We're at WAR!
You know you're right. I feel much better now about having some unknown, under-educated bureaucrat in Washington rifling through my email and other personal effects (without my knowledge) whenever he/she/it gets a hair up thier ass. The fun will begin when (not if, when) we get another Klintonseque administration.
Ashcroft is a lying, anti-constitutional freak when he says this only allows agents to "surf the internet" or "attend public events". Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that lie is an idiot.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I guess he interprets "secure" to mean some nimrod geek agent looking at the naked scans of your wife with their cute little techno-toys.
I'll be happy when this phoney freak chokes on a chicken bone and dies.
We're at WAR!No moreso than we were from 1945 to 1991.
One thing's for sure. If "we're at war" is an excuse to expect the American people to lay down like sheep at the feet of anyone in the bureaucracy, the JBTs and JBT-wannabes are certain to maintain a state of "war", real or artificial.
-Eric
We're at "Authorization for Use of Military Force"!
We're at "Police Action"!
"WAR!" hasn't been declared.
Even the CFR "gets it". Can't you?
The Aftermath of Terror: Domestic and International Law and U.S. Foreign Policy October 3, 2001
One issue confronting U.S. policymakers is how to define the struggle and implications. At times, the administration has appeared to adopt a classical use-of-force paradigm, rooted in state-to-state relations, governed by the rules of war. At others, it has evoked a kind of police action, more focused on individual responsibility and governed by international criminal law. In fact, the enterprise is a hybrid, with aspects that belong both to the use-of-force (attacking states that harbor terrorism; targeting terrorist infrastructure in foreign countries) and the police-work (investigation and establishment of culpability; rendition/extradition of suspects; national efforts to freeze assets and round up suspects, etc) paradigms.
But no "WAR!".
Gosh darn it! I missed that Senate vote. What was the result of the vote to declare war, anyway?
Tuor