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.
Is this not, however, the de facto current situation, that no persons who know what the President has asked for by way of surveillance have power to legally bring scrutiny upon these actions? What are the possibilities -- impeachment or judicial decree? Spilling the beans to Congress as a whole, or filing an objection with the US Supreme Court, is only going to get you slammed in jail.
Follow the sequence of that exchange and re-read what I wrote in #307. I said that that was NOT any nasty attacking on this thread, though you seem to think that you were attacked.
BTW, I do apologize for my less than polite remark to you.
They forget about Flight 93 being taken down by the passengers when they realized what was going on. They sacrificed themselves to save others. Do we KNOW FOR A FACT that any government actions saved as many lives as that one that day by civilians likely did?
And of course there are the Minutemen that prevented many illegal crossings just by being at the border. I don't know that there were any terrorists in that number, but there were surely some criminals the like of which have terrorized our country.
Americans did the job when America did not.
Perhaps we are not catching each other's meanings.
My remarks were in response to your suggestion that we need to trust the government.
In other words, what I was trying to say was if citizens can't be trusted to do what's right as mere citizens, how can the government be trusted when they (people in government) are from the same pool of American citizens who can't be trusted?
Government employees and officials are not sent from above, although some would have you believe that. What is it about
being in government that suddenly imbues people with trust and respectibility?
Thanks.
This thread was about rights, in general, being lost and not just the phone taps. I don't really have a problem with intercepting incoming international calls but haven't argued for or against them. Some of the arguments about them being done previously by other presidents don't really impress me though.
I just think that we need to stick to our game plan in what America great and free. To ignore the rules when attacked causes us to lose focus and brings about the consternation that we are part of here.
Not just in this war, but in general, the government seems to focus too much scrutiny on Americans. We are not the enemy, but more and more we have to justify our existence and actions to some bureaucrat.
We, the people, are the repository of power in this country, not the government. They have been entrusted to do a job and been delegated certain limited and defined powers. Whenever they exceed that authority, no matter how worthy the cause or how pressing the need, it's a concern to a lot of us.
It's the slippery slope. We didn't/won't/can't lose our rights all at once. That would lead to another revolution, hopefully. It starts with the 'reasonable restriction' arguments. This gun. That type of ammo. No cigarettes on short flights to no smoking in bars. That's why I posted the quote early on in this thread. We are supposed to react at attempts to limit our liberty if we want to keep it.
You ever hear that without love, a house is just a house, but with love, it's a home? Well, America is more than a country or a place on the map. It's an idea too, actually a brilliant experiment in individual liberty. And it's that idea that's worth defending as well as that place on the map. Without that liberty, America is nothing special. It's just a place on the map.
They now have the authority to read that too.
Even before we became a nation, Americans have been spied on by their government, during times of war. How else do you suppose that Benedict Arnold was caught?
Very well said.
Is this not, however, the de facto current situation, that no persons who know what the President has asked for by way of surveillance have power to legally bring scrutiny upon these actions? What are the possibilities -- impeachment or judicial decree? Spilling the beans to Congress as a whole, or filing an objection with the US Supreme Court, is only going to get you slammed in jail.
Well, my point wasn't to probe the options left to a person who was subjected to unilateral action by the executive, but rather to assert that in the spectrum of "unilateral and hidden" to "involving more than one branch and transparent" action, some people will incline toward accepting, encouraging and rationalizing more of the "unilateral and hidden."
Heck, I rationalize some, depending on the nature of the activity and the circumstances involved.
If the discovered activity is surveillance, the reactions of the aggrieved person (target) and unilateral actor (e.g., the CIA or the FBI) are myriad. Jail is extreme, but I can imagine the issue settling out with the target being labeled a nut case.
Oh - Duh, I just realized the notion of your post, what options are left to insiders who know of the program. I believe that spilling the beans to certain members of Congress is quite defensible as a matter of Con Law principle. See Porter Goss's "ADDITIONAL VIEWS" in House Report 106-130 - Part I. That same writing also shows that the offending agent can, as a matter of practice, stonewall at least. But once in Congress, the ultimate remedy is impeachment, as you point out.
I don't see the Court as an appropriate venue for an insider, a whistleblower who is not a target.
Depending on the risk to the country at the "leak" and the resolve of the executive (for any variety of motives), there are plenty of possible scenarios following even a confidential disclosure.
While hardly a hidden or confidential matter, Lincoln "got away" with unilateral and military justice, and with using military power to silence political competitors. The people hold him in high regard, so it must be politically acceptable to circumvent the Constitution in some circumstances. If the people don't effectively object to a practice, the executive has his way.
Lincoln blew off the broad ramifications of Taney's order in Merryman. And while the Merryman case probably prompted Lincoln to ask for Congressional approval, he didn't follow the resulting Congressional grant of suspension of habeas corpus. At least the public was treated to the debate and the legal activity, and today we have the written history to use as we see fit.
I believe you're right. And they probably never will because it would blow their argument all to hell.
The loss of rights argument is a strawman, IMO. What specific rights would one lose by having a government minder and being required to submit to quarterly audits by the IRS?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547700/posts?page=468#468
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547700/posts?page=478#478
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547700/posts?page=484#484
No government, no matter how despotic, is out to destroy it's people. That would leave nothing left to rule! The trick is to make sure the subjects are compliant and happy.
Thank you.
One allegation has been made which, if true, could be a violation and that is the claim that the administration submitted requests to the FISA court, were turned down, and then tapped them anyway. As for other violations, if any, I don't know. But enough claims have been made to warrant a legal investigation. If Bush is right then the courts need to uphold him. And if he's wrong then we need to know that, too. Nobody, not even the President, can act outside the law.
And if their programs violated the law then they should be prosecuted. I'm not saying that any president, regardless of party, is free to break the law. I'm saying all should be held to the law, regardless of party.
I always thought the decision not to obtain a declaration of war was a big mistake. It would have really clarified and focused the issue.
You do realize that military personnel are subject to different rules than civilians, don't you?
You do realize that, even unintentionally, vital information could be gleaned from that mail if not redacted, don't you?
You do realize that Benedict Arnold was not a citizen of the United States (since we wasn't a country yet), don't you?
You do realize that there is less respect for our rights now than at any time in history, don't you?
You do realize that most people don't have a true appreciation and love of liberty that existed even 50 years ago, don't you?
LOL
We WASN'T a country
Who made me type it like that?
We weren't a country.
Sheesh.
Actually, Arnold was "caught" because a British spy, Major John Andre, adjutant general of the British army, using an alias, John Anderson and in civilian costume, had been caught with descriptions of West Point's defenses tucked into his boot.
Washington and Hamilton were with Arnold when he received this news. They were there to inspect the defenses that Arnold had neglected. A distraught Arnold slipped out of the house and fled to the British ship Vulture.
In fact, those that would give up our civil liberties have already capitulated to the terrorists. In fact, the terrorists have already won once we give up our civil liberties.
I for one will never give in to the terrorists by giving up my civil liberties. "...give me liberty or give me death."
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.