Elritt Works is right on!

Why don't his opponents challenge him? Because it's all part of the plan to elect Hillary Clinton. You might as well ask why Ron Paul doesn't get invited to his own party's debates? 99% of all politicians are liars and hypocrites and the rest are cowards. That's why when someone like Ron Paul comes along the establishment wants to shut him up.

What I think of Rudy's 12 Steps to Recovery:

1. Why don't you just take us out of the conflict. Your proposal is not a solution.

2. You are lying. Why haven't you done it already? This is not new.

3. Again, not a solution Rudy. Why don't you get rid of the unconstitutional and illegal taxes that are imposed on U.S. citizens? Problem solved.

4. What? Reforms!??? There are over 130 codes and reforms to the tax laws. Nobody knows how to unravel them. GET RID OF TAXES. There are many other proposals on the table but since these essentially mean less power to you, and others like you, they will of course be ignored. Fair Tax. There, problem solved.

5. Aha, right. Sure. Where was accountibility in New York? What did you do to prevent two planes from flying over restricted air space in your own city? Where's the accountability there?

6. You are a liar. What will you do short of redesigning our civilization into one that is solar powered?

7. Sure. You have such a great track record for lowering the cost of things! New York has become completely UNAFFORDABLE. And that's the finance capitol of the U.S. - I can only imagine what you'll do to a national issue like healthcare!

8. Why don't you just leave this one to Miss America?

9. How about appointing CONSTITUTIONAL judges? Not a bad idea since that's the document you should be following. If you are going to appoint "constructionist judges" for God's sake! don't find the strict ones!

10. Lord help us~! - You, will ensure? again...see #7. We are under no threat except from the tyranny of power mongers and traitors to the United States. Add to your list of reading the meaning of the word traitor.

11. The election term is not long enough for this one. I recommend you take it out of your list and just address the gigantic problem that are the misguided School Boards.

12. Unless you have a degree in International Economics I don't think you're qualified for this one, and frankly, this is a traitorous statement. America is a sovereign country. Americans don't want to be part of a globalization of anything. Strengthen our reputation but as what? as the biggest mafia in the world?

How about stepping down and not ruining for others in the GOP?

To be mayor of New York City, the most international city in the US, requires continual interaction with the political elites of many nations. Your claim that Guiliani lacks foreign policy credentials is weak for this reason.

When are more and more news people going to describe Guilani for what he is - a lightweight who has no depth to anything he presents? His so-called commitments sound naive, not equal to anything the other candidates have presented. Where are the details? Are Americans so dumb that they will vote for this guy because he went to several funerals and made speeches after the carnage. He did not manage anything. What record does he have for fighting terrorism? Why haven't his opponents attacked him on his lies?

I agree with the extremely "reasonable" view of Chance1 -- we should really just arrest and then execute anyone who gets off a plan from Pakistan. Or who registers as a Democrat. And all minorities. Really, that pesky constitution is the only thing preventing us from doing that -- and who cares about that anyway.

Ladies and gentleman, Chance1 represents the prototypical GWB/Rudy voter. Scary.

Who cares whether Padilla is a citizen or not. He's a criminal. Get him behind bars for life no matter what it takes. The very fact that he was apprehended stepping off of a plane from Pakistan is suspicious. Where was he before Pakistan? Afganistan, Iran, etc. ??Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why does anyone listen to the words of a cowardly failure like George Tenet?

If we torture, then we are terrorists. It's that simple. They will have converted us to their way -- just like osama bin ladin said. And they will have won.

I am a Republican and i am currently disgusted with my choices for President. I have decided to support the "long shot" candidate Ron Paul. He is the only one, i have listed to, that is a Conservative, a strong backer of the U.S. Constitution and expounds any "common sense" about the Middle East and the War in Iraq. I believe he is the ONLY candidate that will actually get the troops out of Iraq in a timely manner. What sealed the deal for me, was how Hannity jumped on the Giuliani "bandwagon of ignorance" and attacked Ron Paul after the debate. If you are a Reagan Democrat or a True Conservative, then Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for President.

Fred Thompson is a "poser" with a poor work ethic. Now Fred is a hellva guy, salt of the earth, etc., BUT, this isn't a movie role, this is the office of the President of the United States and as Bush has proven, it takes more than being a nice guy and a few good speech writers to do the job RIGHT!

The Republican base is so mad at Bush right now, his only support is from the "FAT CAT" for "business only" Republican Cronies that Bush and "the Dick" have made richer over the past six years. I predict that the real "grassroots" Republicans will one day travel to Texas, just so they can spit on Bushs' grave. He has abandoned the Real Republicans long ago, he is an utter failure and a disapointment and that is coming from a guy that voted for the idiot TWO times. BUT, he was my lesser of two evils choice, which now brings me to the Democrats and their candidates.

I would GLADLY vote for Bush again "if" my other choice is Hillary "Rodham" Clinton. The lesser of two evils choice strikes again!!! I would even write Bush a check and BEG him to run again to prevent those three horrible little words, President Hillary Clinton!!

You talk about energizing an apathetic Base; just let Hillary get the nomination!!!!! I don't care if the Republican Candidate is Osama Bin Laden, he will get my vote. Again, for me, it will be a "lesser" of two evils choice!!

I had a thought today, "if" Obama could talk Colin Powell into announcing, He would accept a position as his Vice President, wouldn't that be the Ideal Democratic Ticket! I think then, you might just have your first Black President. Just a thought! Some Republicans might even be tempted to vote Obama/Powell before voting for Giuliani,McCain,Romney,Old Fred/??????, or at least, they will stay home and let the Democrats win by default. Something they will NOT do "if" it is Hillary/??????. Again, just a thought!

