Should Pres. Bush have more power to fight terroism?

[road]

If you answered YES, I have only 4 words for you;


President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Do you really belive that someone you don't like will never be elected?

[Lars]

You bring up a valid point, whether the next POTUS is Hillary Rodham Clinton or anyone else. It is the same with the so called "nuclear option" in the Senate, which would change the rules for debate.

One day there will be a Democratic majority in the Senate and I am sure that majority would like to have the same power that the GOP senators are seeking.

It is my firm conviction that this country is governed the best when all the checks and balances in the system is fully deployed and recent history backs that up.

Like Richard Nixon before him, GWB is trying to rule rather than govern and I expect similar results. It is now questionable whether he will serve out his term. Even some prominent conservatives, like Bruce Fein, have flatly declared that federal laws have been broken regarding domestic spying and this is what Alexander Hamilton referred to when impeachment was included in the US Constitution.

I suspect next year could be rather tumultous in the political arena. There are plenty of Americans who know why the restrictions on the government are so prominent in that constitution and why it is very important to keep them. There will be an opportunity next fall to express those views and I suspect that many who had some faith in the current administration no longer do so.

As an aside, I am not entirely convinced that Sen. Clinton will be the Democratic choice when 2008 comes around. She still has to win over the Democratic base and at this point, she has not. I am sure that she will be re-elected to the Senate, but that may be as far as it goes.

[Big_Dave]

It is my firm conviction that this country is governed the best when all the checks and balances in the system is fully deployed
Very true!

What I'd like to see, is a Government that works 'for the people' instead of whichever party (D/R) they represent.

Probably never happen though. :wtf:

[Lars]

I would like to see where it doesn't matter how much money you are spending on politicians is the overriding criteria, but that will require a radical change in the system and I am not sure that is obtainable, even if it is highly desirable.

Maybe the current scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, et al, will finally make the American public wake up and demand reforms.

Secondly, the redistricting should be taken away from the political parties and a requirement put in that each district should be as compact as possible, but again, that will be seriously resisted by the professional politicians.

[Roadranger13]

One of the best places to get the truth of what is happening is Air America, ch 167 on XM. Don't know the channel on Sirius. And Ed Shultz on ASK! from 3pm-6pm.

[HSLD]

Wire tapping. Sniffing for nuke materials around the homes of muslims.
People are outraged by this behavior in our government.

But let another 9/11 happen, and those same people will be outraged that the government didn't prevent it from happening and didn't protect us.

The writer George Orwell said "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." And that's the problem. Americans are born into rights and freedoms without any sacrifice. Daily they take for granted what they have. Daily, most don't even think twice about their individual rights and freedoms or what the governement is or isn't doing to protect them and the nation. But let something end up on the front page, or on talk radio, and those same people, who don't think twice most days, are appalled by what the government is doing.

No matter who the president is, his job is to protect the nation. Period. And in protecting the nation, he will make some tough decisions on how to best protect the nation and it's people. And those decisions will always be second guessed by the people and the media.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want and like your rights and freedoms? The government is going to be doing some things you're not going to approve of, or even like, so that those rights and freedoms, that you want, are yours and remain yours.

v/r

HSLD

[Lars]

All through world history you can find examples on how governments used an external threat for domestic political purposes and now that process is underway in the US again. This nation was founded on what was a revolutionay idea at the time, which was that individuals have certain rights and that the government cannot take those away.

The problem with fudging that line is that as soon as you start, you have to decide how far you are going to go and where you are going to stop. The main problem is that is seldom done and the creeping encroachment continiues.

The sad truth is that at this point, Al Qaida is winning, because they are able to alter the common lives of the inhabitants of this nation, with the government leading the way. In my mind, while you should always be prudent, a large dose of defiance is a much better psychological weapon.

Static defensive measures are always soon overcome by advances in technology, tactics and even strategy. At this point, the most effective way to defend the US would be better intelligence and you don't have to do data mining on domestic phone calls and emails to do that. The real good information is found in Asia mainly. It would also help to make an effective, but easy, way to control who is crossing US borders by making it desirable to cross at established border checkpoints and with valid ID's.

Once you give up your freedoms to your government, it is very hard to get them back and there is an even more important aspect to this latest revelations and that is that the president is not allowed to make up his own laws. That is the business of Congress.

I find it curious, given US history, that so many are willing to accept dictatorial government powers. We have certainly come a long way from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Valley Forge.

[Preacher]

Wire tapping. Sniffing for nuke materials around the homes of muslims.
People are outraged by this behavior in our government.

But let another 9/11 happen, and those same people will be outraged that the government didn't prevent it from happening and didn't protect us.

The writer George Orwell said "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." And that's the problem. Americans are born into rights and freedoms without any sacrifice. Daily they take for granted what they have. Daily, most don't even think twice about their individual rights and freedoms or what the governement is or isn't doing to protect them and the nation. But let something end up on the front page, or on talk radio, and those same people, who don't think twice most days, are appalled by what the government is doing.

No matter who the president is, his job is to protect the nation. Period. And in protecting the nation, he will make some tough decisions on how to best protect the nation and it's people. And those decisions will always be second guessed by the people and the media.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want and like your rights and freedoms? The government is going to be doing some things you're not going to approve of, or even like, so that those rights and freedoms, that you want, are yours and remain yours.

v/r

HSLD

HSLD, I could not have said it any better myself. The President's title is "Commander in Chief". His fudiciary responsibility is to protect our nation against threats, foreign or domestic. For those of you who are complaining about the current controversy surrounding domestic spying, let's get one thing perfectly clear, WE ARE AT WAR! We have a clear enemy.

