Who thinks...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig2

so since hussein committed genocie 'a long time ago' that's ok?? and it wasn't that long ago, not that that matters. i'd image the family members of those killed feel like it was just yesterday, when it was after gulf one. really not so long ago after all.

and as i said, those that are not u.s. citizens should fall under the geneva convention, but not the constitution. after all, our citizens convicted in foreign countries are not under the us constitution, so foreign nationals have no argument that they should be here. also, the geneva convention is supposedly for prisoners of war...that is where the bush admin tries to get slippery, they call this a war, but don't want to call the people they are fighting soldiers, they want to call them terrorists. can't have it both ways.

absolutely our citizens should have constitutional rights!

I also agree that our citizens should have constitutional rights.
So much blood has been shed to protect and preserve them.
Somerfrost quoted this: There is a price to pay for freedom and if we as individuals become unwilling to pay that price, our children will never know what it was like to live in a free society!
Unfortunately, that defines the current situation.
Do we compromise liberty and justice to those that exploit collective fear for a slim assurance of security? Are there other agendas that remain untold?
Of course, every day we send our children to school where they recite a pledge that states "with liberty and justice for all". If those words are empty due to current policies, then it can be surmised that there is no liberty, no justice, and alas, no freedom.
Our children deserve better.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You're absolutely right, Danzig; the fact that it happened a long time ago doesn't make it okay-- my stepmom survived the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia (her husband, the father of my stepbrothers, did not- he was Muslim, so he was executed. My stepmom was in a labor camp for four years until she fled the country) and while it was a quarter century ago, she still remembers.

That said-- Hussein was a madman, but a secular madman. Which infuriated the religious madmen in the middle East, and, since he was closer to them than we are, he took a fair amount of their focus, which is now longer devoted to him. The horrible part of the question is, did toppelling Hussein make us, here in the US, safer? And my feeling is no; if anything it destablized that region even further and the mess in Iraq is now fertile breeding ground for terrorists who see the US as occupiers. Maybe it will pan out in the future, but I think a different Administration will have to do the panning out-- this one underfunded and botched and didn't plan and frankly, I don't think they're capable of fixing what they started.

So was it worth it? I guess A) the final chapter is not written; time will tell and B) it depends on whether your concern is for people in the US only or people of the world, even at the US's expense. I don't know. I just don't know.

But I tell you what, I prefer my madmen secular. How do you argue with someone whose response is "But God said so."????

you don't....there is nothing you can say that would sink in, they have a 'mandate from heaven'...part of our problem here is that we have leaders who feel the same way.

absolutely it's a huge mess, as i said above, iran is now rearing its ugly head, something that was considered as a threat in '91, but not four years ago. but some only see what they want to see, including this administration, who felt they could handle any eventuality.

but part of the problem is that as willing as the u.s. seems to be to jump in--we are not willing to stay in when we find we can't touch the bottom. rather than fighting the tide, too many are ready to proclaim the victim has drowned. we don't seem to have that same will as we've had in the past to fight til the finish, and to do things the right way, to see things thru. seems as soon as things start to get at all difficult, too many want to quit.
i'm not a quitter, i never thought this country would be thought as such, or as weak. but that belief is out there.

[pmayjr]

A little side note that I'd like to point out here- It's kinda related and not really. When watching a National Geographic special about 9/11, and the CNN Special "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" reinforced this- Saddam and Bin Laden aren't and never were working with each other. If Al Queda is in Iraq, it came after the U.S. invaded. Why?

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in '90 or '91, and there was a threat that Saudi Arabia would be next, Bin Laden went to the Saudi Govt/kingdom/head-honchos to offer him and his Mujahadin to fight off Saddam. They had successfully driven the Soviets out of Afghanastan, and now Bin Laden wanted to defend his homeland. The Saudis rejected his offer, and instead enlisted the U.S. to drive out the Iraqis, and that's what actually started Bin Laden's hatred for the U.S. He was pissed that his own country rejected his offer to defend it... and since we were the "defenders", we ended up being hated by him for that reason.

