"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -- Teddy Roosevelt wrote in an editorial for the "Kansas City Star" during World War I, May 7, 1918
The US wasn't a developing country like those you mentioned so those examples don't really mesh - also official corruption has been and continues to be a serious problem in Korea and Malaysia where bribery was a way of life (see President Chun in the 90's), although anti corruption drives in recent years have had some effect.
OK Sam, I was speaking on relative term. Maybe I should have cited Singapore as the sole example. In reality a large percentage of Americans only let one or two "issues" dictate their political thought processes, which are often dichotomy in nature. Our political "leaders" never cease to feast upon them, and corporate-owned media happlily go along. Of course, it never hurts when you have church leaders urges church goers to follow our "leaders".
<b>FB</b>: Maybe we could have gotten the two terrorists in San Diego. That still leaves 17 to execute the plan. Do you think it is a no-go with 17? Do you think they had alternates? I know it is romantic to quote political leaders from one or two centuries ago, but don't we have to measure those sentiments against a rapidly changing and dangerous world? The threats we face today BF and TR could not even imagine.
I have no idea. I don't know if anyone else does either. But the two they got might have talked, about the plan, and we might have been ready, and better able to prevent the other 17. BF and TR could imagine something worse than those threats and that is tyrrany. They faced situations that we had no idea about, but they understood that tyranny was a far greater threat. BF is one of the nation's founding fathers. I think it is important to keep the ideas this nation was founded on alive.
I am a conservative. I think most people here know that. That being said, this is insane. You cannot force the production of documents without probable cause and a warrant from a judge. The Constitution says so.
Simply put; Anyone who supports the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is either a well-paid crony for the Bush Administration, or a total ****ing moron. Possibly both.
There are alot who lost love ones 9/11 who are not pleased at all with the government answers they have been given.Link Including the attorney general of New York Eliot Spitzer. The Patriot Act and Homeland Security are unnecessary. 9/11 could have and should have been prevented by the government. There was ample knowledge and time to respond. 9/11 is the saddest event in U.S. history. Terrorism can be stopped only when the U.S. decides to stop it.
If you have no problem with (people) quoting Jesus and Bible, which were about a couple of millennia ago...
Related: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050613/ts_nm/security_court_padilla_dc By James Vicini 1 hour, 28 minutes ago WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a request by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for three years as a suspected enemy combatant, for an immediate decision on his detention instead of waiting for a federal appeals court to rule. His attorneys asked the justices to decide whether President Bush has the power to seize U.S. citizens in civilian settings on American soil and subject them to indefinite military detention without criminal charges or a trial. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and convert to Islam, initially was suspected by U.S. officials of plotting with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States. U.S. officials last year backed off that claim and said Padilla had plotted with al Qaeda leaders to blow up apartment buildings by using natural gas. None of the plots was carried out. On May 8, 2002, Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after returning from Pakistan. Bush then declared him an enemy combatant, and Padilla has been held in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in South Carolina. "This case is of imperative public importance that justifies immediate review in this court," Padilla's attorney, Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez, said in the appeal to the justices. "Only this court -- and not the court of appeals -- can provide the definitive answer the nation needs to the momentous and pressing constitutional questions presented by this case," she said. A federal judge in South Carolina ruled in February that Bush has no authority to have Padilla held as an enemy combatant. The judge said Padilla must be released if he is not charged with a crime. The Bush administration appealed to a U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia. The appeals court has scheduled arguments in the case on July 19. Padilla's lawyers asked the high court to bypass the appeals court and take the case directly from the judge's ruling. The Supreme Court rarely grants such requests. Solicitor General Paul Clement of the Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to consider the case now. "The court of appeals might ... resolve the government's appeal in ways that could make further review inappropriate or unnecessary at this time," he said. Padilla's attorneys said the court already was familiar with the facts of the case. The justices heard arguments in the case last year. The Supreme Court last June declined to decide whether Bush had the power to detain Padilla. It ruled on narrow jurisdictional grounds that the case should have been brought in South Carolina instead of New York. After the appeals court rules, the losing side then could appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices rejected Padilla's request for review now without any comment or recorded dissent.