Radical fundamentalist muslims believe they have a clear mandate to do whatever it takes to destroy America and Israel. During this time of war the President also has a clear mandate, and that is to keep you and I safe from the intentions of our enemy. This includes the legal right to gather intelligence on said enemy, which may incorporate domestic spying through wiretaps and other electronic means without a warrant from some limp wristed judge. The checks and balances are in place. No one can be prosecuted in an American court of law based on evidence gathered through wire taps or other electronic means without a warrant. Period. Americans who believe that personal liberties are at stake here are misguided at best, and at worst are unwittingly aiding our enemy.

So, what was president Clinton's excuse for engaging in domestic spying and wire taps without a warrant or court approval? We were not at war. And where is the uproar over that?

I am glad to see a Justice Department investigation surrounding the leak concerning Bush's intelligence gatering methods to the New York Times. The NY Times acted VERY irresponsibly and is a traitor to this nation for disclosing such information which created a threat to our national security. I hope that whoever leaked the information to them is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and imprisoned for a very loooong time.

[Lars]

As I said, it is nothing less than astonishing how soon some are willing to grant the government powers that the founders of the Republic fought to have removed.

And the idea that Bill Clinton instigated the same wiretapping has already been debunked. He only allowed it when foreign sources were involved and any claims to the contrary only shows ignorance of the matter.

The program that George W. Bush, the would be new King George, implemented did not differentiate between domestic and foreign spying and it is very likely that he broke federal laws when he ordered it.

There is now a report that the Deputy Attorney General refused to go along when it was to be implemented and White House aides had to go to John Ashcroft, who was recuperating from gall bladder surgery at the time, to get his approval. Afterwards, it now appears that he (Ashcroft) then lied to Congress, under oath, when he denied that any such program had been authorized by him.

But again, it is amazing how easy it is to convince some people that they need less freedom from government interference and surveillance. Paranoia is one of the most effective weapons that authortarian governments have used in the past and gratefully, fewer and fewer people in the US are accepting these intrusions.

Even some real conservatives are resisting this, but the avid consumers of government propaganda are still trying to find any excuse to support dictatorial powers for the Executive branch and are increasingly becoming anti-American. This nation was based on personal rights, which was a revolutionary concept at the time and if you read the US Constitution, most of it has to do with the limits to government powers.

If we are at war, where is the declaration thereof? The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare war to Congress and even if this struggle against Islamofascists does not fall within the usual nation state requirement, Congress never has given the Commander-in-Chief unlimited powers to wage war.

[Mark-the-Spark]

No matter who the president is, his job is to protect the nation. Period.

A very interesting and very incorrect statment.

The president's job is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". You'll find that information in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

It is the job of Congress to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" (Article I Section 8).

Somebody might want to pass that info to GWB as well :p

[Preacher]

I find it amazing yet sad that there are those who would be content to hand our nation over to the enemy in the name of personal liberty. History will prove both of you wrong in your thinking.

Don't ever forget 9/11!

[Flying Dutchman]

Osama bin Bush might not agree with you, sir.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/FlyingDutchman112/e607844b.jpg

Flying Dutchman; with tongue in cheek

[Mark-the-Spark]

History has already proven that it is unwise to hand over your nation to a supposedly charismatic government leader in the name of personal safety or aggrandizement.

Even the founders of this nation warned against it.

Some, however, are apparently not very good students of history or warfare.

[Preacher]

So, lets just hand over our nation Al Qaida and the other Islamic fundamentalists!! I'm outta here! To argue with your thinking is stupidity on my part.

[Mark-the-Spark]

Well, let's look at this Al Qaeda thing... all quotes are from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm

The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism.

So, we can say that Al Qaeda formed as a result of the invasion of a very weak country by a very powerful country. Sound familiar?

During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.

So, we can say that at the time, our government thought that a very powerful country should not be invading a very weak country. Apparently our government has changed its mind.

Individual groups or cells appear to have a high degree of autonomy, raising their own money, often through petty crime, and making contact with other groups only when necessary.

This loose connection between groups has raised a question of definition. When we talk about al-Qaeda do we refer to an actual organisation or are we now talking about something closer to an idea?

So, we might say that we are fighting an idea. Does this make good sense from a military perspective? Can you fight an idea with rifles? Can you fight an idea by restricting the rights of your own citizens? Should you be fighting an idea at all?

GWB has said, if I may paraphrase, that we will never let up on the fight against terror (what happened to fighting Al Qaeda?). He has also said, at least once, that he did not think that the 'war' on terror could be won.

I suppose that means we will be at war forever, at least in his estimation. Does this make good sense from a military perspective?

In actuality, we invaded Iraq in order to install a democratic government, nothing more, nothing less. If it works, it may well spread democracy thru the region, or at least that is the idea (see that idea thing again?). There is no need for extra cabinent departments, sneak and peek searches, nor strip searching of old women and children.

That's just plain ol' power grabbing -- something few politicians can resist, which is why they should be kept on a tight leash.

[road]

I find it amazing yet sad that there are those who would be content to hand our nation over to the enemy in the name of personal liberty. History will prove both of you wrong in your thinking.


Well, what exactly is "our country"?

Is it nothing more than a land mass that we have decided to hang our hats in? If that is true, than we can move anywhere that the climate is agreeable and it's just the same, right?

The personal liberty that you seem to dismiss so easily IS THE VERY THING that makes the US better than other chunks of earth that man also dwells upon.

I find it sad (but unfortunately not amazing at all) that there are people that hold their God given rights so cheaply as to sell them off for a little temporary safety.