I bring this up, because there's so many people I hear that say Saddam and Al Queda or Saddam and Bin Laden are working together bla bla bla bla. They never worked together and the 2 I think are in different sects of iIslam as well. Isn't Bin Laden Sunni and Saddam Shiite? Wasn't that one more reason why Saddam had to rule with such an Iron fist? He ruled with the religious MINORITY, eventhough the country's majority was Sunni.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pmayjr

A little side note that I'd like to point out here- It's kinda related and not really. When watching a National Geographic special about 9/11, and the CNN Special "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" reinforced this- Saddam and Bin Laden aren't and never were working with each other. If Al Queda is in Iraq, it came after the U.S. invaded. Why?

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in '90 or '91, and there was a threat that Saudi Arabia would be next, Bin Laden went to the Saudi Govt/kingdom/head-honchos to offer him and his Mujahadin to fight off Saddam. They had successfully driven the Soviets out of Afghanastan, and now Bin Laden wanted to defend his homeland. The Saudis rejected his offer, and instead enlisted the U.S. to drive out the Iraqis, and that's what actually started Bin Laden's hatred for the U.S. He was pissed that his own country rejected his offer to defend it... and since we were the "defenders", we ended up being hated by him for that reason.

I bring this up, because there's so many people I hear that say Saddam and Al Queda or Saddam and Bin Laden are working together bla bla bla bla. They never worked together and the 2 I think are in different sects of iIslam as well. Isn't Bin Laden Sunni and Saddam Shiite? Wasn't that one more reason why Saddam had to rule with such an Iron fist? He ruled with the religious MINORITY, eventhough the country's majority was Sunni.

Pretty much true...Saddam has links to terrorism, he did after all provide families of suicide bombers financial "rewards"...but Saddam was/is a pragmatist, he pretended to be a loyal follower of Islam when it suited him but his moral code somewhat destroyed that obvious charade. Al Queda was in Iraq before Saddam fell, but you are correct that he held them in check and would give more verbal support than anything...he played the "loyal follower" game!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by pmayjr

A little side note that I'd like to point out here- It's kinda related and not really. When watching a National Geographic special about 9/11, and the CNN Special "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" reinforced this- Saddam and Bin Laden aren't and never were working with each other. If Al Queda is in Iraq, it came after the U.S. invaded. Why?

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in '90 or '91, and there was a threat that Saudi Arabia would be next, Bin Laden went to the Saudi Govt/kingdom/head-honchos to offer him and his Mujahadin to fight off Saddam. They had successfully driven the Soviets out of Afghanastan, and now Bin Laden wanted to defend his homeland. The Saudis rejected his offer, and instead enlisted the U.S. to drive out the Iraqis, and that's what actually started Bin Laden's hatred for the U.S. He was pissed that his own country rejected his offer to defend it... and since we were the "defenders", we ended up being hated by him for that reason.

I bring this up, because there's so many people I hear that say Saddam and Al Queda or Saddam and Bin Laden are working together bla bla bla bla. They never worked together and the 2 I think are in different sects of iIslam as well. Isn't Bin Laden Sunni and Saddam Shiite? Wasn't that one more reason why Saddam had to rule with such an Iron fist? He ruled with the religious MINORITY, eventhough the country's majority was Sunni.

You're right, except Saddam was/is Sunni and the majority are Shiite. Shiite's are much more fundamentalist than the Sunnis.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; I feel our administration hoodwinked our country into backing the Iraq invasion. That said, Danzig is right on the money about the current situation-- we've been half-assing the Iraq thing all along (not the soldiers, of course, who are showing up and doing their jobs-- the people in charge of them). But I'm scared of what will happen to the region if we pull out as things are now-- destablize further? Massacres between Shiites and Sunnis? Women's rights going the way of the Taliban? I kind of feel like, we broke it; we bought it, you know? We started this for all the wrong reasons, but now I feel like we have to finish it, but not in the current fashion. As much because we owe it to the Iraqis now as because we owe it to ourselves. But where's the $$, the manpower, the leadership? Dear God, what a mess...

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You're right, except Saddam was/is Sunni and the majority are Shiite. Shiite's are much more fundamentalist than the Sunnis.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; I feel our administration hoodwinked our country into backing the Iraq invasion. That said, Danzig is right on the money about the current situation-- we've been half-assing the Iraq thing all along (not the soldiers, of course, who are showing up and doing their jobs-- the people in charge of them). But I'm scared of what will happen to the region if we pull out as things are now-- destablize further? Massacres between Shiites and Sunnis? Women's rights going the way of the Taliban? I kind of feel like, we broke it; we bought it, you know? We started this for all the wrong reasons, but now I feel like we have to finish it, but not in the current fashion. As much because we owe it to the Iraqis now as because we owe it to ourselves. But where's the $$, the manpower, the leadership? Dear God, what a mess...

