The War On The War On Terror

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Instead of doing what they can to protect Amercia from terrorists, Dems insist on moving on with their war on Bush

    The party of appeasemnt is more interested in scoring political points; and protecting the rights of terrorists; then going after the terrorists that want all of us dead



    The War on the War on Terrorism
    Gabriel Schoenfeld - 6.28.2007 - 12:48PM
    The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for documents concerning the legal basis of the Bush administration’s terrorist-surveillance program. The New York Times calls it “the most aggressive move yet by lawmakers to investigate the wiretapping program since the Democrats gained control of Congress this year.”

    The program enabled the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and emails of persons in the United States, including U.S. citizens, whom the agency believed were linked to al Qaeda. The interception of such calls is the very core of counterterrorism. If our intelligence agencies are to connect the dots that will prevent another 9/11, these calls and emails constitute the critical dots.

    The program was already damaged, if not completely compromised, when its existence was disclosed by the New York Times in December 2005. Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and other allies of the Times on Capitol Hill are now coming in for the kill.

    To be sure, the legal status of the program is a crown of thorny issues. In various memos and briefs prepared by the administration, they have relied on Congress’s 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, which they claim trumps the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that formerly had governed all such wiretapping. They have also suggested that such surveillance is an inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution.

    One of the most compelling briefs against the program was written by Louis Fisher, an estimable scholar at the Library of Congress, and I have yet to see it comprehensively answered. But I also have few doubts that, at the end of the day, the courts will side with the President on this one, based upon some variation of the premise that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The fact is that if Bush had failed to authorize such monitoring, and we were struck by another major attack on our homeland that had been planned and executed by terrorists employing cross-border communications, that presidential lapse would itself probably be grounds for his impeachment.

    All the same, one of the actions of the Bush administration that has long troubled me, and which has made it the target of withering criticism, was its failure to ask Congress to amend FISA when the program first began. The whole immensely damaging controversy would have been skirted if the administration, in the wake of 9/11, had simply worked with Congress to engage in this kind of surveillance within the framework of a revised law.

    for the complete article

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/schoenfeld/585
     
  2. Rosotar
    Offline

    Rosotar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +45

    Your article doesn't even support this assertion RSR.

    You should probably read what you post before you attatch it to Rush Limbaugh quotes.



     
  3. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    rather then going after rsr, tell me why you think terrorists deserve trials, and special rights, when they are 95% of the time not america, and not fighting for any specific country, which means how the hell do they qualify for the geneva convention?

    Im just a dorky california boy, but try me :), i listen.

     
  4. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Because you don't know that they are terrorists until you give them those rights, and prove that we have the right to take them away because of their actions.

    They apply to the Geneva Conventions, the spirit of the law was that it applied to everyone fighting. Bush is just destroying the cornerstone of humanitarian law so he can get his way.
     
  5. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    If a soldier catches a man who was shooting at him, why do we need a trial with him?. And, how do we convict terrorists, and protect national security.

    I dont remember the spirit of the law even dealing with terrorism, but nation states, so how does that apply?. Infact, terrorists want to take over nation states, and how no respect for any law.

    why does humanitarian law, override u.s. law?, why would international law, trump u.s. law?. if you were in france, and you went to war, which law, would you rather go with, your own, or international, when a lot of countries hate u.s., or in the case i put, france ;)

    Ok, I respect your words, please respond back

    QUOTE=Larkinn;581747]Because you don't know that they are terrorists until you give them those rights, and prove that we have the right to take them away because of their actions.

    They apply to the Geneva Conventions, the spirit of the law was that it applied to everyone fighting. Bush is just destroying the cornerstone of humanitarian law so he can get his way.[/QUOTE]
     
  6. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    A lot of reasons.

    First of all, you don't throw someone in jail just because a soldier think its right. The soldier has to tell an impartial judge or jury, who then gets to decide.

    Secondly, there are various reasons why someone might shoot at a US soldier. I don't think we should be punishing someone who is an AQ operative the same as someone who is a family member of those massacred at Haditha.

    Those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither. As much as people here talk about liberals who want to take away peoples freedoms, etc, etc, I notice they are also all too willing to give up their own freedoms to the government. I am not. I am unwilling to give up my right to a trial, no matter how heinous the charges are against me. I am unwilling to give up my right to private without a court warrant. I am unwilling to give up my rights as an American citizen guaranteed under the Constitution, and you shouldn't be willing to either.

    The spirit of the law was that individuals engaged in a war should have protections. They differentiated between individuals engaged in different types of war because they thought they deserved different protections, but they had no intention of implying that some individuals that did not fall into those categories deserve no protections.

    Humanitarian law is a type of law...its a vague sort of term. Basically it could be summarized as laws that try to ensure human rights and dignity...they can be international, national, or local.

    International law trumps US law for a few reasons. Firstly because the US has agreed that it does. Thats what signing up for the UN does...basically says that you agree to abide by all UN resolutions. The Geneva Conventions are basically a treaty between a bunch of different nations...they have become universal and apply to everyone because of something called customary international law.

    Customary international law is more hazy and less strict. It is something that is law because a large majority of the states in the world have agreed on it. However it is rarely enforcable...in fact International law is not enforcable in any way, and the US is one of the main reasons for this. It has been very strongly against any international courts that have been set up including the ICC. This is, despite the fact, that the US used the excuse that Iraq "broke international law" to declare war on it in 2003.
     
  7. actsnoblemartin
    Offline

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Thanks Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    La Mesa, CA
    Ratings:
    +407
    To be honest, I dont think many americans have any idea what the patriot act is, or what it does. I am very worried about losing freedoms and the patriot act.

    The bush administration is guilty of one thing, if nothing else, not having a transparent government, that is not secret, and that lays all its cards out on the table, I know, we as conservatives, would be pissed if a democrat did this.

    I do also feel conflicted about guantanamo bay, enemy combatants, torture, but you are the first person, who provided an actual reason why we should give them a trail, and i respect you for that. Americans should be careful, not to let fear guide that decision, infact, terrorism is to conservatives what global warming is too democrats, i dont mean to generalize , other then to say, both sides can run around with their head cut off.

     
  8. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    They don't. Nobody does really...the problem with it is that its vague. The other thing that nobody ever mentions for some reason, which is probably a bigger problem than the patriot act is the AUMF and what the Bush administration has done with it.

    Its guilty of a lot more than that...but yes that is a particularly egregious fault of it. The Democrats haven't exactly done a good job of shedding any light on...well anything, either.

    [/quote]

    I am strongly strongly against Guantanamo Bay. Nobody should be designated as an "enemy combatant", and nobody should be tortured. The sad thing is that we used to have some legitimacy in the world concerning human rights. We were the US of A, we pushed for equal rights, shining beacon of freedom and liberty and all that jazz. Now third world inhumane dictatorships little better than Saddam (or worse) use our language of "enemy combatants" and "oh, well they were terrorists, they have no rights" to silence, torture, and kill undesirables in their country. We have helped to legitimize these horrendous actions...and the leaps and bounds we have made in respecting human rights in the past 60 years are now fading.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Libs seem to be more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists, then defeating them
     
  10. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    I am interested in protecting the rights of all human beings, no matter what their actions, or religion.
     

Share This Page