Forum Discussion

Is that so? Well, if you guys on the "left" continue to "not get it", you'll never see another Democrat elected to the White House . . . ever again. And I'm elated about that prospect! Keep up the good work!

>Is that so? Well, if you guys on the
>"left" continue to "not get
>it", you'll never see another Democrat
>elected to the White House . . . ever again. And
>I'm elated about that prospect! Keep up the good
>work!

Wait a sec... "Is that so?"... well C S, you've really made your point there. I think now that you've made your rebuttle, I -DO- get it now. Thank you for making this so clear as to what there is "to get"...

Your response would be witty if you can learn to spell "rebuttal".

>Your response would be witty if you can learn to
>spell "rebuttal".

A spelling error does not discount a valid point, nor does pointing it out make up for a lack of reasoning.

Your point would have been taken more seriously had you shown better proofreading. In addition, just because you say it's a valid point doesn't really make it so.

>Your point would have been taken more seriously
>had you shown better proofreading. In addition,
>just because you say it's a valid point doesn't
>really make it so.

Are you really not able to see past a superficial (and in this case VERY MINOR) spelling error as to not be able to comprehend the context of a statement? That is being pretty narrow-minded. And if you don't think somethings a valid point, you could provide some reasons or facts as to why... (I thought Biff made a pretty good one) or I guess you could simply go with the "I'm right, You're wrong" attitude. Then I guess nobody will ever "get it".

That spelling error thing goes for JIM HUBER too. If the best REBUTTAL (there I got it right this time, happy?) you can come up with is a spelling mistake, thats pretty sad. Didn't they teach you how to make arguments in your gen-ed college requirements?


>
>Are you really not able to see past a superficial
>(and in this case VERY MINOR) spelling error as
>to not be able to comprehend the context of a
>statement? That is being pretty narrow-minded.
>And if you don't think somethings a valid point,
>you could provide some reasons or facts as to
>why... (I thought Biff made a pretty good one) or
>I guess you could simply go with the "I'm
>right, You're wrong" attitude. Then I guess
>nobody will ever "get it".

>That spelling error thing goes for JIM HUBER too.
>If the best REBUTTAL (there I got it right this
>time, happy?) you can come up with is a spelling
>mistake, thats pretty sad. Didn't they teach you
>how to make arguments in your gen-ed college
>requirements?
>
>
>>
>>Are you really not able to see past a
>superficial
>>(and in this case VERY MINOR) spelling error
>as
>>to not be able to comprehend the context of
>a
>>statement? That is being pretty
>narrow-minded.
>>And if you don't think somethings a valid
>point,
>>you could provide some reasons or facts as
>to
>>why... (I thought Biff made a pretty good
>one) or
>>I guess you could simply go with the
>"I'm
>>right, You're wrong" attitude. Then I
>guess
>>nobody will ever "get it".

One more thing, bud. Biff makes assertions that are, to put it mildly, inaccurate. Or at the the very least, unproven. It would be just as easy for me to say that it is he that isn't living in reality, and it would be easy to do so. That's why folks like him do it so much. It's easy.
Mr. Huber points out spelling errors for a good reason. You might find out what it is if you read his post archive. I'll let you in on it: It's funny that those who think that those on the left are smarter,(unlike those knuckle-dragging Republicans) and more tolerant, post some of the most vile and hateful messages with misspellings. That's why I find it funny too, when one posts a "witty" message, and misspells a simple word. I saw that I misspelled a word in my last post by leaving out a "c". Unlike you, I'll learn from it and try to do better next time.

Have a nice day, Mr. Ranch.

The reality is, that this government is detaining people without the due process that the constitution grants all human beings... (albeit in the name of National Security). You must be living in a bubble if you are not aware that civil liberties have been breached moreso than they would be under a more responsible administration.

I know you might not take this quote seriously, since the Washington Post is a pretty liberal newspaper, but "...not even the government contends that every detainee has connections to terrorism or information about it" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7662-2003Jun17).

Isn't it somewhere in the Bible that says better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished for something he did not do? (Or maybe it was 10 to 1, I'm not claiming to be some kind of theological scholar here). I don't think you would be very understanding towards this administration's cause if you were one of the wrongly detained.

And also, I did learn how to spell Rebuttal, didn't I?

