On 2002-07-17 07:28, David '47 wrote:


To be honest, though, we have been attacked by the equivalent of a group of anarchists. How do you declare war on something with no identifiable structure? This is a cabal of super criminals, but that's ALL they are.

On 2002-07-17 10:50, firemind responded:


David is apparently unaware of the now quite old term state-supported terrorism.

Some terrorist groups, including most significant ones, are supported by nation-states as a means to achieve goals through war-like means while simultaneously distancing themselves from the activities.

As should be obvious to all by now, Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had become indistinguishable, for example.

A myriad of Middle Eastern terrorist organizations are openly supported my Middle East nation states.

There are also examples outside the Middle East. The IRA, for example.

David is repeating the old "terrorist organizations are like ghosts" myth, but in reality, to be effective, terrorist organizations need bases, money, material, and all of these are frequently supplied by states.

When this is the case, terrorist acts become indistinguishable from inter-state warfare.

Where to begin ...


First, there is a lot of validity to your comment about state sponsorship, in the generic sense. What is far less clear is the envolvement of specific governments with specific terrorist organizations. You mentioned the IRA, but I bet you won't finger the Republic of Ireland as a sponsoring state. Likewise, you won't finger Germany for supporting a long list of organizatins, although it's well known that they operate out of several German cities - Hamburg being the most often mentioned. Are you also ready to indict the Saudi's, who obviously manage the terrorist bank - officially or otherwise.


And touching briefly on the Taliban and al Qaida: here you are correct. For all of that, though, the reason the Taliban was able to control Afghanistan in the first place was our sponsorship of them as anti-Soviet fighters. Isn't it wonderful how our own actions continuously come back to haunt us? What negative reprocussions of todays actions will we suffer ten years from now?

Our response has been in a like vein.

Huh?

We have not "conquered" the offending country and occupied it. We are not at war, in the official sense of the term.


Well, you asked ...

If a national entity joins the fray, then Congress should declare war, and off we go.

According to the Democrats, Congress did declare war. Where were you?

To reiterate, according to all major Congressional leaders, including the Democratic ones, when Congress authorizes the use of military force, it is the modern equivalent of declaring war, even if the word "war" is not included in the almost-unanimously-passed act.

This silly "But we didn't declare war" gripe is pretty stupid. The reason it is stupid is because it is raised by people who really have other problems with what is happening, and they are dumb to pretend that their only problem is that Congress didn't use the word "war" when it authorized the use of military force, because some day Congress could easily use this magic word, and then where would your arguments be?

It is better to say what you REALLY think than to hide behind the red herring "but we didn't declare war".

This debate tactic is similar to the silly argument that Saudi Arabia is getting a free ride because they have oil. "We will believe this is really a War against Terrorism when Saudi Arabia is held accountable", they say. Well, again, that just could happen. U.S. - Saudi relations have never been worse then they are now, and if more attacks occur, you just might see open hostilities. Then, those who said "We will believe this is really a War against Terrorism when Saudi Arabia is held accountable" will have to backtrack.

<

Look, I make the war declaration argument for two reasons. First, because it's impossible, and second, because it's stupid. Declaring war on orgainzations that exist, to the extent they do, wherever and whenever they choose, is an exercise in futility. They act like criminals, because that's what they are. There is no more need to declare war on them than there is to declare war on drug dealers. Oh yeah, we've done that too :wink:

Bush has used this tragedy as a political tool. Whether this will continue for the foreseeable future is uncertain. He's declared war on an unbeatable enemy - unbeatable, because victory can never be determined, even if every terrorist is dead. At some point, everyone will understand that, just the way they have in every nation faced with a terrorist threat.

Truly solving the problem requires a different stategy with much different tactics. But I'll leave that for another day.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-18 11:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-18 11:22 ]</font>

On 2002-07-18 08:37, David '47 wrote:
You mentioned the IRA, but I bet you won't finger the Republic of Ireland as a sponsoring state.

You lose the bet. Pay up.

Sorry, Mike. Thought you knew about Samantha.

On 2002-07-18 08:37, David '47 wrote:
Likewise, you won't finger Germany for supporting a long list of organizatins, although it's well known that they operate out several German cities - Hamburg being the most often mentioned.

There is a big difference between a nation that has terrorists operating secretly within it and a nation that aids and harbors them. This is so obvious! Al Qaeda also operated out of U.S. cities. Where will these pointless little nit-picks end?