Also, any Republican or Democrat that supports any immigration bill that calls for anything except rounding them up, throwing them out and slamming a big door behind them, will feel the "wrath" of the electorate next year. The Democrats that voted for it, are going to get a big surprise come this next election, just hide and watch. Bush's immigration policy is just another "cheap labor" for "big business" gift; for "his" cronies.

Also, to ALL politicians, Democrats and Republicans, "IF" you keep up, what you have "ALL" been doing these last few years, don't be surprised when the "next" American Revolution shows up at your doorstep. "WE" are as "MAD as HELL" and we are NOT going to take this, much longer!!!
To "ALL" you future, "former" Politicians!

Razorback, I don't recall anyone saying we should wait till we get attacked to try these people. I mean, we stopped the idiots at Fort Dix, no reason not to try them as terrorists and then set them up for a firing squad.

Its very simple, we don't need to stop attempting to prevent a terrorist attack, all we have to do is start showing the world that we actually believe in the laws we have set up. Stop holding the terorrists indefinetly, try them already, and be done with them. Torture is not the answer and it never will be.

Cassandra, lylepink - It remains to be seen if Hillary can win or not. I certainly wont be voting for her. I'd vote Republican before I'd vote for her. Unfortunately for you two, there are A LOT of Democrats that feel precisely the same way. Hillary Clinton is a corporate hack, dishonest, and ruthless in way that does Dick Cheney proud. If, by some incrdible accident, she was elected President, she would be a complete disaster and would set back liberalism by 20 years. She is no friend of the working man or the American people. Her only friends are a gaggle of feminist twits with shrill voices and a lack of brains and morality.

Well, Razorback, I do not have a problem with the Army Field Manual or with the thrust of the McCain Amendment. I might quibble with the exceptions to it that were bargained away but I do understand that in a political process bargaining is done.

The cite you gave me,

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/
crsreports/crsdocuments/RL33655_09252006.pdf

is about the McCain Amendment and the revised Army Field Manual. But you see a thorn where I see a rose, apparently. And you do get more points for posting this important article. I am not being snide. I also understood what both you and JD were telling me about cost analysis, earlier. Have a good evening.

For a different perspective on the effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation" (can we just call it torture? That's what it is), I would suggest reading Ron Suskind's "One percent doctrine." Tenet may think those techniques work, but the CIA agents working under him -- whose background is actually in intelligence rather than politics, like Tenet -- said that such methods rarely if ever produce reliable, actionable intelligence.

FH -- torture has been used since the start of time. Unfortunately, people have done a lot of irrational things for a LONG time. I would suggest many people throughout history haven't really cared if they got accurate information wh en they tortured and were, instead, more interested in making an example of individuals. Regardless, there's a lot of people who are a LOT smarter than me - including John McCain -- who seem pretty sure torture does little but produce whatever answer the torturer wants to hear. On this, at least, I would defer to McCain and the experts. Not Bush.

The 06:40 PM Post was mine, sorry for mis -spelling my login name. Oh! Well, the very next one spelled it right, a little dig I deserved.

What is the American Dream he refers to? And, is it the same today as it was generations ago? Looking beyond our lives as Americans, we--as members of the global community--face common problems and must work together as a world community to fight them. The United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025, are a good place to start thinking and acting with a global mindset. It is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the United States' current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach if we act together as one world.

If he wants to cut wasteful spending, then Iraq should be a starting point. The Borgen Project states that we have spent over $340 billion on the Iraq war. In contrast, is costs just $19 billion annually to end starvation. However, he probably wouldn't work with the Millennium Goals bc anyone with such a hard line against illegal-immigration wouldn't care much for the plight and struggles of the world's poor. There is nothing revolutionary or progressive about him at all.

Wasn't "Giuliani and the Twelve Commitments" an R&B band back in the late fifties?

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!
OHHHHHH!!!!!.........

Does anyone have a cigarette?

Cassandra: Good job today, specific on MikeB and his out of this world claims are slowly but surely being shot down. More polls the past couple days shows Hillary gaining in support and her "negatives" have dropped a tad, so overall the past week or so has been good for her according to polls, which I don't give much credit this early, but the trend appears to be in her favor. McCain dropping to fourth recently is no suprise, since I think he is looking for a way out before the bad stuff about him begins.

In a partisan vote yesterday, Senator Bill Nelson, D-FL, sided with Republicans and voted for torture.

http://stuckonthepalmetto.blogspot.com/2006/09/senator-bill-nelson-republican-lite.html

How many points do I get for finding legislation that passed with D votes (Carper, Stabenow, Rockefeller, Pryor and others) that is described by some as permitting agressive interrogation techniques. And by the way, McCain and Graham voted for it too.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL33655_09252006.pdf

This limits habeas corpus, gives Bush the right to define standards under the Geneva Convention.

Razorback, you get points for finding someone in the intelligence community who supported these so-called "enhanced" techniques. You are not arguing your own bias, but from authority.

Having conceded that, my own long time {second-hand)acquaintanceship with FBI methods,my friendships with cops, and the bulk of what we read from professional interrogators, as well as my respect for the law, a respect that I share with Lindsey Graham and John McCain, cause me to weigh Tenet's comments as "wanting".

We will have to agree to disagree about this issue.

"Giuliani and the Twelve Commitments"
TRANSLATION: CC loves Rudy Guiliani and will spin whatever he says into the grandest vision he can think of.

"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation."
TRANSLATION: "I'm either a liar or a deluded fool."

"I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children."
TRANSLATION: "I'll do even less than Bush."

"I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world."
TRANSLATION: "It'll be hard not to do more than Bush has in this area."

"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for a terrorst attacks and natural disasters." "I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending."
TRANSLATION: "I am going to do two mutually exclusive things at the same time."

I could go on but why bother?

In CBS' "60 Minutes" interview, Tenet said the program of questioning "high value" targets, a program that has been criticized for using sleep deprivation and water boarding among other techniques, was more valuable to the security of the United States than all the work done at the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency, which tracks foreign electronic communications.

