Awhile back I posted about the formation of the American Freedom Agenda and said that I would find out what I could. You will find the AFA website here . Do not think that Barr, Keene, or Viguerie have changed their political stripes, they are Conservatives. Yes, with a capital 'C.' On social and economic issues our paths may coincide infrequently, our ideas about the role of government in those arenas is quite different, but here we are in complete agreement. I am going to directly copy and paste their 10 point agenda, so there is no mistaking my words or wishes with theirs :
Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
Since their roll-out was March 20th the website is a little bare yet, but you should see it for yourself to ensure you know what I'm talking about. I am under no illusions about the differences in our Party affiliations, I also am under no illusions as to whether these matters supersede those affiliations. What is at stake is so basic to the structure of the US that our disagreements amount to small change. There is absolutely no point in trying to advance Democratic agenda absent our basic structure of government and law. That amounts to no more than spitting into the wind. The DOJ fight marks a beginning of Congressional interest in this, but is not any more than a first baby step.
The AFA has a Freedom Pledge for candidates, which is at least something. I am interested, but only in concrete pressure our public representatives to redress these grievances. Posturing bores me, quite plainly there is an ass kicking over due and it needs to be an enthusiastic one. This stance will put more stress on the politics of Republicans than Democrats for the obvious reason that Democrats didn't instigate this mess, though the amount of their kicking and screaming about it left quite a bit to be desired.
A little over 200 hundred years ago the instigators of this Constitutional mess would have been taken out and hanged for trying it. Today generating something close to discontent is difficult. It takes no more than the latest details of the affairs of a deceased blond to distract our attention. I will point out that in the face of all the BushCo crap, a NY Democratic Representative has the temerity to bring forward an assault weapons ban just to add to the insult and injury inflicted by the Republicans. Sometimes I really wonder just exactly how such stupid and asinine people manage to get themselves elected and if we really do deserve the kind of government the Framers put together.
Eight years ago I'd have fallen out laughing my butt off if somebody had suggested to me that Bob Barr could be an ally. I ain't laughing, I ain't smiling, I'm flat out pissed off and I'll take his hand, gladly. If you can't, maybe you'd better think over what kind of country you want to live in.
Showing posts with label Patriot Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patriot Act. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Covering Up Is Stupid
I suppose that anyone paying attention to the US Attorneys mess has heard multiple times, "the cover-up is worse than the crime," and is probably sick of it. There is a real truth in that bromide, and it bears some thinking about it. Most of the things that get attempted covered-ups are the result of over-reaching over-zealous subordinates. Something gets a "I wish" and turns into "I want." Some idiots burgled a Watergate office because somebody said "I wish I knew what they're up to," regarding a campaign that was a walk-over. There was nothing to actually be gained, a tremendous risk, and the act was carried out by entirely disposable subordinates. Covering up a piece of massive stupidity led to the downfall of one of the most politically astute Presidents.
Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."
While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.
I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.
I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.
"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.
Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."
While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.
I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.
I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.
"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
A Truly Sad State of the Union
When a New York Times Editorial runs a 'to do' page for restoration of civil liberties in the United States of America there is a serious problem. Whatever your view of the political leanings of the NYT it seldom runs a laundry list in regard to the government. Here's their dirty laundry:
Restore Habeas Corpus
Stop Illegal Spying
Ban Torture, Really
Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel
You'd think they were referring to Soviet Russia, or Pinochet, or..., not the USA. This is not a moonbat lefty hired in to create ink, this is the unsigned Editorial Board position of one of the leading papers in the country. At any other time in the last half century this would be an atomic bomb, during the lifetime of the Framers this stuff would probably have resulted in either imprisonment or armed insurrection. The NYT talks about fixing the acts foisted on us by the REPUBLICANS, I'm a bit more reactive, this junk should be shitcanned and then addressed in a meaningful and reflective manner. You don't deal with dog poo by sticking an artificial flower in it, spraying perfume on it, and calling it a ROSE.
Those of you around for my Democratic Primary run will remember that I was hopping mad about this stuff then and I still am. I stated then and I'll restate it now, this is more important than getting us out of Iraq. The war in Iraq is the President's mess and short of shutting the government down the Democrats are pretty much out of luck. This is a Congressional mess, this junk came almost exclusively from their club. Our Congress put their foot on the neck of American liberty and justice and they're sitting around on their hands. The Republicans can get on board or be made to pay very publicly.
Restore Habeas Corpus
Stop Illegal Spying
Ban Torture, Really
Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel
You'd think they were referring to Soviet Russia, or Pinochet, or..., not the USA. This is not a moonbat lefty hired in to create ink, this is the unsigned Editorial Board position of one of the leading papers in the country. At any other time in the last half century this would be an atomic bomb, during the lifetime of the Framers this stuff would probably have resulted in either imprisonment or armed insurrection. The NYT talks about fixing the acts foisted on us by the REPUBLICANS, I'm a bit more reactive, this junk should be shitcanned and then addressed in a meaningful and reflective manner. You don't deal with dog poo by sticking an artificial flower in it, spraying perfume on it, and calling it a ROSE.