For all of that, though, the reason the Taliban was able to control Afghanistan in the first place was our sponsorship of them as anti-Soviet fighters. Isn't wonderful how our own actions continuously come back to haunt us?

Ah, this old one. "W H I N E ! But we helped the mujahadeen in the '80's, so anything Afghanistan-based fighters do anywhere is really our fault!" Give me a break. That whine has been answered a thousand times already.

What negative reprocussions of todays actions will we suffer ten years from now?

And what will the negative repercussions of today's inactions be? Life is complicated. Our response to the Soviet pullout of Afghanistan was to tell the mujahadeen, "See ya!" and pull out. Would the isolationists here like to argue that this was wrong to do? (I think it was right, by the way. We couldn't know what they would morph into.)

We have not "conquered" the offending country and occupied it.

This is arguable. We have troops on the ground. We engineered a regime change.

You're still picking nits.

Truely solving the problem requires a different stategy with much different tactics.

Yes, but you are the one picking nits over the "differences" between this war and previous wars.

From the beginning, the Bush administration has said that this war would be different than any other, and would involve a new mixture of covert operations, overt operations, diplomacy, criminal investigations, etc.

That seems to be what we are seeing. Hell, we even seem to be pulling out of Saudi Arabia, as Stonewall Goebbels demands.

What specifically should be changed? Suggestions are welcome.

When Ralph Nader (for example) was asked what he specifically would do differently, he just named a bunch of things that were already being done.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-18 09:17 ]</font>

"You?re awfully hateful for a Christian, Lambster. You?re the Trafficant of T4T. No wonder Barbara won?t have anything to do with you (or us) anymore. But I don?t mind a bug or two now and then. Sheep ticks are fine. Tasty with a cob of corn." --Croaker'39

Why did I write what I wrote? "So what's the real issue?" Asked Croaker'39 from Puget Puddle*, "You'd think a "passionately uncertain" Catholic might want to ask more deeply why he got to be that way. And then you might think to ask why he, at a tender tadpole age with his best Sunday-school clothes on, was made to kneel and pray to a corpse hanging from a cross."

Incredulous, he then issues the moral equivalency test: "Which is more effectively abusive: diddling with a child's genitals or diddling with a child's mind?"

"Fiddle dee dee with the sex abuse." Cries the frog lying in the puddle! "Queers is queers, and that's that! The real issue is why anyone should be so passionately uncertain about this stuff in the first place. If that's where you are, then you may as well just go on down to the mumble parlor and tell your troubles to Jesus. Don't grab your balls if you're a "passionately uncertain" Catholic. Grab your brains!"


"Not funny," said the Lamb from Ohio.


* Catholic Scandal and the Fourth Turning Posted: 2002-05-30 06:25


David '47 writes, "Is it OK under Republican control, but dangerous under Democrats, or vice versa?"

How else can this "war" be fought, but in darkened corners wherein the monsters hide? And no, I am not referring to our former Commander in Chief, who collected FBI files like a kid collects baseball cards.

" I understand this is a unconventional war. It's a different kind of war. It's not the kind of war that we're used to in America. The Greatest Generation was used to storming beachheads. Baby boomers such as myself, were used to getting caught in a quagmire of Vietnam where politics made decisions more than the military sometimes. Generation X was able to watch technology right in front of their TV screens -- you know, burrow into concrete bunkers in Iraq and blow them up. This is a different kind of war that requires a different type of approach and a different type of mentality." --President Bush (Press conference, October 11, 2001)


Vietnam proved one thing, you can't fight a war without the implicit trust of the people. The spike in "trust the government to do the right thing" that occured after 9/11 is now gone. Trust in Bush still remains high, but it is coming down... and will probably drop below 50% by November. Then you Democrats can have a go at winning the war of terrorism. Ok? :smile:


p.s. No, I don't know what "splitting" is. Please enlighten me.

On 2002-07-17 11:16, firemind wrote:
Actually, the word "war" DID appear in the act that Congress passed almost unanimously:

link

<font color=blue>
Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
</font>

Meaning that Congress was EXPLICITLY granting the President "War Powers".

This is why I consider it a silly argument to say "But we didn't declare war." Yeah, pull the other one...