We were hoodwinked because the Bush family is in bed with the House of Saud. The House of Saud doesn't want bin Laden harmed and that's why a few months after 9/11, February 2006 to be exact, we pulled most of our special ops and CIA paramilitary troops out of the mountains of Afghanistan to focus on Saddam.


It's all smoke and mirrors. This "war on terror" shows the muslim world how weak we are. The majority of the hijackers were Saudis who were funded by bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was protected by the Taliban. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. George Bush has ADHD and early stages of senility.


At least that's my opinion which is purely speculation splashed with a large dose of common sense.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Pretty much true...Saddam has links to terrorism, he did after all provide families of suicide bombers financial "rewards"...but Saddam was/is a pragmatist, he pretended to be a loyal follower of Islam when it suited him but his moral code somewhat destroyed that obvious charade. Al Queda was in Iraq before Saddam fell, but you are correct that he held them in check and would give more verbal support than anything...he played the "loyal follower" game!

Somerfrost,
I ususally agree with you, but a recent senate investigation asserted that there were no ties between Al Queda and Saddam. You'd be better off if you take a look at the Saudis, Packis, and other shia strongholds.
Here's the report:
No Qaeda-Saddam Links: Senate Report
by Stephen Collinson

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al-Qaeda or slain operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the Iraq war, according to a US Senate report, contradicting repeated claims by President George W. Bush.



A devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda.

The assessment, by the Senate Intelligence Select Committee, also dismissed administration claims that Saddam had links with Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi, killed in a US raid on June 7 after unleashing a string of attacks.

"Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted unsuccessfully to locate and capture Zarqawi, and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi," the report said.

Saddam had also repeatedly rebuffed requests for meetings from Al-Qaeda operatives, the report said.

Before, and after the 2003 invasion Bush administration leaders used purported ties between Iraq and terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda, as partial justification for the war.

On June 14, 2004, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said : "Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century ... he had long-established ties with Al-Qaeda."

A day later, Bush was asked at the White House to name the best evidence for a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

"Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda," Bush said.

On August 21, this year, Bush said: "Imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, ... who had relations with Zarqawi."

The report also found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991, and its ability to reconstitute it progressively declined after that date. The administration had claimed before the invasion of Iraq that the program had been restarted.

A second committee report released Friday probed the role of the exiled Iraqi National Congress in providing intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, which was later discredited.

The Senate assessments immediately stoked a new row over the US drive to war with Iraq, ahead of November's crucial congressional elections.

"Todays reports show that the administrations repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Democratic Senator John (Jay) Rockefeller in a statement.

"The administration sought and succeeded in creating the false impression that al-Qaeda and Iraq presented a single unified threat to the United States," he said.

Another Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, said the report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda."

But White House spokesman Tony Snow, speaking before the report was released, said it contained "nothing new."

"It's, again, kind of re-litigating things that happened three years ago," he said.

"The president's stated concern this week, as you've seen, is to think, 'okay, we'll let people quibble over three years ago. The important thing to do is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the month after and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won.'"

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
I ususally agree with you, but a recent senate investigation asserted that there were no ties between Al Queda and Saddam. You'd be better off if you take a look at the Saudis, Packis, and other shia strongholds.
Here's the report:
No Qaeda-Saddam Links: Senate Report
by Stephen Collinson

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al-Qaeda or slain operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the Iraq war, according to a US Senate report, contradicting repeated claims by President George W. Bush.



A devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda.

The assessment, by the Senate Intelligence Select Committee, also dismissed administration claims that Saddam had links with Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi, killed in a US raid on June 7 after unleashing a string of attacks.

"Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted unsuccessfully to locate and capture Zarqawi, and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi," the report said.

Saddam had also repeatedly rebuffed requests for meetings from Al-Qaeda operatives, the report said.

Before, and after the 2003 invasion Bush administration leaders used purported ties between Iraq and terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda, as partial justification for the war.

On June 14, 2004, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said : "Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century ... he had long-established ties with Al-Qaeda."

