The War On The War On Terror

[red states rule]

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

 

[Rosotar]

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

Your article doesn't even support this assertion RSR.

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

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.

Why not?

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.

Probably is the key word here.

We don't really know about any "probablies" here.

What we do know is there's a good chance that Bush's wiretapping program may have violated the Constitution as it now stands.

That is grounds for 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

 

[actsnoblemartin]

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.

Your article doesn't even support this assertion RSR.

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

 

[Larkinn]

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?

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.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

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]

 

[Larkinn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

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.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[/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.

 

[red states rule]

Libs seem to be more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists, then defeating them

 

[Larkinn]

Libs seem to be more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists, then defeating them

I am interested in protecting the rights of all human beings, no matter what their actions, or religion.

 

[red states rule]

I am interested in protecting the rights of all human beings, no matter what their actions, or religion.

Libs actually believe the US and fight and win a PC war

The terrorists are laughing at the left and shaking their heads in disbelief

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do a little research, you will discover the US has been labeled all kind of things inconsistant with your claim we were a shining beacon for YEARS now. By the very organizations you support.

 

[red states rule]

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.

Can you post the link showing the terrorist groups signed th GC and said they would follow those guidlines?

 

[mattskramer]

Can you post the link showing the terrorist groups signed th GC and said they would follow those guidlines?

I did not sign any GC statement. Thankfully I live in America. Let me get this straight. We are basically free to lock away anyone that we might sorta think to be a terrorist. We can put him in a cell for years, perhaps decades, with no questioning, and no trail. It sounds like fun. Hey, buddy. Don’t look at me that way or I’ll send you to Gitmo for a long long time.

 

[Superlative]

Can you post the link showing the terrorist groups signed th GC and said they would follow those guidlines?

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?
.

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49403

 

[JeffWartman]

Libs seem to be more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists, then defeating them

And you're more interested in mindlessly repeating things you heard on Rush Limbaugh than actually having a mind of your own.

You don't have actual, real debate. You just mindlessly throw around one liners that other people tell you to say. That's fucking sad.

 

[Larkinn]

Can you post the link showing the terrorist groups signed th GC and said they would follow those guidlines?

It doesn't matter if they signed them, all it matters is that we signed them.

 

[Annie]

It doesn't matter if they signed them, all it matters is that we signed them.

No, the conventions themselves define where they apply. Certainly broad interpretation for civilians. On the other hand, those that are committing terrorism and hiding within civilian populations do not deserve more than a moments thought.

 

[Larkinn]

No, the conventions themselves define where they apply. Certainly broad interpretation for civilians. On the other hand, those that are committing terrorism and hiding within civilian populations do not deserve more than a moments thought.

Yes, they do define where they apply. However that the terrorists did not sign them is irrelevant. Whether they are combatants or not and fall under the provisions of the GC depends on their status as fighters, NOT whether they signed the GC or not.

 

[Annie]

Yes, they do define where they apply. However that the terrorists did not sign them is irrelevant. Whether they are combatants or not and fall under the provisions of the GC depends on their status as fighters, NOT whether they signed the GC or not.

nope, there are distinctions between combatants. Those that hide behind civilians and set off IED are not covered.