I happen to agree with Tenet on this issue, not the unidentified poster that says these very techniques do not work.

I would bet anyone 100 bucks that if Hillary wins, the techniques will still be used.

| June 12, 2007 05:54 PM was me.

Cassandra says "If the president declares someone an 'enemy combatant' -- according to the administraation, they no longer have ANY rights. Please do not cloud the issues."

They can and do challenge the President's designation as an enemy combatant in court.
And the courts, who have a duty to uphold the law and the constitution, have in many instances (but not all) agreed with the administration as to what the law is.

The courts, in deciding what rights a person has, distinguish between citizens and non citizens. You are free to think that I am a childish constitution hating facists like Bush and Cheney, but if you reach that conclusion, you are also reaching the conclusion that a bunch of judges, including Clinton appointees, are also childish constitution hating fascists also.

Courts issue decisions in written opinions. They are a matter of public record. They weigh both sides of these kinds of issues. Those who hurl invective at me all the time would do themselves a big favor if they would just read these decisions that state what the law is.

Torture elicits confessions, not truth. Of course you will confess -- TO ANYTHING your interogator desires, to make it stop. You then get a useless confession that allows the real perpretator to skate. Torture actually endangers real investigation by presenting false evidence.

Bsimon says: "Isn't that something of a strawman? Don't the law enforcment / spy agencies investigate all this stuff proactively?"

Yes, but its not a straw man because the center of the debate is which proactive measures should be permitted within the context of a balance between civil liberties and security. Its about the extent of which proactive measures are permissable and which are not.

I am not an expert in what techniques work and which do not. I think those persons involved with an active investitagion should make those decisions, and if they make their decision on the basis of the experts you are familiar with, I am fine with that. Whoever will be held accountable for failing to protect people should make the decision, and whereever a person draws the line with respect to the balance between security and civil liberties, that person should be prepared to walk that line even if they are pulling bodies out of the rubble.

What one democrat says isn't what we all believe. The democratic party is not nearly as monolithic as the republican. I don't see anyone here defending chavez. I certainly don't. Why should I care what Harry Belafonte says? I don't care about celebrities at all... the obsession with them is on the right.

'And Cassandra, I havn't heard anyone suggest that the US invade Venezuela.'

Pat Robertson and his legions of flying monkeys... he also wanted the US to assassinate chavez. Why? Becuase Mr. Robertson is in the oil business.

You keep saying that there is a distinction between the way we treat citizens and non-citizens. No. If the president declares someone an 'enemy combatant' -- according to the administraation, they no longer have ANY rights. Please do not cloud the issues.

And thank you Colin, bsimon, Mark, and JohnD, for your intelligent, reasonable commentary, and framing issues better than I could.

I will say, Colin, that torture has been used since the dawn of humanity...it's hard for me to imagine that in all that time, it's never worked. I completely understand why you and others would be against this, but in my mind if it comes down to preventing a major attack, I don't see how you rule out any method of gaining the necessary information.

Razorback writes
"There is a debate as to the reliability of the intelligence, and as between Amnesty International, which says the tactics to not work, and law enforcement/military personnel who might think that a particular circumstance might justify use of extraordinary tactics, I would defer to the opinion of the law enforcement/military personnel every time."

The experts I've seen quoted that coercive techniques are ineffective were not from Amnesty International but from US intelligence, military and law enforcement agencies.

razorback writes
"I think the wait until after the offense, then investigate and convict... is the wrong approach within the context of terrorism"

Isn't that something of a strawman? Don't the law enforcment / spy agencies investigate all this stuff proactively?

It is good to see that some of the libs on here are more enlightned about Chavez and Harry Belafonte and Cornel West:

"HARRY BELAFONTE, MUSICIAN: And no matter what the greatest tyrant in the
world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush, says, we're here
to tell you, not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American
people, millions, support your revolution, support your ideas. And we are
expressing our solidarity with you."

WEST: Let me tell you why I went to Venezuela. I went to Venezuela to see
the democratic awakening taking place, not just in Venezuela. In Bolivia,
300 million fellow human beings in Latin America now live under governments
that are undergoing democratic awakenings...

COLMES: But I want to stay on topic, though, Dr. West.

WEST: Poor people, working people's voices...

COLMES: Over here, Dr. West. Let me keep you on topic.

WEST: ... are now being heard. There's been oligarchs and plutocrats who
have been running things.

COLMES: First of all, I think that Chavez is falsely criticized.

WEST: He's not a dictator.

http://www.embavenez-us.org/news.php?nid=2221

Apologists indeed. What would they say about Bush if he shut down CBS?

Colin states:

"The problem is that methods going far beyond coercive questioning and/or trickery are currently being used, DESPITE the fact that they don't produce reliable intelligence. I think that's both morally wrong AND stupid policy."

There is a debate as to the reliability of the intelligence, and as between Amnesty International, which says the tactics to not work, and law enforcement/military personnel who might think that a particular circumstance might justify use of extraordinary tactics, I would defer to the opinion of the law enforcement/military personnel every time.

I am not familiar with any statement or suggestion that those who disagree with Bush on the balance between security and civil liberties are the same as or are supporting terrorists. I know I don't think that, and I find that statement just as irrational as the suggestion that I am childish or a Hitlerite just because I disagree with the ACLU on these issues.

I agree with the earlier post that Rudy is the scariest of the Rs candidates. He will turn this country into a polic state. I find it very telling that there is no mention of protecting civil liberties. The Patriot Act will seem like child's play after Rudy gets done whittling down our rights.

Also, as a gay American, I find his flip flopping on gay issues to be quite disturbing. Any politician who will say anything to get elected does not deserve to be President. Sadly, most of the current candidates (both R and D) are guilty of this.

And Cassandra, I havn't heard anyone suggest that the US invade Venezuela.

