Ashcroft, Seeking Broad Powers, Says Congress Must Act Quickly

New York Times [News Department, Ministry of Truth] ^ | 2001-10-01 | ALISON MITCHELL and TODD S. PURDUM

[HiTech RedNeck]

Not a code phrase, simply reality. The duty to provide for the common defense and the duty againt "unreasonable" search and seizure will cause "unreasonable" to vary with the scope of the danger being defended against. Whatever the Constitution is, it is not a suicide pact!

[Zon]

Oh I get it. You want Bush and Ashcroft to dump the dirty laundry of the alphabet soup agencies in public view. In the middle of a war which will be so much easier for the enemies if they get a look at this dirty laundry. Makes perfect sense to me. 

Don't have to dump any dirty laundry. It's already aired on the Internet. It's called free speech. I suppose your going to claim that the dozens of articles that have criticized the governments failings equates to lose-lips. The terrorist knew who their facilitators were without having to read about their dirty laundry on the Internet.

I note that you again circumvented The Point. Do you assume that Ashcroft and the other government officials mentioned in the above article are acting in an honest and consistent manner to identify the internal problems and how the facilitated the mess?"  Has the occupant/Ashcroft or any of the above office holders done that? No. The fox is asking/demanding to guard the hen house with more of the same.

The problem must be accurately identified in the fullest sense with the all the facts gathered up to that point in time before an effective solution can be formulated.

[from occupied ga]

Thanx for the agreement. The new Office of Homeland Security (Know as the Sicherheit Dienst in a foreign government in the first half of the 20th century) is a case in point. It will staff up with all sorts of managerial opportunities for bureaucratic time servers and political appointees. All will have fat salaries (at our expense). What a marvelous God given chance to plunder the taxpayers and have them agree with doing it! It must make tears (of joy) come to the eyes of the statists in Washington. Not a single person in the BHS will work on "security" They will simply add another bureaucratic layer on top of the FBI and CIA. But, who cares if it helps security when it can provide rich rewards for the politically faithful.

[HiTech RedNeck]

O Wise One, put yourself in Ashcroft's seat. What would you do. Remember you can't tip any more of our hand to the enemy than the media has already tipped, such as what agents are compromisable, etc.

Your position is pure paranoia.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Office of Homeland SecurityDefense

Can't you get a simple fact straight?

[AppyPappy]

and the indefinite detention of immigrants considered national security threats,

I move we accept by unanimous consent.

[from occupied ga]

Can't you get a simple fact straight?Who cares what you call it? A rose by any other name... Likewise a bureaucratic boondogle to suck up taxpayer dollars by any other name stinks.

If you're reduced to picking nits rather than responding to the substance of the comment, then I can take it that you have no disagreement with the substance of the remarks.

[Zon]

such as what agents are compromisable

What?! ...There are compromise-able officials in the U.S. government? Tell me it isn't so. Get them the heck out of there since they don't have the integrity, honesty or competence to uphold their oaths to the Constitution and the People.

Your position is pure paranoia.

None of it is paranoia. It is all documented facts presented in context to the Primary issue. The primary issue is: who are the terrorists and their facilitators? The terrorists are hard to pinpoint. Some of the facilitators are hiding in plain site. I note that not once have you offered an argument that refutes those facts or primary issue.

[Zon]

Is that the new code phrase now that "Living Document" is getting a bit old?

It's HiTech RedNeck's way of attempting to circumvent the stigma that has been rightfully attached to the "Living Document" spin.

[Wm Bach]

In the middle of a war which will be so much easier for the enemies if they get a look at this dirty laundry.

There has been no declaration of war. Being that we have a Constitutional Republic, a Declaration of War must be enacted by the Congress, according to the crystal clear language of that same Constitution. If the government prosecutes a war, sans a Declaration, it is engaged in a criminal act.

Bush needs to step up to the plate, once the investigation is complete, and ask Congress to fulfill it's duty.

[from occupied ga]

This article in the Village Voice by Nat Hentoff addresses the same problems that we've been discussing here

[PatrioticAmerican]

Damned American companies and organizations supporting and fighting for that liberty and freedom thing, again. sigh...if we could only just get more communists in American politics the world would be a safer place for the ruling class. /sarcasm

[Katie_Colic]

I shudder to think what would have been considered terrorism under Herr Reno. (I refuse to think of her as a woman).

We need to be real careful going down this path.

[Katie_Colic]

How do you think Janet Reno and Hillary would have used these powers? Do you think Aschcroft will be there forever? What will be defined as terrorism by the next occupant of the White House? Where do these expanded powers end.

If I knew there would always be a man of Ashcrofts character in that office I could look the other way on this. THERE WILL NOT ALWAYS BE A MAN OF HIS CHARACTER IN THIS OFFICE. LETTING THIS GO TOO FAR IS AN INVITATION TO DISASTER.

[Katie_Colic]

That might, actually, be a good idea, if it has a sunset provision.

Government powers never decrease. If enacted this wil be permanent.

[Twodees]

With a declaration of war, the Supremes are out of the loop, because foreigners will not be tried by civilian courts. We don't need a new cabinet agency, either.

Here's the deal in a nutshell; if Ashcroft can't do the job he hired on to do without boohooing to Congress that the Constitution is in his way, he needs to resign and let a grownup do the job.

A time like this gives us all a chance to see how well these soft-handed career politicians deliver when it's time for them to get to work. They have talked the game for long enough. Let'em get to work or get out of the way. Personally, I have about a nickel's worth of faith in any of them. I also don't intend to let them get by with more of the same old garbage without speaking up and calling them on their nonsense.

You're forgetting something; these idiots are our employees, not our leaders, and not our bosses. They're going to have to deliver and observe the rules contained in the Constitution which they all swore to uphold and defend. If they can't, let them step down.