Like, all would be well and good with the world if Congress had included the sentence:

"Specific Constitutional authorization.--Consistent with Clause 11 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute a declaration of war."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-17 11:40 ]</font>

The War Powers Act was created to limit the unilateral use of military forces by any president, but it is mostly toothless. Even when invoked, it is NOT the equivalent of a war declaration. It merely says, "Yes, Mr President, in this case we agree that you can commit forces." Usually, the period must be more than thirty days, or the process is ignored.


A more valid standard, and one certainly in play, is the right of self defense. This is recognised by the UN and every country in it.

David, a "declaration of war" by the United States Congress is a purely internal, American legal affair. It is Congress telling the executive branch that there is a war that it needs to prosecute, and that the executive should get to it.

A "declaration of war" by the United States Congress is NOT some sort of requirement by some super-national organization prior to the execution of a war. There IS no super-national organization. Soveriegn states, by definition, are free agents. There is no higher (human) authority to appeal to. International relations is an anarchy.

Thus, in what way is the War Powers Act "toothless". It does exactly what it was designed to do: give the executive authority to prosecute a war. That's all "declarations of war" ever do.

The point of "declaring war", from the American perspective, is that only one branch of our government is allowed to do it. When Congress explicitly says "Yes, Mr. President, go to it, we authorize military force", that is for all practical purposes declaring war.

Congress's reluctance to "declare war" in so many words that you would stop nit-picking is a new cultural tradition (as is your nit-picking about it). The new tradition got started about 50 years ago, about the same time the War Department was renamed. It is purely semantics.

In the real world, a state of war existed between the U.S. and the Taliban last fall. Congress authorized it. That's all I'm going to say; this argument has become pure semantics.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-18 10:06 ]</font>

As I've said before, what is now important is not whether Congress authorized the war in Afghanistan. It did.

The question is whether Congress authorized war against any other state.

As I have said before, I think the act of 9/15/2001 was not sufficiently clear, and that Congress should be required to explicitly either authorize or deny authorization of any new major U.S. attacks against any other nation.

THAT is where you concerned people ought to be focusing your energies. THAT is a real legal issue. The act of 9/15/2001 cannot be assumed to authorize any war anywhere in the future; that would be preposterous.

Whatever precedent is going to be set may be set soon. Congress must not fail to act, one way or the other. Even if Congress authorizes war against another nation, by explicitly doing so it will be retaining its authority. If Congres explicitly denies authorization, it would REALLY emphasize its continued authority.

If it does nothing, however, it will be acknowledging that the 9/15/2001 act is to be interpreted as authorizing the executive to wage war against any state it deems involved in terrorism, which would be a grave, dangerous power shift.

Fortunately, by statements made by senators, I have the impression that Congress is aware of this issue, and will act.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-18 10:25 ]</font>

"When is the cure worse than the illness? Is safety so paramount that any sacrifce of personal freedom is acceptable? Is this the social equivalent of the soccer mom's SUV?" --David'47

Wasn't it the liberals who pushed and passed Campaign Finance Reform? Didn't this new law make illegal to run a TV ad critical of an incumbent within sixty days of a federal election? Is there any more hideous afront to freedom of speech than that?

And that had nothing to do with the war at all?

"This term is usually used most often when describing people with personality disorders."

I figured it was a bit of name calling, but I wasn't sure. :smile:

Dick Gephardt sees a possible 30-40 seat pick up by the Democrats in November in response to corporate corruption. I am not holding my breath to see this, but who knows....


http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/0...news0718a.html


Would anybody care to compare and contrast a hypothetical 40 seat Democratic pick up in 2002 to the Democrats' success in 1930? How about any other election year? Will there be anything worth noting in the 2002 elections?

firemind, you are right that the question of starting a new war now is the critical one. If Bush hauls off and starts a war without Congressional approval, that will be a big power grab by the executive-- to go with all the others he's trying to get now, or has gotten.

If Bush gets all he wants in prosecuting this "war on terror," Stonewall's warnings will have come to pass. We will be in a dictatorship.

The real point about the War Powers Act is, I thought, that there is a TIME LIMIT. Bush must come back and get reauthorization after a time, something like 90 days. He didn't do that; instead he has declared the war on terror something that may never end. Isn't this an abuse of the war powers act, not to mention the constitution, for the president to declare a never-ending war? Not to mention to take advantage of it to lock up whoever he wants without any rights or due process, and to ask congress to allow the military to act as police within our borders (a new state police force), to do wiretapping whenever he wishes, etc.??