Razorback -- The goal ALWAYS is to stop criminal actions before they happen -- irrespective of whether those actions are classified as terrorism or not. I'm not sure what that has to do with how we should deal with those who have been taken into custody, which I thought was the issue.

For what it's worth I couldn't agree more with MARK IN AUSTIN regarding the type of interrogation that can and should be used to gain valuable information. The problem is that methods going far beyond coercive questioning and/or trickery are currently being used, DESPITE the fact that they don't produce reliable intelligence. I think that's both morally wrong AND stupid policy.

Again, do you disagree? If so, I'd honestly be interested in hearing why. Also, regardless of whether you disagree on this particular point, do you really think it's helpful or accurate to argue that anyone who doesn't support this administration's policies is somehow aiding and abetting terrorists? B/c that's essentially the argument that GWB and company have been making for years.

Cassandra, the law recognizes the difference between a thought crime and an attempted crime or conspiracy that fails. There are well established standards in the law that state which is punishable and which is protected by freedom of thought.

I support the distinction made by the courts that recognize that citizens get treated differently from non-citizens under the law. I think the balance between civil liberties and security is different when dealing with a citizen and a non citizen apprehended on a foreign battlefield. I am only as stupid, illogical or facist as the Supreme Court has been for the last 80 years, when it has repeatedly settled these questions of law in a manner that is 100% consistent with my opinion.

Let me add to John D's excellent examples the work of the Italian and Spanish National Police, in concert, that thwarted what would have been Al Qaeda's biggest mass murder - the bombing of the Madrid soccer stadium.

For the most part, excellent high level police work has provided more intelligence than the intelligence services, but that is not a criticism of the services; it is a commendation to the cops.

"I think the wait until after the offense, then investigate and convict (if the evidence is there) is the right balance between civil liberties and protection of US citizens within the context of garden variety criminal law. I think this is the wrong approach within the context of terrorism, because of the desire of terrorists to inflict mass casualties."

So you would then completely ignore the potential of our police agencies to investigate conspiracies and potential crimes because of the intent of the wrong doers? And you would abrogate the civil rights of our citizens and those of other nations based on the potential damage that terrorist plots would cause?

I think that England proved with their arrest of those that planned to detonate gel bombs on board planes, and the Clinton administration also proved, with their disruption of the multiple airline plot in the Pacific that law enforcement activities can, in fact, work to deter terrorist plots.

A prima facie argument that says, well you have to use different tactics because of their goals doesn't really make any sense.

The nature of the attackers (small cels, not nationally affiliated) makes a strong argument for just what you despise - alert and active multi-juridstictional police activities

bsimon, Chavez is not only a despot, he is a complete fool. His national oil co. took over City Service many years ago so it could have a refinery near Houston that could make gasoline out of Venezuelan sludge, which is difficult to refine beyond the level of asphalt. Now, he claims that the national oil co. is corrupt and must sell its Citgo refineries in Houston and Corpus. Dumbass. When he caves the Venezuelan economy, a patient US can pick up the pieces without any belligerence whatsoever. A patient US... .

Colin, I see your fine hand at work and approve. You were a clerk for a Fed Judge, if I recall, and you know that appropriate coercive interrogation and outright trickery work on suspects when the interrogator knows something to begin with, but simply shaking the trees provides mere falling leaves.

Torture provides whatever confession the interrogator desires, but no useful info. May as well pull wings from insects.

FH writes
"I wonder if the trials could be public without revealing sources, methods etc.? As a traditional conservative, I have a big problem with the Padilla case. It makes me very nervous to see the rules of due process supplanted in this manner. It is tough to balance my desire to be tough-on-terror, with my desire to keep civil liberties intact."


Those are good questions to ask. And, from my perspective, we serve ourselves better by erring on the side of civil liberties. Our whole system of justice is based on the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to wrongfully incarcerate the innocent. Why have the rules suddenly changed?

Of course, I know the answer that will be given; some hyperventilating 'kill em all' type will say "BECAUSE THEY HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBS!!!!" Which smacks of imaginary fears rather than reality.

'I support allowing law enforcement or military personnel to use any means necessary when dealing with non-citizens'

What about Timory McVeigh? What about Cho, whatever is name was? They are citizens, same as padilla.

They are 'terrorists' who intended mass casualties. Your logic just simply doesn't hold up.

Once we start arresting people for 'thought crimes' no one has any freedom left.

Should Timothy McVeigh or say anyone who owns an arsenal of automatic weapons be arrested? Because why would they have an arsenal if they weren't planning mass casualties?

Cassandra - "...are are better than [a lynch mob]..." Oh really? You obviously havn't been reading the attacks from the left and right on this forum, then. I'd say the left wing attack dogs are about as bad as the right wing attack dogs. James Carville and Karl Rove aren't that much different and neither are their candidates...nor, unfortunately, the lynch mobs that follow them.

Harry Reid told a funny joke last night - Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney has been hunting.

Oh btw -- once someone is convicted of terrorism -- I say hang 'em high and let 'em swing...

Just let's have a trial and not a lynch mob. We are better than that.

Colin asked:

"Personally, I think our Justice System is fully capable of prosecuting terrorists without holding them, without charges, for years on end. Do you disagree? If so, why not. Relatedly, do you think it's ok to torture suspected, uncharged individuals? If so, I'd be interested in knowing why you think that such action actually produces reliable actionable intelligence when existing evidence overwhilmingly suggests the opposite."

First, note that I am always willing to answer questions asked by those who disagree with me, unlike some others who post on this blog.

I agree that the justice system can prosecute and convict terrorists, however this should not be the only approached used. I think the wait until after the offense, then investigate and convict (if the evidence is there) is the right balance between civil liberties and protection of US citizens within the context of garden variety criminal law. I think this is the wrong approach within the context of terrorism, because of the desire of terrorists to inflict mass casualties. If we wait until they act, and then move the way we would move after a bank robbery, its too late.

I support allowing law enforcement or military personnel to use any means necessary when dealing with non-citizens to protect the lives of Americans. If, as you say, certain methods do not work, then law enforcement and military personnel will not use them.

The people who get the blame and get accused of failing to prevent attacks should be empowered to use any means that they think will work.

FH -- the Federal Courts are capable of protecting secret information while still affording criminal defendants their civil liberties. For example, summaries of secret information and/or redacted versions of documents can be utilized without violating people's due process rights. It's a balancing game, no doubt, but it's one that our courts ARE capable of undertaking. Which, of course, means that the ridulous false dichotomy that the Bush administration presents -- either support our policies or aid terrorists -- is nothing but a cheap political ploy.

Honestly, the sadest thing about any of this is that this conversation is viewed as partisan. Irrespective of whether you vote D or R, shouldn't everyone care about basic civil liberties?

FH, all of us feel the same way. I was in New York on 9/11 -- I saw it all. I felt it all.

But we tried Communist spies, didn't we? Why are a bunch of guys with boxcutters more dangerous than a group armed with multiple nuclear weapons?They can certainly do some damage, but I really think you all are only helping their cause by building up their imporance and therby, recruiting ability.

I lived through the Cold War [duck and cover, brush off the 'nuclear fallout dust'] when thousands of armed nuclear weapons were aimed at our cities 14/7. How in God's name could this be worse?

Or are people just bigger cowards now?

And Razorback, your over the top and usually fictional rhetoric fully supports every pillar of fascism, not freedom.

And I'm not an 'apologist' for Chavez -- I just said I seriously doubt he is 'worse than Hitler' as some 'conservatives' say. Ask the Jews who survived Auschwitz. It's an insult to even hear this stuff. I don't like him much, but I don't think we should invade every single country on this earth whose leadership we don't much care for.

We won't be doing much else then... and you better believe every male will be serving in the military. I don't see you itching to join...

Razorback -- My suggestion is to put them on trial in our justice system, convict them, and then either place convicted terrorists in prison for life or execute them. If I'm one of the "liberals" you're talking about, I would be curious to hear how exactly my preference makes me an "apologist" for terrorists.

Oh, and I second the notion that the grandfather of the conservative movement --barry goldwater himself -- would be more upset about the Bush administration's approach to security issues than anyone. As a conservative AND a decorated war hero, you'd think his views would still hold some importance with the GOP. but they don't. That's sad.

The usual distorters are out in force again and I see they are being handled well. Keep up the good work folks.

The proper way to deal with terrorism suspects is to put them on very public trials for their crimes - or turn them over to an international tribunal. Part of the strategy to win 'hearts and minds' has to be to show that our system is better. Our system IS better, isn't it?

Posted by: bsimon | June 12, 2007 03:44 PM

While I would agree with this sentiment, I wonder if the trials could be public without revealing sources, methods etc.? As a traditional conservative, I have a big problem with the Padilla case. It makes me very nervous to see the rules of due process supplanted in this manner. It is tough to balance my desire to be tough-on-terror, with my desire to keep civil liberties intact.

Hugo Chavez talks a good game about doing good for the masses, but the reality is that he's just another authoritarian despot.

Colin writes
"I think our Justice System is fully capable of prosecuting terrorists without holding them, without charges, for years on end."

This is an area where the Bush admin dropped the ball in the so-called 'war on terror.' Their incarceration-without-end plans for holding terrorists have only reinforced what the 'evildoers' already say about us. We go over there, talking big about freedom, democracy and the rule of law, but don't match our actions to our rhetoric. The proper way to deal with terrorism suspects is to put them on very public trials for their crimes - or turn them over to an international tribunal. Part of the strategy to win 'hearts and minds' has to be to show that our system is better. Our system IS better, isn't it?

Its funny how liberals (like you Cassandra), always yapping about free speech, are apologists for Hugo Chavez, who just shut down one of the few remaining independent TV stations.

Liberals were apologists for Communist atrocities, liberals are apologists for Chavez's attrocities, and some liberals are even apologists for Padilla's attempted atrocities.

And Rudi Saith
"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for a terrorst attacks and natural disasters."

Coming soon to a town near you: a local homeland security office, to be staffed & operated by Giuliani Partners, LLC. We carry duct tape and plastic tarps.

Razorback -- the administration disagrees with what the law currently is. So does Rudy. That's the issue.

Personally, I think our Justice System is fully capable of prosecuting terrorists without holding them, without charges, for years on end. Do you disagree? If so, why not. Relatedly, do you think it's ok to torture suspected, uncharged individuals? If so, I'd be interested in knowing why you think that such action actually produces reliable actionable intelligence when existing evidence overwhilmingly suggests the opposite.

Is that a good place to start the conversation? If not, we can discuss the new 4th Circuit decision that precludes the administration from labeling foreign individuals in the US, who are suspected terrorists, from being labeled enemy combatants and -- as such -- denied Due Process. In this instance, sounds like the most conservative Circuit in the Country got one right.

And Rudi saith
"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."

Upon achieving Tort Reform, Wal-mart shall sell healthcare opinions at the check-out for $1.99. Let the buyer beware.

And Rudi saith
"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."

Upon achieving Tort Reform, Wal-mart shall sell healthcare opinions at the check-out for $1.99. Let the buyer beware.

There were multiple proceedings and Padilla had multiple lawyers paid for by the taxpayers because different standards apply to different legal proceedings, as recognized by the Supreme Court consistently since the Civil War.

And Rudi saith
"I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions."

American workers shall be free to compete with imported indentured servants. If their employers so choose, health care benefits may be provided. If a person's current employer cuts benefits, perhaps they would consider taking another job with lower pay, but better benefits. Hey man, its a free market.