A day later, Bush was asked at the White House to name the best evidence for a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

"Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda," Bush said.

On August 21, this year, Bush said: "Imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, ... who had relations with Zarqawi."

The report also found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991, and its ability to reconstitute it progressively declined after that date. The administration had claimed before the invasion of Iraq that the program had been restarted.

A second committee report released Friday probed the role of the exiled Iraqi National Congress in providing intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, which was later discredited.

The Senate assessments immediately stoked a new row over the US drive to war with Iraq, ahead of November's crucial congressional elections.

"Todays reports show that the administrations repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Democratic Senator John (Jay) Rockefeller in a statement.

"The administration sought and succeeded in creating the false impression that al-Qaeda and Iraq presented a single unified threat to the United States," he said.

Another Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, said the report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda."

But White House spokesman Tony Snow, speaking before the report was released, said it contained "nothing new."

"It's, again, kind of re-litigating things that happened three years ago," he said.

"The president's stated concern this week, as you've seen, is to think, 'okay, we'll let people quibble over three years ago. The important thing to do is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the month after and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won.'"

I don't believe Saddam had direct links to Al Qaeda but he did offer money to families of suicide bombers in Israel and gave at least verbal support to various groups attacking Israel, I think he was more in bed with the Syrians than anyone else. I do believe that elements of Al Qaeda existed in Iraq while he was in power. In that regard, he's not that different from the leaders of most Arab countries except for UAE and Quatar (Spelling?).

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't believe Saddam had direct links to Al Qaeda but he did offer money to families of suicide bombers in Israel and gave at least verbal support to various groups attacking Israel, I think he was more in bed with the Syrians than anyone else. I do believe that elements of Al Qaeda existed in Iraq while he was in power. In that regard, he's not that different from the leaders of most Arab countries except for UAE and Quatar (Spelling?).

Somer,
Yes, he did provide money to suicide bombers. He also took all the weapons the US could provide when he ws involved in the war with Iran. This is very well documented. The US also supported the Shah. Remember him?
That alone antagonized many in the mideast.
As far as ties to Syria by Saddam, I know of no documentation.
If Genuine Risk or KYRose are interested, here's an interesting view:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-32.htm
Seems to me that people wish to cling to their beliefs, even when facts are presented.
Here come the bashers.
All I can say is read it, dispute it. Don't attack me.


Present facts that contradict those stated in the article, if you can.

The world is in a state of chaos and hatred.
I did not create these circumstaces. I only report them.
Good night and good luck.
DTS

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

[quote=Danzig2]so since hussein committed genocie 'a long time ago' that's ok?? and it wasn't that long ago, not that that matters. i'd image the family members of those killed feel like it was just yesterday, when it was after gulf one. really not so long ago after all.QUOTE]

No, it's not okay, but my point is why didn't we go over and attack Hussein then? Why is he being tried for those crimes now? Why didn't the U.S. do something then to liberate those people right after the genocide attacks?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somer,
Yes, he did provide money to suicide bombers. He also took all the weapons the US could provide when he ws involved in the war with Iran. This is very well documented. The US also supported the Shah. Remember him?
That alone antagonized many in the mideast.
As far as ties to Syria by Saddam, I know of no documentation.
If Genuine Risk or KYRose are interested, here's an interesting view:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-32.htm
Seems to me that people wish to cling to their beliefs, even when facts are presented.
Here come the bashers.
All I can say is read it, dispute it. Don't attack me.


Present facts that contradict those stated in the article, if you can.

The world is in a state of chaos and hatred.
I did not create these circumstaces. I only report them.
Good night and good luck.
DTS

Well, the clearest "evidence" of his Syrian ties to me is the fact that his family took refuge there. I think with Syria on his border, it makes sense that he would cultivate a relationship. The Shah was a dictator but highly secular and pro-western, he had turned Iran into a progressive culture where women were treated equally and there was reason for optimism, he was also brutal and unyielding to those who disagreed with his rule (hense the label of dictator), I think it was understandable that the US supported him, but obviously, in retrospect, a bad idea OR...we should have gone all the way and stopped that religious zealot from taking power. This was an example of not having a long term policy with spelled-out objectives in the region. Same for arming Saddam later when he fought Iran...you simply can't be all things to all people and we are paying a heavy price now!

[Danzig]

we are still paying for our rotten foreign policy, based so many years on what russia did--excuse me, what the soviet union did. bin laden and those of his ilk accepted the help we gave them to rid their country of the soviets, but it did nothing as far as building an ally in the region. they hated us, they just used us as much as possible to rid them of the 'other' evil, the ussr. to them we were no less evil. same as the iran/iraq war. we used the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' kind of logic, it's what got saddam all those weapons (we knew he had wmd, he used them(gassed the kurds), we gave them to him) because rather than stay the hell out of it, we chose sides. not iran, because of the shah and again, the ussr...but iraq--just as evil as iran.

as far as whether iraq had any part in 9-11, and whether that was part of why we invaded iraq....seems to me that after 9-11, we've changed our mentality a bit. don't wait for them to hit first. see a danger, hit them. was iraq a danger? probably not so much as thought, certainly not as dangerous as iran....

problem is, after somalia, not reacting to the cole, etc...we've portrayed ourselves as weak. we let any goodwill from kuwait evaporate--what hurt us the most was encouraging the overthrow of saddam after gulf 1, and doing NOTHING to help those poor bastards that we led to believe we'd help. now they're dead. those who survived have no use, no respect for us.

that being said, our foreign policy should never be based on weakness, not on popularity. we won't ever truly be liked over there, not as long as we are allies of israel. but we need to earn back the respect we've lost. bush doesn't seem the one to do that....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somer,
Yes, he did provide money to suicide bombers. He also took all the weapons the US could provide when he ws involved in the war with Iran. This is very well documented. The US also supported the Shah. Remember him?
That alone antagonized many in the mideast.
As far as ties to Syria by Saddam, I know of no documentation.
If Genuine Risk or KYRose are interested, here's an interesting view:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-32.htm
Seems to me that people wish to cling to their beliefs, even when facts are presented.
Here come the bashers.
All I can say is read it, dispute it. Don't attack me.


Present facts that contradict those stated in the article, if you can.

The world is in a state of chaos and hatred.
I did not create these circumstaces. I only report them.
Good night and good luck.
DTS

If you're going to provide a link to some left-wing nonsense, you should at least find something that is well thought and has good arguments. This article is a joke. You say that facts are presented. There are no facts in there. There are opinions in there and the opinions are clearly wrong and there are facts that prove they are wrong.

For example, the author says that "Everyobody in government knows that the terrorists hate us because of our blind support of Israel, 'not because they hate our freedom.' "

The author has got to be kidding. First of all, there is nobody in governmet that thinks that. He claims that everyone in government thinks that. I would like to know which people in government think that. I have heard dozens of interviews with people in our government from both sides of the aisle and I don't know one person who shares this view. More importantly, Israel has very little to do with why the terrorists hate us. Bin Laden rarely discussed Israel before 9/11. The main thing he talked about was wanting us out of Saudi Arabia. Israel was never his issue. Today, terrorists are constantly threatening us saying that we must convert to Islam or they will kill us. That has nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with freedom, freedom of religion.

How could you post such nonsense. A 12 year old kid could beat this author in a debate. I like it when the author says, "The Bush administration has bungled the war on terror so badly that there are no real prospects of winning."

This is a stupid comment considering that the war on terror was in response to 9/11. One of the main objectives of the war on terror was to make sure that there would be no more terror attacks in the US. We know darn well that the terrorists have been doing everything in their power to attack us again, but our government has prevented them from doing so. There has not been one terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. The main objective of the war on terror was to prevent further attacks on our soil. So contrary to the contention of the genius author that the war on terror has been so badly bungled, the facts are that the war on terror has been incredibly successful and has thwarted every single terrorist plot to attack us again in the US. I'm not saying that our government hasn't made any mistakes. Sure they have made mistakes. I think there are lot of things that they could be doing better. But I certainly have to give them credit for being so successful in protecting the homeland from any more attacks. They've done a great job. The CIA, FBI, Dep. of Homeland security, etc. have all done great jobs.

If you are going to post any more articles, plese don't insult our intelligence. At least, post an article that makes some intelligent arguments.

The basic theme to this entire arguement is an old one. It really is about protecting individual rights and at the same time not infringing on the rights and safety of the public as a whole.

Difficult situations like terrorists who basically play on the freedom granted by this country make the above a terribly difficult problem.

