Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to A Nation of Laws, or of Men?
Bud, glad you enjoy pariticpating in the fray so much!
Your comments, misguided or not, are always appreciated.
My turn to have some inspired fun. Your argument is false.
Your problem is that terrorists, by deliberately blurring the boundaries delineated in the Geneva Conventions between civilians and military combatants, and by abusing the protections granted to civilians and relief agencies, disqualify themselves from its protections for combatants. Go look it up at http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html. Geneva Convention protections are accorded those to whom they apply.
Question: Are you this concerned that the terrorists also follow the Geneva Conventions, especially concerning treatment of prisoners and targeting of civilians? Somehow I think not.
By the way, congratulations on electing a conservative majority to Parliament! 
Glad to see that the commen sense I heard from so many folks in Alberta last summer is taking hold in the great northland.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 25, 2006 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Justsuono, thank you!
Compliments appreciated.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 25, 2006 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Welcome, Blanche!
Excellent comment!
What was objectionable in Kerry's remark was the irony - if not outright hypocrisy - of the Democrats being so exercised about wiretapping and surveillance, then Kerry coming out and saying, in essence, "But we really think it's okay." Which is it? Is surveillance of terror suspects such as the President has authorized right or wrong?
I'm intrigued by your statistics on approval rate of FISA warrants. What is your source for them?
The 72 hours you cite is an issue because our enemy moves so quickly and is so savvy. Osama bin Hidin's goons are experts at exploiting loopholes and weaknesses in our security. If it takes us 72 hours to jump through the hoops to catch them, you can bet your lunch that they'll be gone in 71 or less.
Moreover, court approval of actions taken against terror runs into another problem. The judges are not trained in military, intelligence or anti-terrorism tactics. They may know the law inside and out, but if they arenot intimately familiar with the circumstannces to which the law is being applied they can end up harming the effort to prevent attacks and eliminate terrorists.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 25, 2006 at 6:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Good comments!!
FW, you're up first. On the contrary - National security versus civil liberties is very much the issue, as has been stated ad nauseum by the left. Your citing of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia or China (or, for that matter, any other Communist regime) as examples of nations of men raises a fascinating issue. In one sense, those regimes are very much nations of laws; you break the law, and the punishment is severe and often lethal. But your citations indicate that you believe a nation of laws is a nation - like ours - that follows a higher law than that imposed by man; the Declaration of Independence was still in effect, last time I checked.
Unfortunately, it's all downhill from here. FISA surveillance IS legal. Your history of the war on terror is wrong; military action authorized by Congress, war will end when terror is eliminated. President as Commander in Chief is charged with protecting the nation, and that is exactly what he has been doing.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 25, 2006 at 6:31 PM
| link to this | reply
You are soooo predictably right on this and again soooooo picky......
Your last comment said that you were at war, but you can't really call it a war, can you? Because then it wouldn't be terrorism. You'd have to give the combatants rights under the Geneva Convention. So you can't have it both ways now, can you?
I know that you believe it to be a trivial document (the Geneva Convention) beneath the dignity of the USA, but frankly it's all that the human race has come up with in the time since it became civilized.
I know you guys and George feel that you are so much wiser than all of the rest of humanity, and it's really hard to follow the convultions of your hate filled vitriolic logic at times. Still, I respect your perverse combative point of view as the product of fear mongering by those whom you worship.
There truly is something soothing in the repetition of a mantra. That is the reason for religious chanting.
A creed which always involves some half assed conclusions,based on myopic perceptions, distorted by patriotism is disseminated from on high and the loyal chant it incessantly,has nothing to do with truth. It is the foundation, the excuse by which people club each other to death.
There is usually a great need for justication for every absurd theory backed up with gobbledegook and long wordy arguments which dissipate like hot air.
That was fun !!!!!!!
And from the heart, you inpired me! thanks
posted by
Bud-Oracle
on January 23, 2006 at 11:31 PM
| link to this | reply
WOL this is an excellent post. The fear factors are so rapant people do not
appear to understand we are at war! I haven't the slightest concern that anyone will listen in on any telephone conversation that I place to Iran, Iraq or any of the Middle Eastern Nations. We are at war. To say we are like Red China etc., is to say I don't have a clue! So there is nothing I can say except I appreciate what you are trying to do.
posted by
Justi
on January 23, 2006 at 9:52 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
I followed your link to Rush Limbaugh's transcript, and I have a question. What is Rush objecting to? The first thing that Sen. Kerry said was "We have no objection to eavesdropping but there are procedures", if I understand Rush's quote after that, he said something to the effect of, 'well, what are these procedures, why don't we have them in effect?"
We do! There is a super-secret NSA court specificaly set up to issue warrants for surveillance within the US, and out of something like 90,000 warrant requests, some small number like 3 have ever been denied! It's not a question of having to act in a timely manner, either, the warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the actual wiretapping so there's no time delay. I believe it's more a question of not even wanting the court to know who NSA is spying on, even it's own confidential court, otherwise why are they so reluctant to go through even the minimal formatlity of getting a rubber-stamped warrant?
posted by
Blanche.
on January 23, 2006 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Since the beginning of the Republic ...
there has always been a debate between national security and civil liberties. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether we are a nation of laws, or a nation of men. And if we are a nation of men, we are no different from Nazi Germany or Red China or Communist Russia, where the rule of law means nothing.
What is troubling about the King's action is that there is a LEGAL mechanisim to eavesdrop on suspect communications. The King is deliberately choosing to ignore it because HE says he can to protect us.
The King has declared a war with no end and is using that war as a justification to flout the Constitution. It is not in his best interest to win the war on terrorism. The longer the war goes on, the more power he can claim for himself. The law regarding domestic surveillance were put in place as a result of the abuses that resulted the last time the executive branch claimed absolute power.
posted by
fwmystic
on January 23, 2006 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply