Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
December 30, 2005 - The argument over whether President Bush has the authority to direct the National Security Agency to listen in on the conversations of suspected terrorists on US soil is split primarily into two camps; those who believe we are engaged in a war for our very survival against radical Islam and those who believe – and always have – that terrorism operates under a set of rules that govern its actions and therefore should be treated as a law enforcement issue. This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001.
It needs to be repeated as many times as necessary until every single American acknowledges this supposition as a distinct possibility; should we lose this war against radical Islam and the terror it uses to breed fear and submission, our way of life, our government and our country, will cease to exist as we know it.
Those on the “progressive” left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
It is very important to be victorious on the physical battlefields and so far we have been successful. As much as the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would have us believe that we are struggling to achieve victory, the evidence of our success is overwhelming and validated by the millions of purple fingers we have seen in Iraq over the course of three truly free elections. It is further evidenced by the free elections in Afghanistan and accurate polling of both countries that indicate their people believe that their “future’s so bright they have to wear shades.”
If we are to compare Iraq to Vietnam in any way at all it would have to be in contrast. US military efforts in Iraq stand as testimony to the idea that if allowed to do their jobs, and complete their mission devoid of interference from the “progressive” elite in Washington DC and their blind followers who haven’t the vision to see past the daily protest march, the US military will always be victorious. They are superiorly trained and equipped, and motivated by the desire to fight for the freedom of oppressed people rather than, by gutless default, pave the way for tyranny.
More difficult than armed conflict, the ideological front is a battle for the will of our society and is already taking place on our own soil. The controversy over the NSA directive issued by President Bush is a prime example.
Again it needs to be repeated as often as need be; should we lose this war against the oppressive mandates of radical Islam our country will cease to exist as we know it. There will be no civil liberties. There will be no judicial recourse. There will be no petitioning of our government. There will be no First Amendment rights, or Second, or Third. If we fail to be victorious over the fundamentalist zealots who promote radical Islam, not only as a religion but as a totalitarian way of life, this “experiment in democracy” that is our government will be, if texts other than the Quran are even allowed, a short chapter in The History of Infidel North America Before Islam.
It is ironic then that an organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for the “rights” of those who would dismantle and outlaw the ACLU, if not behead its leaders, should radical Islam be victorious.
It is paradoxical then that defense lawyers are attempting to have courts overturn the convictions of confessed terrorists and self-avowed al Qaeda operatives. For these lawyers to stand on principle is one thing, for them to stand on principle only to see their freed clients return to the battle against the very principles used to free them is quite another.
It is reckless for “progressive” politicians and activists to be arguing points of order regarding the president’s execution of this war effort when the same points of order, directives and tactics have been used by past presidents and validated by established courts and authorities. In fact, their obstinate refusal to acknowledge recorded history can very well be considered aiding and abetting the enemy and there are consequences for those actions written into the Constitution, unlike the mounting number of fictitious rights frequently referred to by the “progressive” left.
In an effort to safeguard the ideological liberties the Framers had in mind at the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the “progressive” left is willing to enable our enemies to use our own system to bring about our country’s demise. If the “progressive” left is truly supporting our troops and if they truly want to win the war against the encroaching influence of radical Islam and the terror they use to victimize all who stand in their way, if they are really on our side then it is time for their actions to speak for them instead of their words. So far their words have been selfishly divisive and irresponsible. It is beyond naïve to believe that their words are not being put to good use in the ideological battle our enemy is ruthlessly waging against us.
Which is one of my pet peeves with Bush as I've said many times. It looks like with the passage of the border fence, they are finally waking up to what we want our elected officials to do.
But when those ordinary Americans become federal employees, they are often shackled by clumsy rules and oppressive and often corrupt supervisors. For example, airport screeners who are told they can't give more attention to dark, swarthy middle-eastern men. Or the border patrol agent who is told he can't apprehend illegals after hours even though he sees them passing by in trucks.
I would profile anyone. Al queda is recruiting whites now. Dark middle eastern males would be on the top of my list. As far as the border comment, I believe I read where that is now changing in some areas. Give it time, it will spread to all areas of the country, if the aclu doesn't get it struck down.
Well, I can't disagree with anything you've said. I think there is disagreement among experts (which I am not) about the legality of what the President did. So, I think that is probably all we disagree about.
susie
Sam, you need to re-read Marbury v Madison yourself.
Marshall concludes with the observation that 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution are null & void from the moment they are written.
195 don asmussen
SunSetSam wrote:
Bush used powers assigned to him by Congress. The Supreme Court has not ruled the acts unconstitutional.
Therefore, under the current system of doing things (thanks to Marbury vs. Madison) he has acted properly.
That is the simple, dispassionate fact of the matter.
No Sam, you are very confused on Constitutional facts.
Our 'current system' has never authorized Congress to assign the President 'powers', nor is he empowered to ignore the Constitution when using the powers he does have.
Marbury is also not a factor, because USSC decisions can not empower Presidents to take unconstitutional actions.
Really, I'd suggest you study up a bit on Constitutional basics..
according to the opponents, it was good enough for Carter, it was good enough for Clinton, both dims. But it's not good enough for Bush, a republican. Partisan BS with capital letters. imo.
That's right. And we are paying for it now.
When did we have a right to carry loaded guns on an airplane?
I think it was sometime in the late sixties or early seventies that they were banned. I remember flying before they had searches or metal detectors.
"Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. The requirement started at the beginning of commercial aviation to insure that pilots could defend the mail if their plane were to ever crash.
In contrast to the current program, there were no training or screening requirements. Indeed, pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) carrying guns have ever caused any significant problems."
With psychos gunning down women and judges in courtrooms, I'd say it was a prudent measure.
But it seems to be happening more now. Especially in places where guns are banned and the perp doesn't have to worry about an armed citizen.
After 9-11 you want them flying over the WH? Planes can be hijacked. I agree with this as well.
You asked me about rights that we've lost. I gave you examples and now you are trying to justify it.
Not to appear to be a wise ass or anything, but...duh. Who wants an idiot yelling bomb on a plane.
No. Not yelling bomb. Saying the word bomb. Or having a book or magazine that has an illustration of a bomb on the cover. Or saying that a movie was a bomb. Examples of how we are becoming sheep. How we are being conditioned to acquiesce to the most insane rules. We are forced to watch women while they are fondled by moron screeners. These are all actual examples of how fascist we've become.
It's like army boot camp. Subjugation. The more idiotic the rules the more they are saying to us, "We can make you do whatever we want and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it".
Pardon my shocking statement with revelation, but did we have it before the war?
Rethink Randy Weaver and the debacle of Waco Texas....
You read machivellian (spel?) into everything. This country is free. The government isn't out to destroy us. They are out to destroy our enemies.
When did we have a right to carry loaded guns on an airplane?
Good question, brown.
I can't remember when congress 'enacted' [without the power to do so] a federal 'law' saying we couldn't.. -- I flew several times in the sixties with a pistol [unloaded] & ammo in my carry on bag, and never gave 'legality' a thought, as no one ever looked in your luggage..
Anyone remember? How bout you brown?
Not to appear to be a wise ass or anything, but...duh.
Who wants an idiot yelling bomb on a plane. You're not allowed to yell fire in a theater.
Making a joke [in normal conversation] about a bomb is hardly comparable to yelling fire.. But then even a wise ass should know that. Do you?
This is a good point. After 9/11, one of the embarrassing facts that came out about the CIA and the NSA was that they had tons of communications intercepted from terrorist sponsor nations but only a few Arabic speaking translators. In fact, as I recall, it was quite a while before the ever got up to speed.
However, you and I and the rest of us? The 300 million Americans? I'm sure there are plenty of loyal Americans who speak Arabic. Trouble is, they don't have the right to listen. Fewer rights == less security.
So. Since the Federal government doesn't have the authority to spy on Americans, we can choose to give them that right (and hope they've got around to hiring enough crew), or we could choose to give Americans that right. What would be more productive?
I don't fly in planes. Two phobias prevents it. Height and closed in spaces. When I was a teenager I flew once, you could smoke on a plane then and I smoked like a chimney.
Only an idiot would bring up the subject of a bomb on a plane where everyone is locked inside and can't get out. And one doesn't have to be a wise ass to figure that out. Common sense should prevail on that subject.
Thank you for reminding me of that, Susie Sunshine. I was starting to get depressed reading my own posts.
That depends a lot on the individual citizen or politician. When I worked for the federal government I used to speak against government spending, people thought I was crazy. Most politicians are motivated by getting re-elected. Term limits might help, but then that leaves an even more entrenched bureaucracy.
LOL
susie
They have to be tested in some way. The government has a word they used for the process but, I can't think of it now, too tired.
If I recall correctly, an FBI muslim agent refused to follow an order that involved his spying(for lack of a better word) on other muslims. Would you trust someone like him to translate documents correctly?
To exclude muslims from that positions the aclu would be screaming from the rafters.
Then why would Americans want to listen into conversations in arabic if they didn't understand the language? Too chaotic.
Exactly. Just to keep them honest, profile anyone, but give special scrutiny to the swarthy ones.
Someday someone will figure it out. Until then, we just muddle along.
It was good debating with you. I enjoyed it. I hope to do it again soon. See you around FR. Good night.
This is why ordinary citizens can be better at doing this than government employees. They are not constrained by politics or the constitutional limitations.
Thanks for the discussion, Good night.
Good night, Susie.
Later, Don. G'night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.