I am happy there are people on both sides of the arguement debating this. But it is very interesting how the public is so fickle. Directly after 9/11, you had very little opposition to gtmo prisons or people being held improperly, people searched improperly, etc... Some of these individual horror stories of innocent people being held without due process or any other constituitional guarantee that are citizens of this country is troubling. But the cry does not really start until other events start going a bit sour. Bush was given carte blanche to erradicate threats and make this country safe. Some people saw way ahead of time what this would mean. Most did not complain until well after said event. I find this the most interesting part of the whole debate. The swaying that is shown very clearly in public opinion polls.

So clearly one of the problems this country faces, any democracy faces, is the public overreacting one way or another directly after an event. The event plays out over time, and the arguement that people make change. Very fickle country. It seems whomever or whatever is doing well in the polls is equated with doing the right thing. Now people are questioning so many more things than they ever would have if events had played out differently.

What suprises me is how little discussion there is on Afghanistan. Considered a just war by Europe and almost all Americans. We have won that war also but we are losing the political battle there. So as expected, many NATO allies are now questioning the whole idea in the first place, completely ignoring why we went in.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

The basic theme to this entire arguement is an old one. It really is about protecting individual rights and at the same time not infringing on the rights and safety of the public as a whole.

Difficult situations like terrorists who basically play on the freedom granted by this country make the above a terribly difficult problem.

I am happy there are people on both sides of the arguement debating this. But it is very interesting how the public is so fickle. Directly after 9/11, you had very little opposition to gtmo prisons or people being held improperly, people searched improperly, etc... Some of these individual horror stories of innocent people being held without due process or any other constituitional guarantee that are citizens of this country is troubling. But the cry does not really start until other events start going a bit sour. Bush was given carte blanche to erradicate threats and make this country safe. Some people saw way ahead of time what this would mean. Most did not complain until well after said event. I find this the most interesting part of the whole debate. The swaying that is shown very clearly in public opinion polls.

So clearly one of the problems this country faces, any democracy faces, is the public overreacting one way or another directly after an event. The event plays out over time, and the arguement that people make change. Very fickle country. It seems whomever or whatever is doing well in the polls is equated with doing the right thing. Now people are questioning so many more things than they ever would have if events had played out differently.

What suprises me is how little discussion there is on Afghanistan. Considered a just war by Europe and almost all Americans. We have won that war also but we are losing the political battle there. So as expected, many NATO allies are now questioning the whole idea in the first place, completely ignoring why we went in.

Most of the complaining about civil liberties is done for purely partisan reasons. I would say that 90% of the people complaining would not be complaining if the President was a democrat. By the same token, if a democrat was President, you would have a ton of republicans screaming that our civil liberties are being taken away. This is just your usual partisan nonsense.

The truth of the matter is that the government has no choice. If they catch some terrorist overseas and they confiscate his cell phone and computer and discover he has been in contact with people over here, our government has to investigate these people immediately. They can't take their time and hope to stumble upon something. They have to investigate these people vigorously. This may involve wiretaps and it may involve arresting these people before the investigation is complete. They don't have a choice. Would it be better to let them blow up a building first? I don't think so. By the way, I don't think the Constitution defined "probable cause". It talks about probable cause but I don't think it actually defines it. With the Patriot Act, they still have to have probable cause but the burden is not as high as it was in the past. Just because the burden is not as high, that does not mean that the Constitution has been violated in any way.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

I have a question. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the World Trade Centers were attacked before...I think it was back in 1993. What did the U.S. do about that?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most of the complaining about civil liberties is done for purely partisan reasons. I would say that 90% of the people complaining would not be complaining if the President was a democrat. By the same token, if a democrat was President, you would have a ton of republicans screaming that our civil liberties are being taken away. This is just your usual partisan nonsense.

The truth of the matter is that the government has no choice. If they catch some terrorist overseas and they confiscate his cell phone and computer and discover he has been in contact with people over here, our government has to investigate these people immediately. They can't take their time and hope to stumble upon something. They have to investigate these people vigorously. This may involve wiretaps and it may involve arresting these people before the investigation is complete. They don't have a choice. Would it be better to let them blow up a building first? I don't think so. By the way, I don't think the Constitution defined "probable cause". It talks about probable cause but I don't think it actually defines it. With the Patriot Act, they still have to have probable cause but the burden is not as high as it was in the past. Just because the burden is not as high, that does not mean that the Constitution has been violated in any way.

