The Military Commissions Act of 2006 Part II - All Politics Are Local - TomW's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : If someone has any...

If someone has any idea of what to do, please let me know. If anyone believes I am wrong, please prove it. I would like nothing more than to be incorrect.

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : I also heard Jonathan...

I also heard Jonathan Turley speak about it, he is a Constitutional Law Professor, at GWU I think. KO interviewed him a couple of nights ago on this. I can look for the link to the interview if you would like Tom. Good writeup, glad you posted on it :)

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : Here is part of the...

Here is part of the transcript from the Turley interview the other night. You can read the entire interview here.

OLBERMANN: Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he‘s going be putting on this board.

OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

TURLEY: It does. And it‘s a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn‘t rely on their good motivations.

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : Thanks,...

Thanks, Dusty. The link to the Turley video can be found at the page I posted as well. Here's a temporary link to it on the msnbc website. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15317473/

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : I recall writing...

I recall writing letters to the editor in 2002 warning of the intention of the Bush /Cheny Administration, the Californian never printed them but the LA times did print two.
It was obvious even back in 2002 that eventually this governemtn was set on a course to curtain basic right for Americans and would use fear as the basis for these changes.Today the country is ruled by the use of fear and paraoia that everyone is trying to "get" us, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Taliban remnants, Al Quaeda, Al Sharpton, Al Pacino, and Al Gore, they are all part of the axis of evil.
Habeas Corpus, who needs Habeas Corpus, when we have a decider and will have many more in the future. Those who support the President on these draconian changes assume that we will never have another President as honest as Nixon , as caring as Hoover and as agressive as King George, but fear does many things including making fools of many well intentioned people.

To give up our rights for a single moment in time is not only foolish but dangerous, but unfortunately that is what we have become a foolish and dangerous people!

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : I have a blog that...

I have a blog that I'm finishing up on this right now, and I should be posting tonight. I hope people take it personally. The last time I was accused to making things "personal", I asked someone to describe what "acceptable interrogation techniques" were, so that I could use them on the blogger. And then on the blogger's wife. And then on the blogger's children. I hope that the piece I'll be posting tonight will receive the same response. I think people's apathy is because they don't think it affect's them. And they're wrong. People like Anglo keep saying "show me, show me"; unfortunately for us, you can't prove a negative. And that's what this bill is- there is nothing in it to protect us. My only hope is that the next president that is elected gets rid of it as quickly as possible. After, perhaps, he uses it to imprison every last member of Congress that voted for it, and the Attorney General, and the President. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony- to have the President locked up under his own law?

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 AM : BTW: does anybody know...

BTW: does anybody know where I can find a "final" version of this bill, including "signing statements"? I'm still having difficulties locating it.....

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : Mattloch, this was...

Mattloch, this was exactly what Keith talked about. There is nothing in this law to prevent a future president from using it to detain and torture Bush.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : Yes, but there's...

Yes, but there's no way they could find him in his new South American compound.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : I can't track it...

I can't track it down either. When I find it, I'll post it.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : It's Paraguy,...

It's Paraguy, Pete. How much money would it cost to send Blackwater down there? It would look like a rounding error in their billing.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : I read part of the new...

I read part of the new 2006 Act concerning habeaus corpus and it realates to "alien" enemy combatants, not law abiding US citizens. Don't you guys really think this is just more liberal media hype aimed at people that are salivating over anything they can through at Bush? I wonder if KO is one of the MSNBC getting canned.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : Anglo, you're...

Anglo, you're right about the part of the bill only pertaining to alien enemy combatants. I tried to make this abundantly clear in the blog above, which is why I wrote this:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, besides making legal our reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, also creates a new class of criminals: unlawful enemy combatants. Anyone, including US citizens, may be declared unlawful enemy combatants under this law. The remainder of the law only deals with alien enemy combatants (AECs) or non-citizens. There is no procedure that details the process for a citizen that has been detained as a non-alien enemy combatant. Among the procedures for dealing with AECs is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the law that requires that evidence used against you is presented.

