has followed suit. All those nations which caved to US pressure regarding Iraq were equally cowards in this case. They gave up international law to get in bed with Bush, for protection... of what? If international law goes out the window, what's the point? That's the liberty of nations.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I must have missed all of this. Got a link? Sounds interesting.

rotflmao*then shaking my head sadly at the truth of it*

Well put.Hey, did anyone else wince when President Bush said in his State of the Union Address how if he had had the capability to do then what he is doing now, that maybe we (he) could have prevented 9/11? I was livid...I was screaming at my radio (I was unable to watch him on TV). What a pile of horse crap. I cannot stand how this administration continues to use fear tactics to justify their activities. Once again he brings up 9/11 as justification for doing whatever the hell he pleases . and scaring Americans into allowing him to do so. Boils my blood!First off, they were warned by the outgoing Clinton administration to be on the watch and on guard against Al Qaeda and Osama...but they chose to ignore the advice and instead focus on preventing gays from marrying, and stopping stem cell research.Second, if the CIA would have simply placed the names of those individuals that attended the meeting in...was it Malaysia?(...the location escapes me right now)...on the terrorist watch list, that would have had a far better chance of preventing 9/11 than any wire tapping of phone conversations.And lastly, what we are vociferously complaining about is the warrantless wiretaps of U.S. Citizens. We’re not saying that wiretaps should not be allowed. What we are saying is, is that if you’re going to wiretap a citizen of this country, you need to obtain a warrant. I do not believe that any of the 9/11 hijackers were U.S. Citizens, so as I understand it, they (the NSA) could/should have even then been listening in on their conversations anyway. Am I correct on this?