3 years then --frive since he was arrested. and you;'re the liar buddyboy. and a f*cking fool who should move to china. you'll love it there.

No, we have to colonize Venezuela too, bsimon-- because Chavez is 'worse than Hitler'. Funny any leader who won't let oil companies into his country's resourcxes is 'worse than Hitler'.

Apparently only the freedom-loving Saudi leaders meet our approval...

And what happened to 5 years? Liar.

Rudi saith, and saith and saith
"I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending."
"I will impose accountability on Washington."
"I will cut taxes and reform the tax code."

All spending in Democratic districts shall be defined as wasteful.
Democrats shall be held accountable for such cuts.
A 10% finders fee for future tax cuts is payable now to "Rudolph Giuliani for President, Inc." Any such fees in excess of federal limits can be paid to Giuliani Partners, LLC.

due process = innocent until proven guilty

And then Rudi saith
"I will lead America toward energy independence."

Once we have colonized Ira(n/q) and put down the restless natives, we will no longer be required to import oil from Canada, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

ose Padilla is the U.S. citizen who supposedly plotted to detonate a "dirty bomb." Since his capture -- not on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq, but at Chicago's O'Hare Airport -- he has not been charged with any crime. Yet, for more than a year, Padilla has been held incommunicado in a South Carolina military brig.

Padilla's indefinite detention, without access to an attorney, has civil libertarians up in arms. That's why the Cato Institute, joined by five ideologically diverse public policy organizations -- the Center for National Security Studies, the Constitution Project, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, People for the American Way, and the Rutherford Institute -- filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Consider this specious logic, endorsed by the Bush administration: Under the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel does not apply until charges are filed. The government has not charged Padilla. Ordinarily, U.S. citizens cannot be detained without charge. But the administration has avoided that technicality by designating Padilla as an "enemy combatant," then proclaiming that the court may not second-guess his designation.

Essentially, on orders of the executive branch, anyone could wind up imprisoned by the military with no way to assert his innocence. That frightening prospect was echoed by J. Harvie Wilkinson, the respected and steadfastly conservative chief judge of the Fourth Circuit. In a case involving another U.S. citizen, Yaser Hamdi, Wilkinson warned, "With no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel." Judge Wilkinson upheld Hamdi's detention but pointedly noted that Hamdi's battlefield capture was like "apples and oranges" compared to Padilla's arrest in Chicago. "We aren't placing our imprimatur upon a new day of executive detentions," Wilkinson cautioned.

An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

Jose Padilla, a US citizen held for more than three years as an "enemy combatant", has finally been charged.

Following his arrest at Chicago's O'Hare airport in May 2002 he was held in military detention, but his case will now be transferred to civilian jurisdiction.

Mr Padilla, arrested as he stepped off a flight from Pakistan, was initially held on suspicion of planning a so-called "dirty bomb" attack inside the US.

However the November 2005 indictment makes no mention of that allegation.

Instead Mr Padilla, 35, is charged with aiding terrorists and conspiracy to murder US nationals overseas.

The indictment avoids a Supreme Court battle over how long the US government could hold one of its citizens without charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2037444.stm

Rudi saith
"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation."

Once the non-citizens are appropriately identified with a Big Yellow 'I', for Immigrant, to be pinned to their lapel, they shall enter indentured servitude until they are tired of working for peanuts, after which they will be sent home to be replaced by younger, harder-working siblings, cousins and/or neighbors.

On the First day, Rudi saith
"I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us."

*translation*

We Shall Stay The Course in Iraq, until that that time when opportunity to striketh down Iran arrives, afterwith Iraq shall be considered complete, like Afghanistan.

José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), is a United States citizen of Puerto Rican[1] origin, accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the protection of United States law. '

why do i bother

Source on Padilla and his lawyer:Padilla v Hanft, 389 F.Supp.2d 678, D.S.C.,2005.

The Supreme Court is in the hands of activists who would write their own laws. God knows how much damage they'll do before they're through.

Some liar says "Padilla got a lawyer after 5 f*cking years of being tortured.."

Now for the truth:

"On May 8, 2002, Padilla flew from Pakistan to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. As he stepped off the plane, Padilla was apprehended by federal agents executing a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11th terrorist attacks. Padilla was then transported to New York, where he was held in federal criminal custody. On May 22, acting through appointed counsel, Padilla moved to vacate the material witness warrant."

ACTING THROUGH APPOINTED COUNSEL. Did you get that? 15 DAYS after being apprehended Padilla not only had a lawyer, but his lawyer had already filed the motion.

Quit lying. Revise your false ideological beliefs aftering finding out what the truth is.

And by the way, the Supreme Court precedent I cited didn't start with the Roberts court. It stated after WW1. It is well settled law, not subject to reasonable dispute.

Why don't you check some facts before you make your ideological conclusions and post lies on this blog?

And then Rudi saith
"I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world."

Dear Rudi, care to explain why our reputation around the world needs to be strengthened? Can you offer more detail on how you will expand America's involvement in the global economy? Are we going to consume more or produce more?

you will continue arguing that up is down for hours -- obviously you've got nothing else to do. there are people on this blog worth talking to -- but you are not one of them.

"As I have posted on here at least 25 times, the Supreme Court distinguishes between how citizens and non-citizens are treated, and how enemy combatants and criminal defendants are treated."

It will be interesting to see how the SC reacts to the latest decision that slaps down WH legal theory regarding enemy combatants. It seems to me that 'conservatism' as practiced by the current GOP is not the same as judicial conservatism. The White House has been making up their own rules, apparently independent of long-established legal precedent. Will the Supreme Court come down on the side of historical precedent or expansive powers of a unitary executive?

you will continue arguing that up is down for hours -- obviously you've got nothing else to do. there are people on this blog worth talking to -- but you are not one of them.