While this is still horrible, the point is being made here that you can be detained and once you are detained, how are you going to prove your citizenship? What if you renounce it under torture or threat of torture? There is a precedent for this case in the guy who was in a foreign country who was put on a no fly list. It is illegal to deny a US citizen entry to the United States. But if you cannot board a plane to get here to access that right, what recourse do you have?

As for KO getting canned, it's just him, Scarborough and Hardball on the network now. The purge is over.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : Don't count on it...

Don't count on it anglo. His ratings are climbing, but not as fast as Bill "loofa" O'Riley's are falling. Honestly, I hope it is all just hype. To think Congress and the POTUS would actually do something so against what America is all about would truly be vile.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : Anglo, here is the...

Anglo, here is the part of the law that details who is and how you can be designated an unlwful enemy combatant:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf (pdf)

‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful
enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.
‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’,
with respect to the United States, means any State
or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United
States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against
a common enemy.

There is no reference to nationality here.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 AM : Pete, this is why I am...

Pete, this is why I am asking, begging, for someone to prove me wrong. It is about your citizenship, and if you renounce that or have it stripped, you will be subject to the tribunal law.

Oct 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM : "Loofa?" ...

"Loofa?" "Falafel?"
.
Could someone please explain all these seemingly disjointed, meaningless, and irrelevant nicknames that get applied to O'Reilly?
.
I don't understand any of them.

Oct 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM : White House...

White House Statement

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017.html

Report

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/H-Rep-109-688.pdf

Summary

http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr6166.asp

THE ACT…

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

House Congressional Record

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/message.pdf

Congressional Record - Senate

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/SCOR-2006-09-28.pdf

Oct 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM : Don't you...

Don't you remember a while back when one of his producers accused him of sexually harassing her with nasty phonecalls and inappropriate com-ons? Read all the nasty details at the following link.

PROOF from the smoking Gun

I really hate to post this right before lunch. Surely it will ruin someone's appetite.

Oct 19, 2006 at 11:10 AM : Okay, after lengthy...

Okay, after lengthy reading, that explains "falafel"... Still way obscure.
.
One mysterious nickname down, one to go.

Oct 19, 2006 at 12:10 PM : READ THE ACTUAL BILL...

READ THE ACTUAL BILL YOURSELF
(all 95 pages)

If you still think enemy combatant is just someone who opposes the war, you're WAY off. Enemy combatant is defined lossely as someone who is fighting our troops, not just protesting a war.

S-3930 [PDF] "To Authorize trial by military commision for violations of the law of war and other reasons." You might find subchapter 3 interesting, as it deals with charges and specifications. Subchapter 4, Trial procedure.

Oct 19, 2006 at 12:10 PM : There is absolutely...

There is absolutely no reason that any type of search should go without review. The submission of information pertaining to the warrant less search. MUST be required within a reasonable period. America should not be a part of the erasing of a moment in time, from history..

Are we such miserable failures that we can not clear a set of Judges for secret clearances. Are we in fear of our Judges turning treasonous?

Are we expected to believe that the terrorists are idiots. And are unaware of attempts to surveil them?? Unaware of phone taps? Unaware of cell phone taps.

If indeed our intelligence units believe the above boulder-dash. Then it is our intelligence units that are idiots..

America MUST NEVER put in writing ANY form of endorsement for even the slightest idea of torture..

Perhaps at the highest levels. Torture could lead to MUST HAVE information.. In such cases. Field decisions should be in the slightest whisper. Allowed..

A Presidential pardon is available in justified cases. For acts that for some reason have leaked out..

Oct 19, 2006 at 12:10 PM : Excuse me, but a...

Excuse me, but a Professor of Constitutional law states very clearly, in my comment above that the bill is written to encompass all people on the face of the earth, including Americans..why is it so hard for individuals to understand this? Its a blank check plus it provides a retro clause so that the goverment employees who have been torturing people can't be tried for it any time down the road..by anyone. At least we won't deport anyone of them to put on trial..they have that get out of jail free card known as the Military Commissions Act.