>The reality is, that this government is detaining
>people without the due process that the
>constitution grants all human beings... (albeit
>in the name of National Security). You must be
>living in a bubble if you are not aware that
>civil liberties have been breached moreso than
>they would be under a more responsible
>administration.
>
>I know you might not take this quote seriously,
>since the Washington Post is a pretty liberal
>newspaper, but "...not even the government
>contends that every detainee has connections to
>terrorism or information about it"
>(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7662-2003Jun17).
>
>Isn't it somewhere in the Bible that says better
>100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be
>punished for something he did not do? (Or maybe
>it was 10 to 1, I'm not claiming to be some kind
>of theological scholar here). I don't think you
>would be very understanding towards this
>administration's cause if you were one of the
>wrongly detained.
>
>And also, I did learn how to spell Rebuttal,
>didn't I?
>
>Yes, the reality is that people are being detained without concrete evidence of their guilt. I know that I am a late arrival in the argument, but I just learned of this site and believe that objective reality must be introduced into the equation. Once people decide to violate the standards of human society they lose all rights to the benefits and protections provided by such institutions. I understand that our current practices do not evidence this philosophy, but that is where the word "objective" acquires its importance. Applying postmodern or relativistic philosophies to a situation make each act legitimate because someone cannot understand the intricacies on another's individual world. However, applying a rational and logical objective perspective devoid of personal and subjective intuitions and beliefs creates a universal code by which all can live. The fact is that these people had some form of connection with terrorist organizations on some level, whether they were active or not. It takes time to sort through the masses to discern who deserves punishment or not. It is better to hold innocents and release them than to worry about a potential murderer being released on a technicality.

>>The reality is, that this government is
>detaining
>>people without the due process that the
>>constitution grants all human beings...
>(albeit
>>in the name of National Security).

That Constitution applies to us, that is US citizens only. The detainees are being held under Military law because they fought and were captured in a war on the ENEMY's side.

TEEEEEEJ

Also, the right to a writ of habeas corpus (the thing that allows you to *not* be detained without due process) can be suspended in times of "war or open rebellion" - as is clearly and explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Lincoln did it to the Copperheads during the Civil War.

>war or open rebellion
See the fun part about this war is that it exists as long as terrorist exist. And we will never get rid of terrorist. There will always be something. So really its a state of perpetual war. Ever read 1984?
Define this war to me, and how do you know when we in.

I'm not talking about the "War on Terror" or the perpetual "state of war" that the whole world is in according to most IR theorists. I agree, using that as justification would wholly vitiate the very *concept* of habeas corpus.

I'm talking about the very real war in Iraq, and the lingering remnants of the one in Afghanistan. If both of those wars were over and another had not begin, the rationale would no longer hold.

As for a definition - we are "at war" when our troops are in armed conflict with an organized foreign enemy. We are in a state of "open rebellion" if a significant number of American citizens (or non-citizen residents, legal or illegal) are engaged in armed conflict with legitimate governmental authority (and no, I won't try to say that this is true as long as there are terrorists within our borders, but it would be true if there was a period of drastically increased domestic terrorism).

>I'm talking about the very real war in Iraq, and the lingering remnants of the one in Afghanistan.
Fighting a war does not mean you suspend citizens rights. Or is everytime we are threatened we shoudl give up what our fore fathers fought and died to defend?

As I said, but you apparently didn't read, the *specific* right of habeas corpus explicitly *can* be suspended during war. That's not Republican dogma, that's the Constitution. Also, even aside from the Great Emancipator suspending the writ, the Founding Fathers also occasionally put Tories under house arrest. Suspending habeas corpus is nothing new.

>As I said, but you apparently didn't read, the *specific* right of habeas corpus explicitly *can* be suspended during war.
And as Padilla case clearly demosterated that leads to a of good, right? Oh, wait it turns out the Administration did not even charge him for the dirty bombing.

Just because habeas corpus can be suspended does it mean it should be?

//Just because habeas corpus can be suspended does it mean it should be?//

Maybe not. That's not what I said. What I said was that there is no constitutional or other legal violation in suspending it. Therefore, my argument is not that you should stop questioning the administration's policy (questioning is good and necessary in free society), but rather that you should stop accusing them of violating constitutional rights and committing crimes by locking people up without charges. And I said specifically "by locking people up without charges", so don't take this as a chance to do your song-and-dance routine where you switch to some *other* crime you claim they've committed. And yes, the phrase "locking people up without charges" sounds sort of nasty in my ears as well, and I'm honestly not sure if I *agree* or not. I just know it's *allowed*, and I'll go from there.

>but rather that you should stop accusing them of violating constitutional rights and committing crimes by locking people up without charges.

Ok, please show me where and what exactly does the Constitution says about it. Can it be done to just one person or it supposed to be suspended by a specific act (a proclamation with a vote or etc)? Does it apply to wars that are fought half a country away? (you mentioned Iraq and Afganistan)?

Also stop and think for a second about the implications of what you are saying.

Lets say tomorrow you get arrested and put in a millitary brig (like Padilla). You will get no lawyer, no way to communicte with your family, friends and etc. And you are claiming to be innocent of what they are charging you with. And the government does not listen and does not believe you. What are you gonna do next? This is no longer a hypothetical situation. This has in fact has happened.

half a country away= half a world away

"This has in fact has happened. "

BullSh*t!! Where? when? Solid examples hippy, and I'm not talking about the extremists in Gitmo, those guys are POWS, and our Constitution DOES NOT apply to them.

I am SO glad Bush got reelected again!! It just proves how disgusted people are with that crappy PC generation brought on by the Clintons and aging hippy, pothead, flower children of the sixties.

UHOH!! I think I hear the word "Vilify" or "vilification" coming up!!! I suppose it'll depend on how pissy Good Will is. By the way folks, "Vilify" is one "L", sorry if I got it wrong before, Good Will's pissy-ness blurred my vision.

"I got two 'L's...one for each of ya..."

Yer a daisy if you do!

>BullSh*t!! Where? when? Solid examples hippy, and I'm not talking about the extremists in Gitmo, those guys are POWS, and our Constitution DOES NOT apply to them.

Err, have you been living in a cave this years or something?
Look up JOSE PADILLA.
And since you are busy reading conservative "humor" sites and copy pasting, Let me do a small recap:
American Citizen accused of planning to blow a dirty bomb was arrested by the Bush Administrationa dn confined for three years to a MILITARY brig. Never charged, denied a lawyer for the longest time, denied teh chance to be seen by judge, to have a trial by jury, to defend himself. Then finally when the public outraged force Bush administration to give him a lawyer, Bush claimed that he has the right to hold an American Citizen as an enemy combatant (in a military brig, without communication and etc). Any how... there is more to the story. Of course the funny part is that now that he has been transfered to Florida so he can be charged with criminal acts (under the US law), it turns out teh Bush Administratyion is not even gonna charge him with making a dirty bomb. Funny eh?

Now before you get pannies in a twist and start callign a terrorist supporter let me tell you: I have no idea if he has commited any crimes. If he did I have no problems with persecuting him under our laws. But I woudl like him to have a proper judge, jury and an ability to defend himself. A NOT TO HAVE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN LOCKED IN A MILITARY JAIL AND HIS RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY.

Any how, since you do not seem to even know about this pretty famous case, I suspect you reall have just crawled out of the cave. So let me educate about hwo to look up more infor on him (and not just on conservative sites). Its called Google.com (or Yahoo.com) and youc an look stuff up there. Enjoy it.

>"Vilify" is one "L",
At least my mistakes are in spelling.

>
I am SO glad Bush got reelected again!! It just proves how disgusted people are with that crappy PC generation brought on by the Clintons and aging hippy, pothead, flower children of the sixties.
Richie Nixon....is that you? I thought you died...I guess you found a way to channel yourself.

Nixon was a great president, HANDS DOWN!!!!

> Nixon was a great president, HANDS DOWN!!!!
Um...so that whole thing about watergate and breakign and entering into Democrats headquaters (litterally like robbers) are ok with you?

"Look up JOSE PADILLA."

The topic (which you are so stringent on sticking to Will-bore) was Bush's re-election, but I asked, so you threw out a name and ya know, I *did* have to do a refresher, because I *DO* remember this joker getting caught. Less than one year after we get attacked by terrorists, *sshole, religious extrememist, Padilla, recently converted to Islam, decides to go hang out with a bunch of suspected terrorists. WHAT A DUMBASS!!! He should be locked up for just for being that stupid...but then if that were the case, YOU wouldn't be around to have these lovely debates with.

Anyway, so as a prisoner of war, he was locked in a military brig...you think maybe he should have been more careful not to hang out with terrorists??? Still, his terrorist buddies tell our govenment, "Oh *that* guy, he was a dumbass, couldn't figure out the bomb building technique." It's not our guys fault his Fatwah buddies took 2 years to tell them this. And seeing as he was a criminal anyway, the feds turn him over to the local authorities. Simple misunderstanding and he's found his place in the world now, *and* he's not around anywhere that he can blow *himself* up either. You could say that our law enforcement is really just keeping him safe from himself.

And just so I get my vilification points, I will return to the topic...

HAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU WHINY LEFT WING LIBERAL BUTTHEADS!! BUSH GOT ELECTED AGAIN!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And guess what?!?!? You whiners STILL Suck!!

That statement alone should get me about 7 vilified guys off the wall at least.

