George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

That is slightly true, but as Jar says under current rules there is no way to determine who is being held. Directly after 911 there were round ups and detentions for times without hearings of US citizens. That may be over now, but that doesn't mean Bush didn't do it.In any case, let's get back to the Constitutional under discussion now. It seems as if George Bush has something to say on this. What's that George? From a speech on the US Patriot act, given April 20, 2004. Now you aren't going to argue with W are you?Please let the press pick that up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So that's a moot point, right? It has no impact on my statement whatsoever unless we KNOW US citizens are detained. In any case, I'm not advocating gitmo detainees (nor am I opposed), I'm stating that the US imprisoning its own citizens without trial is worse, in my opinion, than imprisoning non-US citizens w/out trial.Theodoric:
Do you have evidence these people AREN'T terrorists? If not, it's pretty pointless arguing this hypothetical. Until demonstrated otherwise, I will trust that the right people have been detained.Dan: Jose Padilla? You mean the gang member and convicted murderer who palled around with Al Qaeda buddies, went to Iraq and was just charged with "providing - and conspiring to provide - material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas".That Jose Padilla? Yeah, I'm all broken up over what happened to him. I mean, if the govt can do that to a guy like him, then it can... wait a second, I'm nothing like him nor is 99.9% of the US.Why am I supposed to feel sorry for him again?

I don't want hear any more of the argument that CLinton started Echelon in that puts him in same position as Bush.1) Even if it were true, it still doesnt make Bush ok to do it.
2) IT ISN"T EVEN TRUEUse critical analysis when you read stuff on the web. Drudge is not always correct and usually he isn't.What Drudge says:Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”What Clinton actually signed:Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.ThinkProgress

Dude, you seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I'm the guy who AGREED that illegal wiretaps are bad. BAD! All I did was rank them in order of their enormity.1- Imprisoning innocent US citizens without charge or trial (Japanese internment camps)2- Wiretapping US citizens w/out a warrant.3- Detaining/Imprisoning non-US citizens w/out charge or trial.I suppose that scumbag Padilla falls somewhere between 2 and 3 although as far as I'm concerned he relinquished his citizenship when he went to Iraq.Did Bush exceed his constitutional authority to tap US citizens - it certainly seems so. I want to see who else (senators) were involved.
I still regard it as a lesser injustice than the internment camps even if congress went along with it.Congress also went along with slavery for years and I would consider that to be a greater injustice than any yet cited.Holmes, you seem to get hung up on the 'legality' of the injustice. That's why I think you let your dislike for Dubya sway you. No way is a few hundred wiretaps of suspected terrorists even close to internment or slavery - both sanctioned by the other branches of govt at the time.

How do you know that you are nothing like him?Bush, and his gang of thugs might arrest you tomorrow, and hold you incommunicado. Then they might release a pile of propoganda painting you as even worse than Padilla is supposed to be.In the meantime, the rest of us could sit back, see the propoganda, and persuade ourselves that we are safe because we are nothing like you.

---

Impeach Bush.

If we even know someone has been dissappeared.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I didn't realise you guys had dropped the presumption of innnocence.

nwr, I just for some reason looked at your avatar and username and came up with "Nut wielding rodent". The brain works (or not) in mysterious ways! ABEGood post by the way. If the government is allowed to hold US citizens secretly, then we have lost all our rights as citizens.This message has been edited by kjsimons, 12-21-2005 12:19 PM

I don't beleive he ever went to Iraq. Would have been kind of stupid since Saddam wouldn't want anyone like that in Iraq. The thing is we have no idea what Padilla did. That is the issue he was held for 3 years with no charges. The government made some sort of announcement about a dirty bomb, but no evidence was ever announced.
Padilla, arrested as he stepped off a flight from Pakistan, was initially held on suspicion of planning a so-called "dirty bomb" attack inside the US. However the November 2005 indictment makes no mention of that allegation. Instead Padilla is charged with aiding terrorists and conspiracy to murder US nationals overseas.There is rule of law. Without that we are not a democratic country.

You're kidding, right? Let me count the ways:1- I was never in a gang
2- I don't have a police record
3- I never murdered someone
4- I was never convicted of murder
5- I have never even MET anyone convicted of murder
6- I never went to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan
7- I actually FOUGHT against Saddam Hussein
8- I was decorated for fighting against Saddam HusseinI can unequivocally say, I am NOTHING like this guy. Into conspiracies much? Gee wiz guy, you can try to make it sound like Jose was just your average ordinary Jose before the Bush cronies got a hold of him, but how did they go back in time and make him a murdering scumbag?Hate to break it to you but most of the time good citizens don't get framed by the big bad government. In fact, I'd bet my life that it almost never happens. Oh wait, I already have.

And your evidence for this position would be???? Actually we DO have an idea about what he did: he went to Afghanistan and Iraq. At least if you aren't a govt conspiracy theorist who believes the US is crucifying this poor innocent man for? For what reason exactly?

Yeah I got that. My main point was that US citizens can very well get arrested and so your worst case is possible and pretty much has been done. I'm still trying to figure out what one thing has to do with another. I am "hung up" because an obvious crime has been commited by a person who is unrepentant, and wishes to continue. It is both an overt crime (FISA and another) and breaks the Constitution in two places.When you have a clip of Bush stating quite clearly that that is what is expected because Americans do expect that protection under the Constitution, it shows that even his press people understood that it is a hot button issue.It was a hot button issue during the Clinton administration as well as can be seen in the link Tal provided (as ironic as that is).Yes I do not like Bush. I certainly didn't start that way (I prefered him to Gore), but I hate him now. I think he should have been removed for many things already and have said so. But that does not mean I am making any more out of this than what it is. It IS a crime, it SHOULD be dealt with.Remember what got Nixon handed his walking papers? How does that compare to the internment camps? How does that compare to this?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Then he deserves a day in court on why they originally held him.AS for Iraq. There is nothing, anywhere, that mentions he went to Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Pakistan, yes. Iraq, NO.
By the way YOU are the one that said he went to Iraq. SO, I believe it is up to you to provide the evidence. As for Saddam, if Padialla was Al Quaida, he would not want him in Iraq. No matter what the administration wants to say there is no link between Iraq and Osamma. Osama thought Saddam was as bad or worse than the West.
But you truly miss the whole point. There are laws, there are rules. Yes they have not always been followed in the past, but that in no way justifies what is happening now. If the gov't has such a good case against him, they should have charged him a long time ago. Not three years after he was detained.

No, not at all. But I am into principles, particularly those embodied by the U.S. Constitution.Shame on you for giving Bush a free pass, when he undermines those important principles.

---

Impeach Bush.

Yep. Has been done. Probably is being done - albeit on a much smaller scale. And probably will be done again. That's life. Not like it's unique to the US. OK. Let me try this approach: This revelation doesn't bother me that much because considering the history of this country, I'm not particularly surprised (Hoover anyone?) and because it appears to be happening on a very small scale with a select number of individuals.Is it wrong? It seems to be, but the more I read the more I'm not sure. Supposedly only calls/emails where one party was outside the country were monitored. Seems as though this could be a loophole - albeit a sketchy one.Should it stop? Probably. Again, we spy on foreign countries and foreign nationals all the time. Should the foreign nationals be exempt from surveilance because they are called from the US by a US citizen? Probably not. Although it appears they are tapping US lines and trying to work a loophole.Should Bush get impeached? Dunno. I need more info about who was involved approving this and see what the courts say.Will Bush get impeached. I really doubt it. Not unless NWR's worst conspiracy theories are true.