Oct 19, 2006 at 12:10 PM : Hey I've got a...

Hey I've got a liberal idea... let's disband our military, and surrender to the terrorists. That'll show them who's boss!

Oct 19, 2006 at 12:10 PM : Anon has an idea..but...

Anon has an idea..but its not liberal..it's incredibly stupid. Such simplistic comments to deal with an issue that has many layers..only an anonymous commenter could be so stupid. Why, its one of the Shrub's sheeple! Next we will hear..why do you hate america..go live in the Middle East.

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : Wow anon, You're...

Wow anon, You're ignorant. You must have been:

1. Listening to Dick Cheney
2. Watching Fox News
3. Listening to Rush Limbaugh

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : Anon ...

Anon

What a disrespectful comment…. There are dozens of our troops that have already or are at this time facing courts martial. The commissions act does nothing to help these troopers decide on what actions are acceptable. It does nothing to protect the troops if they become captured. It does nothing but protect the Butts locked up in the pentagon and the white house..

Do you understand the desperation required to pass such a act?

If I were to be provided verifiable evidence. That our troops were overwhelmed by the war experience. And that urges of revenge began to dominate their lives.

I would call for the immediate return of our troops. No questions asked. No remorse….

Do you understand That in just a short time.. What were great American young men. Will be housed in the jail cell next to Saddam himself.

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : Saddam himself...he...

Saddam himself...he did many bad things, but he will be punished for only one....He will suffer the wrath of the Bush dynasty!

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : conveniently 2 days...

conveniently 2 days before the election. If this is Rove's October suprise, it's the lamest one ever.

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : October surprise =...

October surprise = Rummy’s resignation….

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : Rummy won't...

Rummy won't resign and the Shrub keeps patting him on the back publicly. The October surprise is something with Iran perhaps?

Or perhaps its Nancy Pelosi in a compromising position..the surprise has to be something that will lift the wings of the Republican party to victory in November.

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : This is my day to...

This is my day to sound really dumb.
.
What is this "october surprise" talk? I thought we already had it??
.
And I, like Pete, hate the new type-in characters. Lose 'em. How can a spammer spam without registering first? If a spammer gets in , just delete the spammer's ID.

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : ...

The October Surprise

Search Site

Tell Us

Robert Parry has written a number of stories pursuing the strong evidence that Reagan and Bush made an all-out effort to sabotage Jimmy Carter's efforts to win the release of the Iranian-held hostages before the November election, the episode known as the October Surprise.
In 1995, Parry became privy to a host of files that had been locked in a deserted bathroom in DC. Read about what he found when he started going through these files in this series of stories (descriptions from Parry's October Surprise page:

The Russian Report -- What the KGB knew about the October Surprise mystery, but the American people didn't. (12-11-95)

The Ladies Room Secrets -- How historic secrets about this political era were recovered from a remote Capitol Hill wash room. (12-21-95)

Bill Casey's Iranian -- What FBI wiretaps captured about secret payments from BCCI and a Bush-connected lawyer to an Iranian "double-agent."(12-31-95)

Follow the Money -- How some of the world's most secretive and powerful players joined forces to fix the pivotal 1980 election. (1-15-96)

Saddam's 'Green Light' -- What a "top secret" report reveals about the origins of the bloody Iran-Iraq War. (1-31-96)

Where's Bill Casey -- How the national news media and Congress "debunked" the October Surprise allegations by adopting bogus alibis for Bill Casey. (2-14-96)

Bush & a CIA Power Play -- What CIA veterans and former CIA director George Bush did to regain The White House in the 1980s. (2-29-96)

Lies Spun into History -- How absurd alibis became part of the October Surprise historical record. (3-14-96)

October Surprise: Finally, Time for the Truth? -- Seven years ago, Jamshid Hashemi, an Iranian businessman and CIA operative, broke his silence about the October Surprise controversy. Now, with more and more public figures corroborating parts of the story, Jamshid Hashemi is revealing new details about this ultimate dirty trick and the CIA. (5/5/97)