//Ok, please show me where and what exactly does the Constitution says about it.//

I can't cite you the exact spot because I don't have my copy with me, but I do recall the exact quote: "...the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in time of war or open rebellion." Your question about *who* makes that decision is a valid one, but according to the only two precedents (Lincoln/copperheads and FDR/Japanese internment), it's the President. As for "a war half a world away"... that describes WWII, in which FDR did suspend habeas corpus by executive order and was upheld by the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. US)... and he was a Democrat too.

As for your hypothetical example... I'd be pretty pissed, and would probably start trying to argue that my rights were being violated - but the fact that I'd be inclined to think so wouldn't make me right. Also, I do think we were right about Padilla, even if it eventually turned out that we didn't have enough to charge him with the dirty bomb. I admit though, that's just my gut instinct, and I can't prove it anymore than you can prove conclusively that we were wrong.

As for Nixon... I think he disgraced the core ideals of the GOP (particularly "rule of law"). He was a very *effective* President, and did a lot of good for the country, but that doesn't change the fact that he was, hands-down, the worst criminal we've ever had in the White House. Many Republicans would not agree with me, but if it were up to me, I'd disown him from the party (along with McCarthy, the modern-day witch-hunter with his "evidence" that no one was ever allowed to see... *including* other Republican senators).

>Also, I do think we were right about Padilla, even if it eventually turned out that we didn't have enough to charge him with the dirty bomb. I admit though, that's just my gut instinct, and I can't prove it anymore than you can prove conclusively that we were wrong.

Here is my thing about Padilla. He himself is not the issue here. And I can actually relate to the gut feeling. But I believe reason and caution should prevail over feelings here. To have a such a precedence is a horribile way to tell any future presdent, no matter what party affiliation, hey if you do that you might get away from it.

>.. and he was a Democrat too.
Party affiliation makes no difference to me on this one.
I do not agree with what FDR did to Japanese Americans. I do nto think it was necessary. Surprizingly a lot of those Japanese-Americans (12,000 I think) who were interned, choose to join the Army and fought the Nazi's valiantly in Italy, so much in fact that regiment, the 442, earned over 18,000 individual medals, THE MOST DECORATED unit in the US military history. I mean thats IRONY in capital leters :-)
The Lincoln case makes me want to go down to the local university and take a legal class to see his justifications on it. My best guess is that since South actually seceded, and renounced the USA citizenship that could be applied that they were actually prisoners of war of a fereign nation. Civil war is tricky that way.

As far as the actual legalese of suspention of habeus corpus:
The right to suspend habeus corpus discussed in Article 1, section 9, only applies in case of rebellion or invasion. I don't see how such an Article is relevant now, unless you count Sep 11 as an 'invasion'. But even then, it could be argued that the invasion is now over. Or even that 'invade' in the sense of invade relevant to this Article only applies to SOVEREIGN STATES invading each other.
Since Mr. Padilla never renounced his citizenship and is not by himself a sovereign state his habeaus corpus can not be suspended. If you wish to argue that what he is doing is a rebelion, I'd ask you to thin about teh Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, and that dude that blew up abortion clinics. Terrorist for their own causes they are for sure. Yet our criminal system was up for it.

I think the suspension of "habeas corpus" shoudl be treated soooo gingerly. And I think its been used like a club. It makes me think KGB moved to this country. It sounds like a cliche. But if in order to fight terrorists we have to destroy our civil right it makes me wonder why our forefathers sacrificed their lives to insure those liberties.

>the worst criminal we've ever had in the White House
I appreciate that. I always wonder how people fail to see taht he actually ordered breakins...like any common robber. It always makes me at least contemplate that I myself MIGHT have a blind spot somewhere for someone.


Patricia (see I put your reponse last, to sse if you would scroll so far):
>Anyway, so as a prisoner of war, he was locked in a military brig
He was not a prisoner of war...
Now this thing...called the internet...you can look it up there.
As for the rest of your statements. They are so factually wrong that it makes no sense to go over them.

>That statement alone should get me about 7 vilified guys off the wall at least.
Awwwww...you are starting to see your own vilifications...
Recognizing the problem is the first step to being cured of it.

//I do not agree with what FDR did to Japanese Americans. I do nto think it was necessary.//
Me either. I said it was *legal* not that it was a good idea.

//My best guess is that since South actually seceded, and renounced the USA citizenship that could be applied that they were actually prisoners of war of a fereign nation. Civil war is tricky that way.//
No, no... the Southern soldiers *were* held as prisoners of war, and therefore habeas corpus wasn't even relevant. The ones for whom Lincoln suspended the writ were Copperheads (Northern Democrats who sympathized with and agitated for the South). Basically, Copperheads were 19th-century Jane Fonda's.

//The right to suspend habeus corpus discussed in Article 1, section 9, only applies in case of rebellion or invasion.//
OK, I admit, I got the quotation wrong. Now, I *could* make the easy argument and say, "Well, it is an invasion. We're invading Iraq." However, instead I think I'll go the "rebellion" route and say that this means habeas corpus need not apply to those who attack the government itself (Unabomber and abortion clinic bombers aren't attacking the country, just individuals... though I still find their actions deplorable). Terrorists against the country itself would then be in a state of "rebellion" (or "invasion" if they're foreign nationals). I'll be the first to admit I've changed my rationale, but I do that when new facts warrant it.

//I think the suspension of "habeas corpus" shoudl be treated soooo gingerly.//
Agreed, but I do think it was permitted for exactly circumstances like these (where leaving the guy on the street until you have enough evidence for a formal charge could lead to massive tragedy if he really is a terrorist). If the 9/11 attackers had been in federal custody and then released, everyone would be complaining that we caused it by releasing them... and they might be right. (and no, I'm not trying to play the "9/11 card", I'm just using a vivid example)

>The ones for whom Lincoln suspended the writ were Copperheads (Northern Democrats who sympathized with and agitated for the South). Basically, Copperheads were 19th-century Jane Fonda's.

Unfortunately when its civil war, its so hard. Neither location, nor family will absolutely define you. Alas the brother on brother thing. I wonder if that had something to do with Lincolns suspension being upheld.

>Terrorists against the country itself would then be in a state of "rebellion" (or "invasion" if they're foreign nationals). I'll be the first to admit I've changed my rationale, but I do that when new facts warrant it.

So how do differentiate between an American Citizen Padilla who might be making a bomb and Timothy McVeigh then.
Now one way to do that is to have a trial (judge, jury and all that). But it seems to be one of the problems here is that he had none, until publicity. More over, setting Padilla aside, it the heart of the argument. Can habeas corpus be suspended like this.

>Agreed, but I do think it was permitted for exactly circumstances like these (where leaving the guy on the street until you have enough evidence for a formal charge could lead to massive tragedy if he really is a terrorist). If the 9/11 attackers had been in federal custody and then released, everyone would be complaining that we caused it by releasing them... and they might be right. (and no, I'm not trying to play the "9/11 card", I'm just using a vivid example)

Of course the question then becomes.
How do you know which guy to grab. What if tomorrow somebody grabbed you because they had faulty intelligence. hell we had faulty intelligence on the WMDs as adminstration says. More over if you are grabbed, and have no habeas corpus how will YOU defend yourself? What if they just got the guy with the same name (hell it happens for no fly list).

Its not a hypothetical: We have grabbed wrong people before:
Article: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/21/8945/21139
Now it is a dailykos story. But I will ask you to read and to look at the links on the bottom of it. There is more then ample proof. You do not have to read the comment

Well, let me start by saying I didn't check the link, but then continue by explaining why. It's not that it's a Kos link, or even that I doubt it's well-supported. It's just that I was strapped for time on an essay, so I saw no reason to read an article meant to prove something to me that I agree with already ;-)

I know we sometimes grab the wrong guy, and to be honest, I have no idea how to prevent that. I'd say "investigate more closely" but the whole purpose of suspending habeas corpus is to be able to grab someone suspected of being an *immediate* threat, so taking more time to investigate defeats that purpose. However, I see only two ways to deal with it. The first is to simply deny that it is ever legitimate to suspend the writ - while this is a potential solution, it would only work until someone we let go free becomes the instigator of 9/11-2, then everyone in both parties finds evidence that we suspected him but let him free and shouts/protests/sobs brokenly "Why didn't you arrest him!"

The second solution is to accept that we'll grab the wrong guys, but mitigate the situation. The way I see it, the government is much more reluctant to release someone and just say "Oops, sorry" because they're worried about lawsuits, and it's human nature to cover up your mistake if it could get you in trouble. So we do three things: 1) Pass a law stating that people mistakenly seized in good faith in the proper course of a national security operation and held without charge cannot sue for false arrest, etc. 2) Pass a law stating that people mistakenly seized in good faith in the proper course of a national security operation and held without charge are entitled to a certain flat rate of compensation (automatically adjusted for inflation) per day held. 3) Pass a law stating that there shall be a maximum limit of [some amount of time, probably at least 6 months and no more than 2 years] for holding someone without charge, after which you must charge them or release them. If you release *or* they are aquitted, you compensate at the above rate for all time *up to* the time of the charging, and if they are convicted, the time *up to* the charging is subtracted from their sentence.

This last law serves two purposes: 1) Removes the temptation for an unscrupulous official to avoid paying the compensation by simply holding the person for life, and 2) ensures that imprisonment without charge is not used to simply bypass a trial altogether, but rather to simply delay it, as was originally intended.