Those of you around for my Democratic Primary run will remember that I was hopping mad about this stuff then and I still am. I stated then and I'll restate it now, this is more important than getting us out of Iraq. The war in Iraq is the President's mess and short of shutting the government down the Democrats are pretty much out of luck. This is a Congressional mess, this junk came almost exclusively from their club. Our Congress put their foot on the neck of American liberty and justice and they're sitting around on their hands. The Republicans can get on board or be made to pay very publicly.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Prosecutorial Bloodbath
Seven Federal Prosecutors have been fired/resigned before their terms expired over the last month. Talking Points Memo has several stories about this. Apparently some of these prosecutors have been investigating Congressional and White House corruption. These folks:
"
San Francisco - 1/16/07 - Kevin V. Ryan - unclear
Nevada - 1/15/07 - Daniel Bogden - pushed out
San Diego - 1/12/07 - Carole Lam - pushed out
New Mexico - 12/19/06 - David Igleslias - pushed out
Arizona - 12/19/06 - Paul K. Charlton - unclear
Seattle - 12/15/06 - John McKay - unclear; likely pushed out
Little Rock (Ark.) - 12/15/06 - Bud Cummins - pushed out "
*from TPMmuckraker
They are being replaced without Congressional approval through a section of the "Revised" Patriot Act. Some of us have been wasting good bytes complaining about this particular piece of treasonous crap. Isn't it just plain astonishing what you can manage with a lick-spittle Congress and a pants soiling frightened populous. Somebody should've thought of this idea before - oh, they did.
"
San Francisco - 1/16/07 - Kevin V. Ryan - unclear
Nevada - 1/15/07 - Daniel Bogden - pushed out
San Diego - 1/12/07 - Carole Lam - pushed out
New Mexico - 12/19/06 - David Igleslias - pushed out
Arizona - 12/19/06 - Paul K. Charlton - unclear
Seattle - 12/15/06 - John McKay - unclear; likely pushed out
Little Rock (Ark.) - 12/15/06 - Bud Cummins - pushed out "
*from TPMmuckraker
They are being replaced without Congressional approval through a section of the "Revised" Patriot Act. Some of us have been wasting good bytes complaining about this particular piece of treasonous crap. Isn't it just plain astonishing what you can manage with a lick-spittle Congress and a pants soiling frightened populous. Somebody should've thought of this idea before - oh, they did.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Democratic House and Senate, Now What?
The WaPo notes that the Left is applying pressure to Democratic leaders and that the House and Senate Dems are being careful with an eye on 2008. Now I'm all for an increase in the minimum wage, ethics bolstering, and security. Fine ideas. I'm all for doing something sensible about winning in 2008 also. But lets take a look at a couple things that seem to be somewhere in the "real damn important" range.
Quite awhile back, King John made himself unpopular enough with the English Lords to have something called the Magna Carta stuffed down his throat and that particular document guaranteed a little thing called Habeas Corpus. The idea was that you couldn't just be stuffed into a dungeon somewhere to rot, you had to be produced for court and trial. Charges had to be brought forward and defended in court. Our king Geo II has decided that it's quaint and needn't be applied when he doesn't think it should. Now I happen to think that such an idea is a step backwards into tyranny and needs to be addressed at the first possible instant.
In the past I've made my feelings on the Patriot Act pretty clear, it's an affront to liberty despite its pretty little name. It would be an act of patriotism to do away with the entire dreadful mess. This confounded thing was enacted in a fear induced frenzy that included not even bothering to read it, when they later had a chance to re-visit, they made it worse.
Some little while back there was a complete stink about the NSA doing warrantless wiretaps of Americans. That stink ran right into an election. Now it seems to have gotten lost.
Torture came up awhile back, BushCo being for it, the entire population of civilized beings against. Just what it says about this country isn't real clear, but Geo II says we don't be we can and nobody has done anything to stop such ideas. John McCain grandstanded and then gave more to BushCo than they'd actually demanded, somehow that worked out odd.
Is the a veto proof sentiment against these abortions of the American way? Probably not, seeing that the Republican herd's moderates got culled. Forcing the White House failure poster child to veto legislation guaranteeing what never should have needed it is only right. Just make sure the Bills have snappy names conjuring up Mom, apple pie, purple plains, ... We've let the elephant thugs set the agenda for twelve years and an election just pointed out that the natives are restless, showing a little nerve is called for.
Yes I'd also like to see the Creep in Charge impeached, I'd like to see his useless play cowboy self led off in shackles for what he's done to American law, not to mention all his lackey cronies.
The problem is that absent some real hard evidence of some real criminal stuff it would be political suicide for '08 and more importantly, bad for the country right now. Some of the incoming freshmen ran on this stuff and some folks like Feingold and Kucinich have never stopped making noise about it, maybe their enthusiasm can over come the calculus of the old-timers. Maybe sending them a note and a check would help keep them warmed up?