October Surprise: Time for Truth? (Part 2) -- The enduring mystery of George Bush and alleged Paris meetings with Iranians in 1980: Did he go or did he stay? (5/19/97)

Earl Brian: Reagan's 'Scandal Man' Off to Jail -- In the early 1990s, the word of Ronald Reagan's friend Earl Brian helped debunk two major scandals. But now, Brian's credibility has collapsed with his federal fraud conviction. (8/25/97)

From:

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/denied/octsurprise.htm

Oct 19, 2006 at 01:10 PM : Sorry to ask again,...

Sorry to ask again, but every single link posted above is either for the Senate or House bills; none are for the bill the president signed, and none of them contained his now infamous "signing statements".
.
Independent of that, Ki6amd, what makes you think that "unlawful enemy combatants" ever need to be charged with anything, let alone tried. That's what habeas corpus means. You get rid of that, it becomes a license to hold people forever, and never charge them for anything, let alone put them in front of a star-chamber kangaroo court.

Oct 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM : Here is the link to...

Here is the link to the Presidential signing statements that I use. Its the list for this year, up to Oct 17th. None are included for the Mil. Comm. Act.

Oct 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM : Ki6amd, ...

Ki6amd,

I actually read
the actual bill
my actual self,
the whole thing.

I even posted the definition of unlawful enemy combatant for you so you didn't have to summerize it incorrectly or otherwise. Let me ask you a very specific question, since you've read the bill, what happens to an American citizen who is declared an unlawful enemy combatant?

Oct 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM : Tom..the big...

Tom..the big lettering..we aren't blind..at least I am not, and I do believe I am the oldest person here. I read the part about unlawful enemy combatants too. But convincing some people takes alot more than just reading,cutting and pasting the sections. They want physical proof of some kind..whateverthehellthatmeans.

Oct 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM : Wasn't for you...

Wasn't for you Dusty. I just wanted it to be on par with the big words above so that no one would miss it. Here's some good lawyer speak from Alberto Gonzolas about the problem I have. It's from a not so reliable website, but I trust them for stuff like this.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20061018.html

Brad, from San Jose writes:
Mr Gonzales, I am concerned about the potential for abuse of the new rules. What legal recourse does an innocent suspect have under the new legislation? Specifically, I am deeply concerned about what would happen if someone less honorable than the current administration occupied the White House and chose to use the new laws for unlawful purposes, such as punishing political opponents. Without the right to legal council, habeas corpus, or trial under US criminal law, how would a falsely accused "suspect" defend themselves and gain their freedom? (This would apply equally to US and non-US citizens.) Also, in consideration of the fact that such a person might be indefinitely detained for weeks, months or even years, and subject to "aggressive" forms of questioning, what recourse, if any, would such a person have to obtain compensation for the injuries they sustained as a result of the malicious prosecution?

Alberto Gonzales
I want to make one thing clear: The Military Commissions Act does not apply to American citizens. The military commissions established under the Act may try only alien unlawful enemy combatants, and the new law does not restrict the rights of United States citizens to file writs of habeas corpus in federal court.

Anyone else think this is a bit weaselly, switching from talking about the Act to talking about the commissions themselves?

Oct 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM : Alberto Gonzales...

Alberto Gonzales doesn't answer questions, he dodges them and distracts the questoner. He did it on every question he was asked during confirmation.

SPAM SPAM sausage and SPAM

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Ok, I am already tired...

Ok, I am already tired of the friggin spam stopper..we don't get spam here, I have never seen any..as already pointed out..you have to register to comment on this bloody site..jeebus.

I am reading Tom's link..just wanted to bitch a lil..I never do you know..

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Hey, this is the same...

Hey, this is the same Attorney General that said it isn't torture up to organ failure and death. Anything short of that is fair game. What did you expect?

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Tom..I put in a...

Tom..I put in a comment and its not here..did the comment fairy get it, or did you delete it?

