I have read many of the posts here and I can understand the points made on both sides ..
This whole issue it a little tricky IMO .. even though War has not "officially" declared .. the facts are . we are at War .. it's plain and simple there .. we were attack and we are now defending ourselves ..
I don't trust the Senate and don't look to them for leadership .. but I will say .. President Bush is not anti-american .. that is pushing it a bit .. and for those who say they won't vote for Bush in 2004 .. oh please .. who ya going to vote for Queen Hillary???
Ok .. I'm off to read this information now .. so for those who feel the need to slam me .. go for it if it makes you feel better ..
TTFN
First, however, I think we need to appreciate our founding fathers warning that power, particularly when concentrated in government, corrupts. Many posts on this thread seem to accuse those opposed to granting greater power to the government is un-American. Frankly, I think the opposite would be closer to the truth.
This war started, in my opinion, with the attack in Beirut. It has intensified over the last 7 years with an attack on the WTC, two embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and finally the 9/11 attack on the WTC. I don't think terrorism was on the govermnents radar screen in any serious way prior to 9/11. Their failure to combat terrorism wasn't due to a lack of law enforcement "tools", it was due to a lack of will. I was amazed, immediately after 9/11 how quickly arrests were made. The New York Times ran an article today, "Jubilant Calls on Sept. 11 Led to F.B.I. Arrests". The had the right lines bugged, even under the old technology. EXODUS gets the answer right when he says "...I would suggest, MJY1288, that we inforce the laws we have, instead of violating the rights of citizens." This was a failure of law enforcement, not a lack of tools. We this bill in force a year ago, nothing would have been different.