Jose Padilla is a citizen, so your argument is BS -- as it always is. Go try reading the Constitution.

razorback.

gimme a break on the supreme court. In the the Roberts Quintet, we have a majority with a regressive attitude that can reverse legal precedent to the days of Dred Scott-which is really all the conservative Republicans wanted from the Current Occupant.

The war was a side show they didn't expect.

Now that you have (finally) admitted that you are arguing what you think the law should be and that I am right about what the law actually is, the next step is to take back all of the things you have said about ignoring the law, and replace them which accusations that people ignore what YOU think the law should be.

As I have posted on here at least 25 times, the Supreme Court distinguishes between how citizens and non-citizens are treated, and how enemy combatants and criminal defendants are treated.

Don't blame me for this distinction, blame the Supreme Court. It is just fine if you don't like what the law is. What is not just fine is when you misrepresent what the law is and at the same time falsely assert that others disregard the law.

Padilla got a lawyer after 5 f*cking years of being tortured... and he was only allowed a lawyer after the courts were on the verge of ruling against the administration. Please stop with your fictitious arguments -- I know better.

Charging smeone who's detained with a crime is REAL law. Holding them indefinitely is not. Allowing them access to a lawyer is also. Try reading the actual Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot just make the Constitution go away. The Supreme Court is not the Constution and they cannot make law, only interpret it.

Interpreting a Constitutional provision by ignoring it is a bad decision and it will eventually be struck down, if we ever have a Supreme Court again that isn't dedicated to judicial activism of the worst sort.

drindle, I care about the Constitution and civil liberties. I also care about the truth, which is why I don't make posts which falsely state what the law is and that falsely state, as you did, that someone didn't get a lawyer (Padilla), when in fact they did get a lawyer.

Why don't you revise your beliefs when it is shown that your beliefs are based on fictitious assumptions?

Anyone see the 'stop McCain/Kennedy' ad on CC's previous thread? It's by Newsmax. The really far righties are trying hard to bring McCain down. A pity. I think they really do despise war heros.

What one does with suspected terrorists is a serious policy disagreement, not a childish attack. The poster suggested that Dodd and Guiliani would approach terrorist suspects the same way. That is false.

I agree with what the Supreme Court says about habeas corpus and due process, not some psuedo law posted on Daily Kos. Real law, not pretent law.

'BG was a card carrying member of the ACLU. It was a different time.'

Wish we had it back, Mark. Wish the so-called conservatives still cared about the Constitution and civil liberties. The ones that do are getting stiff armed by the candidates.

Remember when the R's hated Big Government? Now that want it in their bank accounts, in their bedrooms, in their medical records, listening to their phone conversations, reading their email --everywhere. Too bad.

razorback -- you don't seem to understand anything except straw men, the usual winger talking points. 'giving twinkies to suicidal fanatics' is not an argument, it's just a childish attack -- all you are capable of.

apparently you just hate habeas corpus and due process -- the law of the land. go live in china or russia why don't you.

like12steps...

Hiring a lawyer and giving twinkies to suicidal fanatics instead of trying to find out the next intended target are completely different policies when it comes to fighting suicidal fanatics.

Bill didn't announce he was divorcing Donna on TV before telling her about it.

Bill didn't try to get his wife and children to move out of the WH so he could move his girlfriend in.

In fact, he stayed with his wife, instead of publicly dumping her and the kids.

Nor has Bill dumped TWO wives and started on #3. Wonder how long Judy has? Like Newtie, Rudy seems to want to trade for a new model every few years.

...

So are all of them going to play the newtie numbers game?

How about Mitt Romney and the Seven Dwarves?

Cassandra, is it a fair assumption that your silence with regard to whether consumers who buy products from corporations ultimately pay the taxes imposed on corporations indicates that you were pandering to public opinion rather than attempting a serious discussion of economic policy?

'You must work for their campaign if you actually believe that.'

No, I lived it.

Optimist:

Do you worry about Rudy's commitment to Donna without worrying about Bill's commitment to Hillary? Or do you apply one standard to politicians you like and another to those you do not?

suppose a second tier democrat, chris dodd, announced these same 12 commitmments. except for "strict constructionists" this could work for a democrat, too.
who is not for fighting suicidal fanatics?
what dem does not support an energy policy?

looked at this way, maybe rudy is trying to position for the general election as much as the primary.

Wonder what Donna Hanover would say about Rudy Giuliani's commitments.

All the libs want a return to the Clinton years, but without the Clinton free trade policy and without the tax cuts that Newt Gingrich forced Clinton to accept.

ProudtobeGOP, you're right about Bill Clinton being a powerful motivator for Republican voters. However, the chance of Bush's policies being continued by the next president serve as an even stronger motivation for those who identify as Democrats, and most moderates. To the best of my knowledge, every one of the announced R. candidates has come out in favor of continuing this disastrous war-- a kiss of death for any national candidate.

Your base is far smaller than it was in 2000. Take a look at the registration numbers: over the past 3 years in particular, people have registered Democrat in far larger proportions than Republican. That's especially true of young voters, such as my daughter (now age 22); I believe over 60% of new voters in the 18 to 25-year old range registered as Dems. Also take a look at the number of independents who say they lean one way or the other-- a larger percentage now lean D. As a poll worker last year, I saw at least a half dozen who had switched from R to D. Not a single person switched from D to R, and I live in a very upscale well-to-do neighborhood. It's still majority R, but instead of being something like 65% R in 2004, it's now around 53% R.

Bill Clinton is possibly the single most popular political figure in America right now. While Hillary is not my choice of candidate (I'm waiting for Gore to announce, I hope in late July), I would certainly vote for any person who won the D nomination, over any person who won the GOP nomination. And I have to agree with Cassandra; there is no chance that a moderate will win the GOP nomination. The right wing has far too much control of the party at present. Those candidates who might once have been able to pass as moderates are no longer trusted as such.