On 2002-07-18 08:07, firemind wrote:

On 2002-07-18 07:49, David '47 wrote:
Compare that to the WOT, which is 10% military response and 90% jingoism. Notice that no declaration of war was made

Again, this is wrong. As I have said before, war was declared after 9/11. Ask the Democratic leadership; they agree.

Those who repeat this falsehood only reveal a weakness in their argument.

As I've mentioned before, action under the War Powers Act is not a war declaration, but if it makes you feel better, I'll withdraw the comment.


Now, if you want to move the argument to the next stage, feel free to respond to the "10% military response and 90% jingoism" remark, which is the only pertinent part of the quote.

On 2002-07-18 10:04, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-07-17 17:26, justmom wrote:

Nope. But, there is enough proof of fraud to come to the conclusion we really don't know how America votes. Either way.

Wow. Then I guess it isn't only liberals who have problems with the "system."

I would say that voter fraud is a minor problem compared to the very low percentage of people who actually bother to vote. And since voter turnout is lowest among people who usually vote "liberal," fixing this problem would result in even more votes for liberals.

XoE

WoooooHOOOOO!!
FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!!!

On 2002-07-18 10:38, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Dick Gephardt sees a possible 30-40 seat pick up by the Democrats in November in response to corporate corruption. I am not holding my breath to see this, but who knows....


http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/0...news0718a.html


Would anybody care to compare and contrast a hypothetical 40 seat Democratic pick up in 2002 to the Democrats' success in 1930? How about any other election year? Will there be anything worth noting in the 2002 elections?

What about the fact that Joe Lieberman had money from Enron in his political warchest too? The Dems are no better than the Reps and I think most people understand that.

David wrote.......
Justmom, you used the old saw 'time of war' as if it were an established fact. Sorry, but there is no 'war', only a conflict that's being tolerated by the American people because they're monumentally pissed-off. But being angry does not a war make. The most that can be said of the WOT is, "It has the support of the American people". Now ask yourself, would that support be there if the death toll on our side was 5,000 instead of <50. I doubt it. In a REAL war, those considerations, sad as they are, never surface.


The first part of are we at war or not has been answered rather well I think.

But, it's the death toll part that strikes me.
Indeed if the death toll were different it would be viewed differently.
If America for example lost 6 Millon of our youngest and brightest, and we some how managed to wipe out Terrorism. Would the lives lost be worth it?

On 2002-07-18 08:37, David '47 wrote:


You mentioned the IRA, but I bet you won't finger the Republic of Ireland as a sponsoring state.

You lose the bet. Pay up.

Unless you're thinking w-a-y in the past, you're all alone in this. The Irish Free State outlawed the IRA in 1937. More recently, the Irish Republic has been recognised by the Brits as helping, rather than hindering the peace process - especially true since the mid-80s. Of course, more subtle support was offered the IRA between the creation of the Free State and the '80s that you could define as "sponsorship" if you stretch the definition enough.


But that might lead to unintended consequences, since the same argument can be made for "sponsorship" of the Zionists following WW2. I think the US get's the nod on that one.

Skipping the well beat-upon earliest parts of this discussion, I'll satify myself with:

... Truly solving the problem requires a different strategy with much different tactics.

Yes, but you are the one picking nits over the "differences" between this war and previous wars.

From the beginning, the Bush administration has said that this war would be different than any other, and would involve a new mixture of covert operations, overt operations, diplomacy, criminal investigations, etc.

That seems to be what we are seeing. Hell, we even seem to be pulling out of Saudi Arabia, as Stonewall Goebbels demands.

What specifically should be changed? Suggestions are welcome.

Balls-to-the-walls American style war will definitely win a military victory, but even that may be short-lived. We are fighting a culture - one that has a long cultural memory. If its at all possible to win in the long term, we need to understand their motivation to use terrorrism as a tool, and more importantly, what grievances they're carrying around.


I don't know whether that will accomplish anything or not, but it needs to be attempted. At the very least, the most moderate members of the Islamic cultures will appreciate the effort. Right now, we're short of friends in that part of the world.

When Ralph Nader (for example) was asked what he specifically would do differently, he just named a bunch of things that were already being done.