Again, like my Social Security proposal, this is only my suggestion, not me saying that this is the administration's intent. I'd like to hear opinions on this idea though. Would it be just? If not, why and how should it be fixed?

>The second solution is to accept that we'll grab the wrong guys, but mitigate the situation.
Stop being reasonable, you are destroying the perception that all conservatives are heartless (joke)

I personally would address the issue of additional oversight in this scenario. There is not a chance that we won't make mistakes. Of course we will. Its part of life. I just would like to set up checks and balances. Simply because I believe that power corrupts (yet again, regardless of political affiliations). For starter I would this person to have a lawyer. Now we can in have have lawyers with security clearances. Then I set up both a congression oversight and a judicial one that can still be done with reasonable secrecy (think FISA court, relatively secret). I am not saying this will work a %100 percent but its still better then holding someone indefinately. There is a price we have to pay for freedom and civil rights. I am willing to accept dangers from without to stop dangers from within.

I like your idea... but to be honest, I like mine better. The reason I said nothing about a lawyer was not for security reasons, but rather because sometimes the purpose of grabbing a guy without a trial is not for secrecy, but rather because we don't have enough evidence to prove anything in court yet, but enough to reasonably suspect that if we let the guy go, he might do irreparable harm before we have time to gather enough evidence to charge him.

Now, on the other hand, a request to allow humanitarian workers with special security clearance to observe (in order to ensure no abuses are occurring) is completely reasonable in my mind.

Good Will, you have to look at Nixon beyond watergate, because it happened, I do not support it, and it was embaressing, but the presidency up to that, he was dinomite!!

So could you say the same about Clinton?

Jake: Um...who are you adressing?

Pete:
> Good Will, you have to look at Nixon beyond watergate
tell me what I should be looking at?

I think Jake was addressing Pete... and personally, I disagree with both of them. Both Clinton and Nixon were both very *efficient* presidents, but both disgraced the office (admittedly Nixon much moreso) and therefore lose all respect insofar as we want to call them "good" presidents.

Yes I was addressing Pete. I agree with you that they disgraced the office, but the time to move on is way over do.

Sure, I fully agree. I think the only reason Clinton keeps being brought up is that a lot of Democrats (not *necessarily* ones on this forum) keep attacking Bush for the *same* sorts of things that they defended Clinton from... whereas with Nixon, no one currently arguing was alive to defend Nixon, so the hypocrisy argument doesn't work as well.

For my part though, I'll be more than happy to put Clinton behind me unless the issue relates somehow directly to current events.

I did bring up Clinton because the topic of impeachment was brought up, which wasn�t very smart considering I didn�t know all the information. But I still stand by the idea that if a lie is told or the truth is withheld that there should be consequences, on both sides. It�s wrong to defend a person who has lied or withheld information, because at that point you defend the act not the person. But I agree that we must look past the controversy if possible. At this point in the Bush�s administration, it�s hard to look past all the controversy, every time you turn on the television you hear of another issue another thing that has gone wrong. It�s easy to bash the president, but is it entirely wrong? I don�t blame President Bush for 9/11 or hurricane Katrina that would be pointless and silly. I blame him and his administration for what happened after the fact. I think that taking blame for how the economy, war, budget, social security etc, is going comes with the territory of being president; you�re the face and image of America and its people. Of course that criticism should be justified, even though that isn�t always the case.

Well, I agree with your "face of the nation" idea, but I disagree that,

//But I still stand by the idea that if a lie is told or the truth is withheld that there should be consequences, on both sides. It�s wrong to defend a person who has lied or withheld information, because at that point you defend the act not the person.//

I think that there should and will be *political* consequences (e.g. loss of votes) in such a case, but I defend the "right" of a politician to lie if he feels it is in the best interests of the country (as long as it violates no law) and I defend even more strongly the right of a politician to *withhold* information, because some information must be kept secret for the government to run properly.

Also, though I agree that as the "face of the nation" the President has to deal with being blamed for all manner of problems, that doesn't mean it is *rational* to blame him for things like the economy and Social Security in particular. Social Security was broken beyond repair long before Bush took office (and possibly before Clinton, or even Reagan... I'm not sure) and the economy as a whole moves in cycles (which happen to roughly correspond to the length of a presidential term). Whether a president inherits a peak or a trough in the economy is beyond his control, and all he can control is how *high* it peaks or how *deep* it troughs.

Sorry, in that last sentence, the last "control" should be "influence"... he can't "control" *anything* about the economy.

This also begs the question: How accurate and unbiased is the coverage that is being given? I believe that the majority of American citizens are to lazy to really investigate the facts so they grab their information from a quick headline or soundbite.

If I relied on the mainstream media for my information then I can understand where Ashley is coming from when she says "At this point in the Bush�s administration, it�s hard to look past all the controversy, every time you turn on the television you hear of another issue another thing that has gone wrong." How many of those "things" have really gone wrong?

As for after the fact with 9/11 I think Bush should be and is proud of what he has accomplished. With that in mind, the job is not over and things have not gone as smooth as they could have a times.
With the Katrina aftermath it is really hard to pin that on the Bush administration and give a pass to the local authorities. Federal mistakes were made and corrections are in the works but the prinicipal authority and responsibility was local and not federal.
As for the budget and the economy, Bush should be extremely proud of how he has handled the economy but I have a real issue with how he is handling the budget.

To Anthony:
I guess it�s my �Liberal� side that thinks that if a lie is told or information is withheld and people die because if it then something should be done about it. Oh the list I made (I think that taking blame for how the economy, war, budget, social security etc, is going comes with the territory of being president; you�re the face and image of America and its people.) was just a list. Meaning that its part of the job to be blamed for things that go wrong. It happens with every president, it�s not any different now.

To Darrin: So I�m lazy to investigate real information? So going to war under false intelligence wasn�t wrong, so you�re saying that all wars should be started with false intelligence. The conflicts that are now breaking out in Iraq are good? So if Iraq breaks out in civil war that will be good? The slow response to Hurricane Katrina was a good thing. How is FEMA, not doing its job the right thing? Oh and if the local authorities are not doing their jobs, then it�s the federal governments job to step up. In my opinion the mistakes were from top to bottom. In the end NO one stood up and took charge. Besides FEMA is the federal emergency management agency not the local emergency management agency. If you�re saying that Hurricane Katrina wasn�t beyond the capabilities of the local authorities, then what was it?

To anyone: Also I have a question wasn�t the issue of communication between different local agencies supposed to be fixed after 9/11, or am I wrong in that assumption? Plus if there was any issue of communication between the federal and local level (which I believe there was, my opinion) we would of seen, from 9/11, that when that happens chaos grows and so does the number of dead Americans.

Ashley: Please show me where I called you lazy? I must have missed it. Also, please explain your attempted logic.
I do not believe that the intelligence was as false as our media would like us to believe. We have not found huge caches of WMD but we have definitely found evidence of WMD programs that existed right up to before we invaded Iraq. (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224)
I do believe that this conflict in Iraq is good in that its ultimate result will actually be a more unified country. I read an article the other day that was talking about how Iraqi citizens are actually starting to get fed up and are turning on the terrorists who have invaded their country (our media calls them "insurgents" but most of them are not because they are from neighboring countries).
As for Katrina, FEMA's job is to respond after the disaster and they did. Their actual response had some issues and mistakes were definitely made. However, it is not FEMA's charter and not within their ability (except in Martial Law) to respond without the local authorities request or permission. They are a secondary responder with the state and local authorities as the primary responders. The state and local authorities refused to listen to federal warnings about the impending disaster and as a result they endangered many lives and much property. Both the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of the "Chocolate City" demonstrated hatred toward the Bush Administration and I believe it clouded their judgement. I never said that Katrina was not beyond the ability of the local government because it certainly was. I do believe that their response to Katrina was incompetent, wreckless and negligent.
By the way, my aunt and uncle have both spent a total of about two months each in the recovery effort and they have told me about their experiences with local officials. It has not been good in Louisiana but it has been in Alabama. I find that interesting.

//I do believe that this conflict in Iraq is good//

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20040901

Don't forget to browse the main site too... it's good for one, and for another, I don't like linking past the author's front page, but I couldn't think of a quick way to direct you to the right one without doing so.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/

I'm in the midst of an essay, so I won't actually reply with argument, but I think that cartoon gives at least some good rhetorical backup to Darrin's claim ;-)

Oh, also, I'm not sure if I broke any rule of ettiquette by posting a link to another cartoon site... if I did, I apologize Jim. I certainly have no intent of taking any revenue from you (and the other site isn't mine, or that of anyone I know, just a cartoon that caught my eye while I was browsing).

Great cartoons. Of course they are not as good as Jim's which are absolutely exceptional!
Anthony: I am anxiously awaiting your insight and input to this discussion.
Ashley: I apparently skipped over your statement about the president getting blamed for things that go wrong. This may surprise you but I agree with you. That is the nature of the beast in a leadership position. I will take it one step further and say that they seldom get credit when things go right.

First of all I was asking if you thought I was lazy. I didn�t put in there that I thought you said that. I apologize, for the miscommunication. How false does intelligence have to be to be false? Does half the information have to be true? Please tell me the line between a lie and the truth when coming to intelligence that has been proven to have been false. Even the president agrees that the intelligence wasn't what it needed to be.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040908-4.html

So the local authorities failed to prepare, evacuate the people etc.. So the government is supposed to just look on. Correct me if I�m wrong but if the first response by the local authorities is correct and fast, then FEMA�s response wouldn�t have been as difficult. It makes sense to me to stop a problem in advance before it because an "bigger" issue. You said that the primary response was the local authorities, so if the primary response fails, what is the back up plan. Wait it can�t be the second response could it! I mean that would be unfair! That�s not right to ask FEMA to do its job as the secondary responder, even if the first response was bad? I agree that the local authorities were unprepared, but it makes sense that the government steps up. If the local authorities judgment was �clouded� then those job is it to correct it? Not the federal governments? Also what do you two think about the whole situation in the South now, six months later.

Still working, so I still can't make a full post, but I did notice you missed something important Ashley - FEMA legally *cannot* intervene until the local authorities ask. Therefore, as long as Nagin and what's-her-name didn't have their act together, FEMA's hands were tied.

Following your logic, if there is one piece of an intelligence report that is questionable or "false" then the entire report must be thrown out. I disagree. You are also operating on the false premise that the intelligence was as bad as the media wants us to believe it was. That is simply not true either. There were assertions made that in hindsight were not correct but it was not just George W Bush who believed those assertions. A lot of the intelligence agencies around the world made the same assertions and a lot of Bush's opponents here at home made the same assertions as well. I am not really sure why it is alright for them to make those false assertions but Bush is vilified over it.
As for FEMA, they admittedly made their share of mistakes and continue to make mistakes. However, not only did they have to deal with the Katrina but they also had to deal with a very corrupt government in Louisiana. If the Bush administration had just restrained themselves from blowing up those dikes to wipe out the black neighborhoods then FEMA would not have had so many problems.

To Anthony: First of all I did notice that fact. You just misunderstood my post. If the local response units mess up, ok. Then FEMA, the second response, does its job. I�m not stating that FEMA should have gone in right at the sign of trouble (even though I think that should have happened), but do their job right, and do it on time.

�I agree that the local authorities were unprepared, but it makes sense that the government steps up. If the local authorities judgment was �clouded� then those job is it to correct it? Not the federal governments?�

I said the federal government, not FEMA. Why not send in the National Guard? Wait we cant they are over in Iraq and over seas!

To Darrin: I never said that they should be blameless. I believe I even stated that I would blame a Dem if he had made the same mistake. Bush is getting �vilified� for the fact that he went to war for those reasons. How many of the �intelligence agencies� made that mistake?

�If the Bush administration had just restrained themselves from blowing up those dikes to wipe out the black neighborhoods then FEMA would not have had so many problems.�

Please restate! I hope it�s not what I think it is!

I do not believe that Bush made a mistake at all. Just because some of the intelligence data was not correct does not negate the fact that invading and freeing Iraq was the right thing to do. Since those "intelligence agencies" are the ones that supplied the information they are just as culpable as Bush. If any president was given that same information then I believe they should have invaded. This includes the previous president who had the information and refused to act on it.
My sarcastic comment about blowing up the dikes comes from ideas put forward by prominent Democrats. Also, your comment about the National Guard is interesting since the local authorities are the ones that said they did not need any more National Guard troops. Maybe Bush should have declared martial law and just taken over the entire South??????

So what "prominent Democrats" said that? Well maybe taking marital law would have been better then not taking charge. So fewer freedoms equal fewer deaths. Wait so limiting freedoms might actually have saved lives! Sounds like something else *Patriot Act* Well with the Patriot Act, and the wire taps I�m surprise Bush didn�t come up with the idea himself.

What about the comments made by Brown, that the communication between FEMA and the federal government was horrible, that he told the Bush administration about the levies breaking, the government says that they didn�t found out until later. I don�t know this for sure, but I believe he said it was days later. Also what about how things are going now, months later. How is the government doing its job now?

To anyone: Also I have a question wasn�t the issue of communication between different local agencies supposed to be fixed after 9/11, or am I wrong in that assumption? Plus if there was any issue of communication between the federal and local level (which I believe there was, my opinion) we would of seen, from 9/11, that when that happens chaos grows and so does the number of dead Americans.

>Just because some of the intelligence data was not correct does not negate the fact that invading and freeing Iraq was the right thing to do.

>Also, your comment about the National Guard is interesting since the local authorities are the ones that said they did not need any more National Guard troops.

Folks over at New Orleans woudl disgree with you. But

>Maybe Bush should have declared martial law and just taken over the entire South??????
I call hyperbole!!!