Cassandra - your characterization of the Clinton years belies your affiliation. You must work for their campaign if you actually believe that.

Rather than convince me, I think you should direct your efforts at the JamesCHes of the world who don't even think Hillary can get the party nod, let alone win the general.

It's great that Rudy has finally put forth some real policy ideas, but it may be too late. Fred's already caught him.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=225

You're right Proud, what I should have said is that the Democratic base WON'T be divided come November 2008. Once the nominee is in place, Dems will look on the other side, see chaos, and cast their vote for their party's nominee.

Personally, I still don't think that Hillary will get the nom. Her lead is made up almost entirely of women, many of whom will start to defect as other candidates begin to shape their platform and their persona. People have just had too much time to make up their mind about her. And, if she can't get her favorable/unfavorable into the high fifties by January, she's in serious trouble when primary season begins.

'The spectre of Bill Clinton returning to the WH is no less powerful a motivator for R voters, pols or not.'

Yes, the long nightmare of peace and prosperity for the middle class might return.

Rudy will turn America into a police state ran on fear, every other word out his mouth is terror, or terrorist. I would take any of the other republicans over Rudy.

Cassandra -The spectre of Bill Clinton returning to the WH is no less powerful a motivator for R voters, pols or not.

'but the dem party is definitely divided over who is the anti-Hillary and whether to vote for a moderate R'

No. Don't kid yourself. Maybe if there actually WERE a moderate R, but there isn't so it isn't an issue. Every Dem I know -- and I work in politics -- is willing to pick one of the Dems, even if flawed, over every one of the R's running so far. I don't love Hillary but the spectre -- and I mean that literally -- of another R presidency will send us to the polls in droves to save us from that.

Re the 1:25 post, there is an interesting article on Clinton's lead at the top of the W.P. today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216.html?hpid=topnews

Apparently that lead is based on women whose educational level is high school or less, women whom the Clinton campaign calls "women with needs."

Rudy was an awful mayor. 9-11 didn't make him "America's Mayor" it is a meaningless title given to him by out of touch political wags.

"the Democratic nominee cruises to victory because their base isn't divided, "

C'mon James, you can't actually believe that! Hillary Clinton is divisive inside the dem party and out.

Although she leads in the polls, her negatives are very high. Call it what you will... conflicted, despairing over electability vs. likeability, but the dem party is definitely divided over who is the anti-Hillary and whether to vote for a moderate R or Hillary if/when she gets the nomination.

As CC once said in a previous post: "Clinton is the unquestioned "head" candidate and would attract the lion's share of voters who see electability as the most important issue in choosing a nominee. Obama and Edwards are splitting the "heart" vote -- a trend that, if it continues, accrues to the benefit of Clinton."

Guiliani can strengthen the image of America around the world by getting behind addressing the issue of severe poverty and being vocal about giving international aid to the more than 1.2 billion people who live on less than $1 a day. America has the means and ability to improve the lives of so many people, and as supporters of the One Campaign's One Vote '08 have said, countries do not go to war with those who have saved their children's lives. HR 1302 The Global Poverty Act is coming to the House of Representatives, and we need to see presidential candidates give their support to fighting global poverty in order to improve the U.S.'s image as perceived the the world.

It's amazing to me that Rudy Guliani is still holding out hope that he can win the general election by targeting the "terror moms" that Bush grabbed in 2004. People just are not buying the intellectual dishonesty of the "9/11, 24/7" strategy anymore. There is a negative correlation between time and this strategy. As the years go by, terrorism becomes more and more abstract to the American people. We know it's out there, but it is sliding down into the steady hum of the rest of our nation's major problems. The polling data bears this out.

I still can't believe that anyone thinks Guliani is good on terrorism to begin with. Who puts their counterterrorism unit in the world's biggest terrorist target, a place that had been hit once already?

That said, the Guliani strategy could work if the Bush Administration decides to use the Dept. of Homeland Security as a campaign arm and raise the terror alert every few weeks or so, as they did in 2004. (By the way, this is not a conspiracy theory. Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge has all but admitted that the terror alert was raised several times in 2004 over sketchy or practically nonexistent intelligence.)

More likely, though, is Rudy gets spanked in the general from the left and the right, and the Democratic nominee cruises to victory because their base isn't divided,

Warmed over contract with America. Pure Marketing baloney.

When the the electorate realize that these guys come up with this stuff for image.

No new ideas anyway. Maybe next he will announce Paris Hilton for VEEP

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush faces a tall order when he joins Republican senators Tuesday at their weekly policy luncheon at the Capitol in an effort to revive the immigration bill, one of his legislative priorities.

"I think the president is wrong to push this piece of legislation so hard after we've demonstrated the flaws that are in it. He needs to back off," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, told CNN's "American Morning" on Tuesday.

Don't think the Dems should take the 12 Commitments lightly.... sounds like a combination of the Gingrich contract with America and the 10 Commandments.

People like easy to understand concepts, only the few (like we posters) want the beef. I think this approach will be highly marketable and effective.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Rudi Giuliani is no more "America's Mayor" than the Dallas Cowboys are "America's Team" or Katie Couric is "America's Sweetheart".

Sure sounds a lot like the Ten Commandments, doesn't it? I'm sure God gave them to Rudy personally.

And he will rule by fiat, don't worry. No one is a bigger bully or has a worse disposition.

And you are right on, CC about his 'did I mention I was Mayor on NYC on 9/11?' LOL

His campaign is 9/11 24/7.

great take on Guiliani, too bad his points still won't get him the far right religious vote. If Guiliani wins the nomination he wins it for one reason. Romney, McCain and Thompson split the rest of the voters enough to hand Guiliani victory.

At that point, a third party right wing candidate gets in as an indy and the Democrats win, the Democrats want Rudy to win, they, begging more the likely.