Quite awhile back, King John made himself unpopular enough with the English Lords to have something called the Magna Carta stuffed down his throat and that particular document guaranteed a little thing called Habeas Corpus. The idea was that you couldn't just be stuffed into a dungeon somewhere to rot, you had to be produced for court and trial. Charges had to be brought forward and defended in court. Our king Geo II has decided that it's quaint and needn't be applied when he doesn't think it should. Now I happen to think that such an idea is a step backwards into tyranny and needs to be addressed at the first possible instant.
In the past I've made my feelings on the Patriot Act pretty clear, it's an affront to liberty despite its pretty little name. It would be an act of patriotism to do away with the entire dreadful mess. This confounded thing was enacted in a fear induced frenzy that included not even bothering to read it, when they later had a chance to re-visit, they made it worse.
Some little while back there was a complete stink about the NSA doing warrantless wiretaps of Americans. That stink ran right into an election. Now it seems to have gotten lost.
Torture came up awhile back, BushCo being for it, the entire population of civilized beings against. Just what it says about this country isn't real clear, but Geo II says we don't be we can and nobody has done anything to stop such ideas. John McCain grandstanded and then gave more to BushCo than they'd actually demanded, somehow that worked out odd.
Is the a veto proof sentiment against these abortions of the American way? Probably not, seeing that the Republican herd's moderates got culled. Forcing the White House failure poster child to veto legislation guaranteeing what never should have needed it is only right. Just make sure the Bills have snappy names conjuring up Mom, apple pie, purple plains, ... We've let the elephant thugs set the agenda for twelve years and an election just pointed out that the natives are restless, showing a little nerve is called for.
Yes I'd also like to see the Creep in Charge impeached, I'd like to see his useless play cowboy self led off in shackles for what he's done to American law, not to mention all his lackey cronies.
The problem is that absent some real hard evidence of some real criminal stuff it would be political suicide for '08 and more importantly, bad for the country right now. Some of the incoming freshmen ran on this stuff and some folks like Feingold and Kucinich have never stopped making noise about it, maybe their enthusiasm can over come the calculus of the old-timers. Maybe sending them a note and a check would help keep them warmed up?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I'm a Terrorist Supporter
Wowser!!! How the heck do you like that, I've graduated to the big time and I've done it publicly. (see Archives) I'd like to thank the Administration and in particular Mr Tony Snow for the nomination and award, taa daa.
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "
There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.
Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.
It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.
Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.
Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "
There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.
Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.
It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.
Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.
Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.
Friday, February 17, 2006
The Patriot Act
The Patriot Act is a mess and should be junked. Not tinkered with, not compromised, junked. Then, start from scratch with clear safeguards for the Rights of Americans and actual upgrading of law enforcement capability. That's capability, not convenience, it is supposed to be difficult to lock somebody up.
Frightened people do really stupid things, so these guys must be scared spitless.
Frightened people do really stupid things, so these guys must be scared spitless.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Patriot Act Compromise in Senate
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one, a bunch of Congressmen say the bill got passed because they hadn't time to read it thoroughly, so, now they'll "compromise" to get it past the House and White House. The library objections are addressed, kind of, but the truly noxious portions are retained or expanded. Now what the heck is this all about?
No bill passed is better than a bad one passed. That should have dawned on the panic stricken members the first time and let it wait until they understood it. Back to the same nonsense, "oooh noooo! Time's running out." Conventional law enforcement tools had picked up enough of the 9/11 conspiracy to roll it up if they'd connected the dots. Instead, out comes the already worked up Administration bill. Sneak and peak would not have helped them and you can ask a certain Portland lawyer if it worked in his case.
The Terrorists' agenda is to change the Policy of the US government through fear, so anyone who infringes the Rights of Americans is an ally of that agenda. Get this right, the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant us Rights, it Guarantees them, and there's a huge difference. If the Senate is scared of the House of Representatives then we need people in the House that understand what Rights are. Check waldenbush's vote.
No bill passed is better than a bad one passed. That should have dawned on the panic stricken members the first time and let it wait until they understood it. Back to the same nonsense, "oooh noooo! Time's running out." Conventional law enforcement tools had picked up enough of the 9/11 conspiracy to roll it up if they'd connected the dots. Instead, out comes the already worked up Administration bill. Sneak and peak would not have helped them and you can ask a certain Portland lawyer if it worked in his case.
The Terrorists' agenda is to change the Policy of the US government through fear, so anyone who infringes the Rights of Americans is an ally of that agenda. Get this right, the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant us Rights, it Guarantees them, and there's a huge difference. If the Senate is scared of the House of Representatives then we need people in the House that understand what Rights are. Check waldenbush's vote.
I know, this rhetoric is way too harsh. So what are you going to do if the truth is ugly, prettify it up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)