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : you didn't type...

you didn't type in the new spam machine code. Tisk tisk dusty.

"Did ya get the memo?" "Yeah, well we're using new cover sheets on the TPS reports now, m-kaaaay"

SPAM SPAM cheese & SPAM

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : this so sucks...

this so sucks Pete..now I forgot what my comment was..oh, yeah..Tom..that site is a propaganda site..you nimrod ;P

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Happened to me twice...

Happened to me twice already. I'm so glad I'm protected from the spam that wasn't being posted.

Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Now pete, i DID put...

Now pete, i DID put the damn code in and the post still isn't here..wtf?

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Mattloch, I will try...

Mattloch, I will try one more time..HERE is a government website that gives the signing statements. You enter the bill number I think..you have it..go try.

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Anybody know how we...

Anybody know how we could get a "non partisan" answer to the question regarding aliens vs. the possibility of a citizen losing his status as a legal US citizen. I don't understand how this could happen, can someone enlighten me.
I don't mind the large type sometimes, makes it seem like its a point you really want to get across.

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Hey Dusty, did you...

Hey Dusty, did you just accuse me of deleting you? Hrrmff. That's it, I'm buying you a copy of Bill O'Reilly's new book and I'm paying RETAIL for it.

No, no no, sorry. Some things we shouldn't even joke about.

Oct 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM : Anglo, I guess that is...

Anglo, I guess that is the point of the LARGE TYPE,getting their point across. But its lost on me. Tom read the whole damn bill, he should be able to point you in the right direction dude.

Oct 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM : I know you didn't...

I know you didn't delete my comment, but two of them aren't here..the spam fairy ate them..who knows? ;P

I would hurt you if you even came near me with that book Tom..you are forewarned.

Oct 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM : Thanks,...

Thanks, Anglo. I don't know where to get a non-partisan opinion that everyone could believe is non-partisan. Also, mainstream media isn't talking about this. I'll keep looking.

Oct 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM : There is no signing...

There is no signing statement for this bill on the site yet. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2006.html

Oct 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM : Tom, you've said...

Tom, you've said a mouthfull there. Even non-partisan opinions are tagged as partisan if they don't agree with one's position. Also, this is way too complicated for the MSM to handle. I mean come on, they've got the population counter to watch, and something having to do with that runaway bride woman.

Oct 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM : Have they mentioned...

Have they mentioned Paris freaking Hilton today? The MSM does have much more important fish to fry.How can someone take a Constitution Law Professor's statement, who teaches our kids btw, as a partisan view? If he was lying I would think no one would defer to his pronouncements of fact.

Oct 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM : And don't forget...

And don't forget now Pete, we have the divorce between Sir Paul McCartney and his wife (famous people- strike one). Over one billion bucks on the line with this one, so you know people will care a lot about it ($$$= strike two). She's making crazy statements about him (which is the third strike for the public's fascination with it), and it'll only be a matter of time before he swings back. The media will be all over this one, and claim that it's not their fault they spend so much time on it, because it's what the (lowest common denominator) people want to watch. Best line so far: "he'd better win, because if you can't win against a one-legged woman in an ass-kicking contest, you're through......"

Oct 19, 2006 at 05:10 PM : I will have you know...

I will have you know Mattloch that the brits are now saying the court document isn't signed and may be a forgery where Sir Paul is called a drunkard and wife strangler.

Oct 19, 2006 at 05:10 PM : Dusty , I'm...

Dusty , I'm guessing that were joking about a professor being non-partisan. Most are cut from the opposite side of the cloth that the extreme right hail form. Dude?

Oct 19, 2006 at 05:10 PM : Dude..slang for Sir....

Dude..slang for Sir. anglo :) Tell me, do you acturally think he would lie about whats in the bill? Why would he put his reputation on the line?

Oct 19, 2006 at 05:10 PM : Anglo..its not an...

Anglo..its not an editorial..he stated unequivocally what the bill does and doesn't do. His whole reputation could be shot to hell if he is lying, or stretching the truth. A sitting professor can't afford to do that..come on.