I don't think Ralph Nader is qualified in the arena of foreign affairs, but, then again, I don't think Bush is either. To modify the sentiments of Stoney Pat, "Almost anybody but Bush in 2004"

On 2002-07-18 10:17, Marc Lamb wrote:

"When is the cure worse than the illness? Is safety so paramount that any sacrifce of personal freedom is acceptable? Is this the social equivalent of the soccer mom's SUV?" --David'47

Wasn't it the liberals who pushed and passed Campaign Finance Reform? Didn't this new law make illegal to run a TV ad critical of an incumbent within sixty days of a federal election? Is there any more hideous afront to freedom of speech than that?

And that had nothing to do with the war at all?

Marc - you have an uncanny ability to misquote others for your own ends.


My statement above had to do with the authorization of virtually unlimited police power that being considered for this <s>Internal Security</s>Homeland Defense Department/Agency/Sewing Circle. What does that have to do with Campaign Finance Reform?


If you like, I can comment on that, too. Just ask.

On 2002-07-18 08:37, David '47 wrote:

On 2002-07-17 07:28, David '47 wrote:


To be honest, though, we have been attacked by the equivalent of a group of anarchists. How do you declare war on something with no identifiable structure? This is a cabal of super criminals, but that's ALL they are.

On 2002-07-17 10:50, firemind responded:


David is apparently unaware of the now quite old term state-supported terrorism.

Some terrorist groups, including most significant ones, are supported by nation-states as a means to achieve goals through war-like means while simultaneously distancing themselves from the activities.

As should be obvious to all by now, Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had become indistinguishable, for example.

A myriad of Middle Eastern terrorist organizations are openly supported my Middle East nation states.

There are also examples outside the Middle East. The IRA, for example.

David is repeating the old "terrorist organizations are like ghosts" myth, but in reality, to be effective, terrorist organizations need bases, money, material, and all of these are frequently supplied by states.

When this is the case, terrorist acts become indistinguishable from inter-state warfare.

Where to begin ...


First, there is a lot of validity to your comment about state sponsorship, in the generic sense. What is far less clear is the envolvement of specific governments with specific terrorist organizations. You mentioned the IRA, but I bet you won't finger the Republic of Ireland as a sponsoring state. Likewise, you won't finger Germany for supporting a long list of organizatins, although it's well known that they operate out of several German cities - Hamburg being the most often mentioned. Are you also ready to indict the Saudi's, who obviously manage the terrorist bank - officially or otherwise.


And touching briefly on the Taliban and al Qaida: here you are correct. For all of that, though, the reason the Taliban was able to control Afghanistan in the first place was our sponsorship of them as anti-Soviet fighters. Isn't it wonderful how our own actions continuously come back to haunt us? What negative reprocussions of todays actions will we suffer ten years from now?

Our response has been in a like vein.

Huh?

We have not "conquered" the offending country and occupied it. We are not at war, in the official sense of the term.


Well, you asked ...

If a national entity joins the fray, then Congress should declare war, and off we go.

According to the Democrats, Congress did declare war. Where were you?

To reiterate, according to all major Congressional leaders, including the Democratic ones, when Congress authorizes the use of military force, it is the modern equivalent of declaring war, even if the word "war" is not included in the almost-unanimously-passed act.

This silly "But we didn't declare war" gripe is pretty stupid. The reason it is stupid is because it is raised by people who really have other problems with what is happening, and they are dumb to pretend that their only problem is that Congress didn't use the word "war" when it authorized the use of military force, because some day Congress could easily use this magic word, and then where would your arguments be?

It is better to say what you REALLY think than to hide behind the red herring "but we didn't declare war".

This debate tactic is similar to the silly argument that Saudi Arabia is getting a free ride because they have oil. "We will believe this is really a War against Terrorism when Saudi Arabia is held accountable", they say. Well, again, that just could happen. U.S. - Saudi relations have never been worse then they are now, and if more attacks occur, you just might see open hostilities. Then, those who said "We will believe this is really a War against Terrorism when Saudi Arabia is held accountable" will have to backtrack.

<

Look, I make the war declaration argument for two reasons. First, because it's impossible, and second, because it's stupid. Declaring war on orgainzations that exist, to the extent they do, wherever and whenever they choose, is an exercise in futility. They act like criminals, because that's what they are. There is no more need to declare war on them than there is to declare war on drug dealers. Oh yeah, we've done that too :wink:

Bush has used this tragedy as a political tool. Whether this will continue for the foreseeable future is uncertain. He's declared war on an unbeatable enemy - unbeatable, because victory can never be determined, even if every terrorist is dead. At some point, everyone will understand that, just the way they have in every nation faced with a terrorist threat.

