Replies

Seems you are missing the point completely...

I'm sure that it does seem so to those who would not wish to support a strong President in a time of national danger unprecedented in our history. I too am concerned for the protection of our civil liberties; but what good are civil liberties in the midst of the death and destruction brought about by the detonation of a suitcase nuke in a major city.

It was only after the Administration backtracked and said "wait, we want to charge in civilian court with lesser crimes that have nothing to do with the terrible secret evidence we presented before" that the 4th balked...

Could there be reasons having to do with protecting our intelligence gathering capabilities etc. that have convinced the Administration to proceed with other charges? Either a majority of Americans are more concerned with national security or with civil liberties in a period of grave danger. Time will tell. Temporary measures taken to prevent terrorist attacks can be dispensed with at later, safer times. How do we dispense with a nuclear explosion in our midst?

The Constitution has served us well in every prior war.

So, Lincoln and FDR never swayed from the task of protecting civil liberties during time of war? Seems that I may not be the only one missing the point completely.

"a time of national danger unprecedented in our history"

I could hardly be more tired of this kind of ridiculous assertion. It would seem pretty clear that having an avowed enemy with thousands of nuclear-tipped missles targeted on our nation constitutes a 'time of national danger' that dwarfs the purely theoretical possibility that a terrorist could obtain a functional suitcase nuclear device and detonate on our shores.

For the most part, the radical Islamic terrorists are a bunch of hacks who want to think that their most miserably failed attacks are grand successes for Allah. They got really, really lucky, once. They have had milder success on a few occasions. They have utterly failed most of the time. Yet their greatest success to date has been to convince self-described conservative Americans that we need to rearrange our entire system of government to deal with a theoretical threat they might pose on their best day but probably couldn't pull off.

You need to manage your fear. It makes you terribly easy to control.

"Either a majority of Americans are more concerned with national security or with civil liberties in a period of grave danger."

Oh, yes - I forgot. The provisions of the Constitution are unconcerned with the fleeting feelings of the majority. And damn well should be, so that nervous Nellies aren't constantly ceding control of their lives to those who offer specious promises of 'protection.'

"So, Lincoln and FDR never swayed from the task of protecting civil liberties during time of war?"

That argument will be worthy of a response just as soon as someone - anyone - can state under what conditions the currently asserted 'time of war' will be over. And if the answer is anything like 'when all the terrorists are dead' or 'when there is no more terrorist threat,' then we are not in a 'time of war.'