Oct 19, 2006 at 05:10 PM : Dusty, anglo, meet...

Dusty, anglo, meet John Yoo. Teaches law at Berkeley. He makes Al Gonzolas look like Pop'n'Fresh. The Unitary Executive theory is also refered to as the Yoo Doctrine. Here's a gem from the article:

In explaining the Yoo Doctrine, Yoo made the following statements during a December 1, 2005 debate in Chicago, Illinois with Notre Dame Law School Professor Doug Cassel:

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.^[21]

Oct 19, 2006 at 08:10 PM : Yoo did not write a...

Yoo did not write a memo stating is was ok to crush a child's testicles, did he? I just wrote a long response to Tom and to Dusty about this and these worthless liberal professors who "are" immune, but somehow it got lost. Oh well, this is shorter.

I may be wrong but I think when Tom wrote big. I think he was speaking to someone else.

Oct 19, 2006 at 09:10 PM : I know how you feel, I...

I know how you feel, I am amazed how one side of the political spectrum refuses to believe that there have been and are millions of people that would absolutely love to slit your sons, daughters, parents, grandchildren ,grandparents throats and anyone else that did not believe the way they do. These may be the most difficult times our gov. has faced because their are no borders or boundaries for our enemies. It seems to me like most of the left believes that if we just try to get along with these radical Muslims or tyrants like in Iran, N Korea, Venezuela that they will either like us or leave us alone. History doesn't show that. Abu Graib had some problems but did you see anything in the photos that you could actually call torture, in a "war" setting? I may have missed it. As long as our enemies are abiding by the Geneva convention rules I guess we should to. If I thought I could possibly save my loved ones by torture, I can't think of much that I wouldn't try. Its not apathy when our gov. is doing all it can to keep us as safe as possible.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 PM : Anglo, millions of...

Anglo, millions of people? As for just getting along, that's a load of crap. There is a very strong argument to be made that WWII was won in part because the Allied powers cut off the Axis' access to oil. There are levels of strategy and ways to defeat an enemy that have nothing to do with dropping big bombs. We need to isolate these terrorists and cut them off so that they do not have a sympathetic population to shelter them. By the government's own metrics, this war has created more terrorists. It's time to start fighting smart.

Oct 19, 2006 at 10:10 PM : Anglo, Yoo did not...

Anglo, Yoo did not write a memo about this. This was part of a debate where Yoo said that in war, the President's power is only checked by the power of the purse in Congress. Other than that, the president could do anything he wanted without repercussions. Cassel brought up the most horrible thing he could imagine to show that even Yoo believed that there were some limits on the presodent's power.

Oct 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM : Anglo, do not confuse...

Anglo, do not confuse "results" with "effectiveness". In several bombing raids, Allied bombers got great results, blowing up several German factories, and using weapons like napalm and incendary bombs to kills tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilians. The results were clear: huge swaths of industrial cities were reduced to rubble. But how effective was it? Despite the numerous deaths and the loss of industrial capacity of the cities in question, the loss of manufacturing power was offset in the short-term by civilians in other cities increasing their output out of the feelings of patriotism and anger towards the Allied powers. Long-term effectiveness was also reduced once the destroyed factories were rebuild, often within days or weeks of destruction, or relocation to caves or broken up into smaller, harder to target and hit units.
.
What does this mean to you? You can kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of the people you believe are trying to "slit your throats", but does that do anything to reducing the numbers of people waiting behind them, or the numbers of people who don't feel that way today, but may be swayed to do so tomorrow? Of course not. Just remember, terrorists aren't born, or bred, or hatched from eggpods like insects; terrorists are created. They are created by unfair and uneven living conditions. They are created by senseless killings of family members. They are created every time somebody think that they are good for nothing but death and destruction. People do not become suicide bombers for the glory; they become suicide bombers because there is nothing glorious left in their lives.

Oct 20, 2006 at 05:10 AM : Anglo..you fail to...