Truly solving the problem requires a different stategy with much different tactics. But I'll leave that for another day.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-18 11:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-18 11:22 ]</font>

I strongly disagree. The US could have formally declared war on al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan and once they were defeated, have the new government sign a peace treaty. Doing so would make the status of folks like Lindh and any al Qaeda members we find in this country clear. With a declaration of war any al Qaeda we find here would be enemy agents, spies who are tried and executed by military tribunals with no legal protections. Lindh would be guilty of treason, pure and simple.

But we did [b]not</b/> delcare war and so we continue to treat al qaeda as a criminal organization (a matter for law enforcement) as opposed to an enemy (to be destroyed). This is not a partisan issue. Both Marc Lamb and I have wondered why a declaration wasn't made, it would seem to make the status of everyone much more clear.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-07-18 12:50 ]</font>

On 2002-07-18 07:49, David '47 wrote:

Trolling for a good solid response I wrote:


"To be honest, though, we have been attacked by the equivalent of a group of anarchists. How do you declare war on something with no identifiable structure? This is a cabal of super criminals, but that's ALL they are. Our response has been in a like vein. If a national entity joins the fray, then Congress should declare war, and off we go."

Taking the bait, Marc Lamb responded:


Obviously, the destruction of September 11, 2001 is of little consequence to you (and you have much company to keep you warm and cozy, too).

No doubt you, and yours, would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by merely suggesting it's probably time to give the Japanese the oil they want. Or, more recently, the Palestinians the land they want.

Standard liberal stuff and fluff: Terrorism works!

Marc, maybe you missed the last sentence of my original comment (which is surprising since you chose to quote it). Would I have responded to the Japanese attach on Pearl Harbor - of course! They did not act as an amorphous cabal. They were then and are now a sovereign nation that was and still can be held responsible the actions of its leaders.


The correct response at that time was to declare war, which we did, and prosecute it to a final conclusion, which we also did. Compare that to the WOT, which is 10% military response and 90% jingoism. Notice that no declaration of war was made, nor did the POTUS ask for one. Instead, we have a Homeland Security entity created out of thin air, with the full intent of the POTUS to grant it as much authority as the POTUS pals can get the public and Congress to stomach - all this without any clear cut goal to achieve.


Which brings us to a whole series of questions that need to be asked, answered and absorbed before we go much further:

• Do you honestly believe that it's wise to create a more or less unrestricted super-agency with full police powers, including the elimination of posse comitatis restrictions on the military?
• Where is the justification for this action? Is it only the enormity of the 9/11 attack that justifies this, or would have ANY attach on the "homeland" been enough?
• Since secrecy is implied as 'necessary', at what point do you become uncomfortable with the management of such an agency? Is it OK under Republican control, but dangerous under Democrats, or vice versa?
• When is the cure worse than the illness? Is safety so paramount that any sacrifce of personal freedom is acceptable? Is this the social equivalent of the soccer mom's SUV?

Of course, I can go on ...

On 2002-07-18 12:32, David '47 wrote:

On 2002-07-18 10:17, Marc Lamb wrote:

"When is the cure worse than the illness? Is safety so paramount that any sacrifce of personal freedom is acceptable? Is this the social equivalent of the soccer mom's SUV?" --David'47

Wasn't it the liberals who pushed and passed Campaign Finance Reform? Didn't this new law make illegal to run a TV ad critical of an incumbent within sixty days of a federal election? Is there any more hideous afront to freedom of speech than that?

And that had nothing to do with the war at all?

Marc - you have an uncanny ability to misquote others for your own ends.


My statement above had to do with the authorization of virtually unlimited police power that being considered for this <s>Internal Security</s>Homeland Defense Department/Agency/Sewing Circle. What does that have to do with Campaign Finance Reform?


If you like, I can comment on that, too. Just ask.

There. How's that for quoting correctly? Pretty good, huh?

The connection between Homeland Security and Campaign Finance Reform is that both limit "personal freedom"(s) (quoting you). The former (a Republican issue) is based upon a very real--and clearly nonpartisan (based upon the vote)--and present danger, while the latter (a Democrat issue) is based upon a percieved--and clearly partisan (based on the vote)--issue of too much money in politics.

