Replies

Remember Bush saying we were attacked by those who hate our freedoms? Perhaps his approach is that, by eliminating those freedoms, he and his administration are reducing the likelyhood of more attacks.

After all, as even most freepers seem to believe, what's freedom when you can have the illusion of security? ;~)

Perhaps his approach is that, by eliminating those freedoms, he and his administration are reducing the likelyhood of more attacks.

Well, Bush IMO is in a difficult position. For example, the blind Egyptian mullah (I forget his name at the moment) continued to direct terrorist attacks from jail - so I can see the need to monitor ALL of his communications from prison, and agree with that particular action, to monitor attorney communications with those particular suspects or inmates. But military tribunals? We need to look past this particular war, and remember who is waiting in the wings - Hillary, Daschle, and any number of Dem fascist wannabees who would not hesitate to expand upon the concept of an E.O. to declare both who is a terrorist and how they should be tried - and, quite frankly, upon further reflection, the notion of President Hillary with these powers terrifies me far more than Al Queda. So the only way to check such powers is to revert them back to the legislature, and I am now in favor of Congress authorizing this, not Bush...

After all, as even most freepers seem to believe, what's freedom when you can have the illusion of security? ;~)

Good point. We have had such presidents before. I thought with the alcohol history and the penchant for foreign intervention that he was following in his ancestors steps, one Franklin Pierce. Now, I think of him as 'Old Buck.' 'Old Buck' sent the posse comitatus into the territories under the notion that rigging free elections could protect slavery. We have seen worse than W, but it is disconcerting to see such ignorance of great principles in one so powerful.