Anglo..you fail to realize or address the fact that the majority of the population now believes the President is doing a lousy job, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and we need to get out of Iraq asap.

Are you calling the majority of Americans liberal? By your own comment I would have to say yes you are. I think most of America is moderate and apolitical when it comes to party loyalty. This left, right bs has got to stop. It prevents us as a country in standing together to solve the problems that have been created by entering Iraq on reasons that are now found to be lies or half-truths. Labels do nothing but piss people off. You use them as a slap to the face. You use them to put down people who are intelligent, care about this country and wish to see our borders secure. When the majority of us comment on this blog, we never lable negatively the citizens of the U.S. We do go after the elected officials that got us into this mess.

Why is your only defense to attack the citizens and call them 'liberals' and put up a ridiculous statement that "liberals" "believes that if we just try to get along with these radical Muslims or tyrants like in Iran, N Korea, Venezuela that they will either like us or leave us alone."--No one on these boards has suggested anything so innane and simple-minded and I do not know of anyone anywhere that has used that line of reasoning as well. We use the words negotiate strategy and many others. We say many things, but we do not say "just try to get along".

I am deeply offended with your rhetoric aimed at me and others here, that simplies a situation that is anything but simple. And to put it off as "our beliefs" is a blatant lie.

If you wish to continue the "status quo" that the President seems to think is just working fine, that is your right. I think that the over 70 dead soldiers this month alone is proof that the war in Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket quicker than you can verbally attack everyone who believes differently than you as "liberals". The month isn't even close to being over yet. I challenge you to find any documentation that this war is winnable. Because the fact is, no one is saying that, including the military leaders who have served in Iraq and those serving now. But if you can find one that says we can still win this war, I will buy you lunch. If we can't "win" what are we going to do? If we can't win, why are we still allowing our men and women to die daily over there? Just answer those questions if you can.

To label the majority of americans with a word that you use as a negative term shows how little you respect the people of this country. I thought you were better than that Anglo.

Oct 20, 2006 at 05:10 AM : According to Matt the...

According to Matt the more we kill with our way of fighting, causes more to become terrorist, Plus the panty hose treatment really pppp's them off, lets see how can we fight them and keep them happy? Maybe rubber bullets and rubber bombs. Just maybe if they hadnt bombed us 1st with our planes, maybe we wouldnt be there. Sure I know, we didnt have to go into Iraq, well according to the left we didnt. Polls are in your favor and we havent been attack, so you keep the polls and I'll take the peace of mind.

Ron.

Oct 20, 2006 at 06:10 AM : Iraq didn't bomb...

Iraq didn't bomb us with our planes. Are you that ridiculously 'out there' as to stil think Iraq was behind 9/11? Guess you will buy into anything this administration puts out there as gospel..they love you for it too. I guess you don't mind the continued slaughter of our soldiers, they are just numbers right, not people? Your logic, or actually lack of it...is simply amazing Ron. Do you talk to people the way you comment here on these blogs?

Oct 20, 2006 at 08:10 AM : Anglo, most everyone...

Anglo, most everyone knows that Islamic radicals would love to do all those terrible things. And most everyone with a brain knows that "getting along" with the radicals is as futile as "getting along" with James Dobson or Tom DeLay.
.
It's just that some of us suggest that we refrain from "staying a course" that seems to be generating more of them.
.
I don't know why that is so difficult for some on "one side of the political spectrum" to figure out.

Oct 20, 2006 at 08:10 AM : Adam, I'm further...

Adam, I'm further perplexed by the fact that many of the people who put blind faith in the government today are the very same people who warned about government abuse of power during the 1990s.
.
To hear the far right read amazing things into some of Clinton's Executive Orders is a lot like what some on the Left read into Bush's signing statements. Remember, Clinton was fighting a war on domestic terrorism (remember OKC?), and the far right was even more paranoid about Clinton's war on terror than the Left vs. Bush.
.
(The difference is, the Left is warning us about a government that really is malicious and untrustworthy.)