I find it sort of ridiculous for a liberal to whine about losing "personal freedom" due to the war on terrorism when they so clearly are willing to subvert it for the sake of a clearly partisan politics.

Otherwise, I'll try to do better on the quoting thing. I can assure you no malice etc... was intended.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-18 12:59 ]</font>

I find it sort of ridiculous for a liberal to whine about losing "personal freedom" due to the war on terrorism when they so clearly are willing to subvert it for the sake of a clearly partisan politics.

...Sounds of banging cups on the table and old mens voices cheering...

Cutting to the chase ...

Marc Lamb wrote:

The connection between Homeland Security and Campaign Finance Reform is that both limit "personal freedom"(s) (quoting you). The former (a Republican issue) is based upon a very real--and clearly nonpartisan (based upon the vote)--and present danger, while the latter (a Democrat issue) is based upon a perceived--and clearly partisan (based on the vote)--issue of too much money in politics.

First, you have decided that there is a moral equivalence between star chamber trials, suspension of posse comitatis and the use of TIPS "Internal Security" methods, with a "right" to buy TV ads within 60 days of an election. Then you claim this restriction on the right of expensive commercial speech is worse, being partisan and specious, than the proposed Nazi (no that's not fair - make that Stasi) citizen control tactics, of which there are many more than the few I named.


I HOPE I'm guilt of hyperbole, but I'm afraid I'm not.

I find it sort of ridiculous for a liberal to whine about losing "personal freedom" due to the war on terrorism when they so clearly are willing to subvert it for the sake of a clearly partisan politics.

Otherwise, I'll try to do better on the quoting thing. I can assure you no malice etc... was intended.

If you think that <s>Gestapo</s>Stasi tactics qualify as a mere loss of "personal freedom", I'm stunned. As a conservative, you must have forgotten to read the <u>Gulag Archipeligo</u>. Now may be a good time to rectify that.


FWIW, I believe you about the quoting, and won't mention it again.

Nazi, er, Stasi, huh? Sheesh.

This I will predict: CFR will not standup to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. It will be found in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

If the infringments of which you speak, are challenged as well and found to be in violation then my connection of these two issues will be found as correct.

But if Homeland Security is not found wanting... Oh, that's right, most of the Justices are Nazis, er um, work for Stasi. Right, Mr. David?


p.s. Good to see you finally come out of the Gestapo closet, Dave. Stonewall Goebbels will no doubt enjoy the company. :smile:

<SNIP>

After some discussion between firemind and me about the approriatness of declaring war on terrorrists,

Mike Alexander '59 wrote:


I strongly disagree. The US could have formally declared war on al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan and once they were defeated, have the new government sign a peace treaty. Doing so would make the status of folks like Lindh and any al Qaeda members we find in this country clear. With a declaration of war any al Qaeda we find here would be enemy agents, spies who are tried and executed by military tribunals with no legal protections. Lindh would be guilty of treason, pure and simple.

Mike, we tend to agree more often than not, but this time I have to disagree.

• Thomas Jefferson eventually won a war declaration from Congress after engaging the Barbary pirates. The declaration focused on Tripoli, which was then a sovereign nation. Although the Barbary pirates were not an official "Navy", they were acting as "contractors" to the Bey of Tripoli. You can argue that this is similar to the al Qaida/Taliban situation, but there is no evidence that that al Qaida was acting on behalf of the Taliban, or anyone else but itself, for that matter.
• I doubt you could get a conviction for treason, since the standard is very high. It's the only crime specifically identified in the Constituion, Article III, Section 3. The standard for conviction is high, but there could be a case made that the mere presence of Lindh in the company of the Taliban would qualify as "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort", if the Taliban government had been a declared enemy. The real standard is "levying war against them", which is dubious. Since a conviction for treason requires the sworn testimony of two eyewitnesses or an in-court confession, the case would probably have been plea-bargained anyway.

But we did [b]not</b/> delcare war and so we continue to treat al qaeda as a criminal organization (a matter for law enforcement) as opposed to an enemy (to be destroyed). This is not a partisan issue. Both Marc Lamb and I have wondered why a declaration wasn't made, it would seem to make the status of everyone much more clear.

I still question the ability or wisdom of declaring war on an entity that isn't a nation. A declaration also raises issues of "harboring enemies" when dealing with countries in the Muslim sphere. I'm not at all sanguine about doing this - if it can even be done.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-18 15:00 ]</font>