Bush has done some stuff that I think that he thinks is genuinely good for the country. I do not believe he is an evil man. But like some of our enemies, he is driven. But some of his administrations actions, things he truely believes are the right thing to do, are clearly on the boundaries of infringing upon individual's rights. Bush has clearly overstepped his executive boundaries in some cases. A conservative supreme court has already shot one of his attempts down, with conservatives going against his administration's contentions. I understand his frustration. He badly wants to protect the country and do what HE believes is right.

Example: If my daughter was murdered in a most cruel manner, and the accussed was found guilty, but because of evidence obtained illegally, the convicted had to be retried... Upon retrial, there was not enough evidence to convict.

I would personally devote my life to trying this individual myself. My life as a human would most likely end at this point. I most likely would not be able to function until justice was done. (I use most likely as I would probably have to be counseled at this point and I am pretty sure I am not Christ-like enough to handle myself) After justice, as I saw it, was done, I would then be prosecuted and probably spend my life in prison.

The bottom line: I did wrong. I would take matters into my own hands if I did not get justice, and this IS wrong. And I would and should suffer the consequences. As much sympathy as I might get from the general public, I would still be wrong. I am pretty sure (not trying to be macho but I would most likely try and kill the accussed), I would do something against the law and I should be punished.
I think Bush is presented with this type of dilemma, only he does not see what he is doing as skirting the law of the land. I think he badly wants to make things right. I do not believe he thinks what he is doing is wrong, even if the Supreme Court finds his administration's attempts to make the country safer unconstitutional, because it is what HE believes is right.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I have a question. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the World Trade Centers were attacked before...I think it was back in 1993. What did the U.S. do about that?

Very nice example. We found out who was behind it and brought some of them to justice. But we did not take on a whole country, like in the case of 9/11. Mainly because no country denied handing over any of the accussed. The Taliban who was ruling "party" in Afghanistan, refused us access to the training camps and individuals involved in the massacre and admitted harboring them. We asked the UN and Europeans to demand Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, to comply with our wishes. They flattly refused and even admitted to contributing to the disaster. The rest is history.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Very nice example. We found out who was behind it and brought some of them to justice. But we did not take on a whole country, like in the case of 9/11. Mainly because no country denied handing over any of the accussed. The Taliban who was ruling "party" in Afghanistan, refused us access to the training camps and individuals involved in the massacre and admitted harboring them. We asked the UN and Europeans to demand Afghanistan, run by the Taliban, to comply with our wishes. They flattly refused and even admitted to contributing to the disaster. The rest is history.

Thanks pgardn.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Bush has done some stuff that I think that he thinks is genuinely good for the country. I do not believe he is an evil man. But like some of our enemies, he is driven. But some of his administrations actions, things he truely believes are the right thing to do, are clearly on the boundaries of infringing upon individual's rights. Bush has clearly overstepped his executive boundaries in some cases. A conservative supreme court has already shot one of his attempts down, with conservatives going against his administration's contentions. I understand his frustration. He badly wants to protect the country and do what HE believes is right.

Example: If my daughter was murdered in a most cruel manner, and the accussed was found guilty, but because of evidence obtained illegally, the convicted had to be retried... Upon retrial, there was not enough evidence to convict.

I would personally devote my life to trying this individual myself. My life as a human would most likely end at this point. I most likely would not be able to function until justice was done. (I use most likely as I would probably have to be counseled at this point and I am pretty sure I am not Christ-like enough to handle myself) After justice, as I saw it, was done, I would then be prosecuted and probably spend my life in prison.

The bottom line: I did wrong. I would take matters into my own hands if I did not get justice, and this IS wrong. And I would and should suffer the consequences. As much sympathy as I might get from the general public, I would still be wrong. I am pretty sure (not trying to be macho but I would most likely try and kill the accussed), I would do something against the law and I should be punished.
I think Bush is presented with this type of dilemma, only he does not see what he is doing as skirting the law of the land. I think he badly wants to make things right. I do not believe he thinks what he is doing is wrong, even if the Supreme Court finds his administration's attempts to make the country safer unconstitutional, because it is what HE believes is right.

Brillantly put, pgardn. Simply brillant. From everyone's posts on here...I believe yours just hit closest to home.