Misleading at best ... On our sister site yesterday, David Gelber called readers attention to a piece by Mark Danner in the New York Review of Books in which Danner writes that "Never in my experience has frank mendacity so dominated our public life." (The piece is actually an edited version of a recent commencement address.) There was a good example of the point on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post, in an article by Dan Eggen and Julie Tate. The upshot of the piece is fairly straightforward. In the push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and other administration officials have been publicly and volubly claiming that the administration's tough anti-terrorism tactics have resulted in some 400 terrorism-related indictments, with more than half of those leading to convictions. Only, as Eggen and Tate point out, that's not true. The president is telling people his administration has nabbed some 400 terrorists. But actually the overwhelming majority of the cases don't involve terrorists in any way. They're people who got swept up in this or that terrorist investigation and then got nabbed for some immigration violation or false statement to investigators. In the words of the Post: "Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them." Most of the remainder had nothing to do with al Qaida but were rather narco-traffickers, Palestinians, Rwandan war criminals and others. For the details, see the piece. The point though is that the president is out on the hustings spouting what in common English we call a 'lie'. And yet the best the Post writers can do is say that the president's "numbers are misleading at best." This isn't so much a criticism of the writers who wrote a thorough and important piece, or even the Post which placed it on A1. But it does illustrate on aspect of Danner's point: Public mendacity, statements meant to deceive the public on matters of great import, have become so commonplace that they now barely hold any capacity to shock. And the best journalism can do is issue anemic phrases like "misleading at best." A phrase which is, in this case, itself misleading at best. -- Josh Marshall
Oh man! Another victory for common sense! House Votes to Limit Patriot Act Rules WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the anti-terror Patriot Act to search library and book store records, responding to complaints about potential invasion of privacy of innocent readers. Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects. The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers complaining about threats to privacy rights. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries. The vote came as the House debated a $57.5 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State. The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and GOP leaders often drop provisions offensive to Bush during final negotiations. Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was passed quickly in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Congress included a "sunset" provision under which 15 of the law's provisions are to expire at the end of this year. Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on "fishing expeditions" on people's reading habits and that innocent people could get tagged as potential terrorists based on what they check out from a library. "If the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant," said Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y. Supporters of the Patriot Act countered that the rules on reading records are a potentially useful tool in finding terrorists and argued that the House was voting to make libraries safe havens for them. "If there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes, how to put together biological weapons, how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons ... we have to have an avenue through the federal court system so that we can stop the attack before it occurs," said Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla. Last year, a similar provision was derailed by a 210-210 tie tally after several Republicans were pressured to switch their votes. In the meantime, a number of libraries have begun disposing of patrons' records quickly so they won't be available if sought under the law. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records. But when asked whether the administration would agree to exclude library and medical records from the law, Gonzales demurred. "It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint," he said. Authorities have gained access to records through voluntary cooperation from librarians, Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_libraries
Is it impossible for people to learn from history? What the hell do library books have to do with terrorism? That we are even considering whether or not its ok for the state to spy on us is mind boggling. Ultimately, the safeguarding of democracy is entirely on the shoulders of the citizens, not the government. What government in its right mind will EVER oppose being granted extra police powers over its citizens? It's the dream of every government, be it democratic or not. I doubt the House opposed this expansion of the already intrusive PATRIOT Act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they likely received a few thousand angry letters/faxes/e-mails from their constituents demanding an end to this relentless assault on our civil liberties. What can I say? the American people will one day wake up when they find an intrusive "Big Brother" meddling in every aspect of their lives. By then, it will be too late to reverse the damage already done.
Unfortunately, if it goes on long enough it takes an actual revolution to undo it. I would prefer it didn't come to that.
Unfortunately, not Locke nor our Founding Fathers ever envisioned states to be armed with so much power (fighter planes, tanks, technology) that it would become virtually impossible for the citizenry to revolt against it. Just ask the Syrians, the IRaqis, or even the Uzbeks how successful they were at overthrowing their tyrannical regimes. Let's see: AK-47s & hand grenades vs. F-16s, tanks, and missiles...hmmm. Pretty much the only recipe for a successful revolution nowadays is to have the full backing of the military, or otherwise you are screwed. How else do you think Saddam survived for so long? Pretty much the only way to successfully overthrow a modern government is to do what the US did in Iraq, and of course, even that is a problematic approach if you don't have the full approval of the natives.
If we were to think outside the box a moment but remain logical then the only thing that might separate the U.S. from total tyranny is the understanding of freedom and the Constitution by the military. No citizenry could stand against the U.S. military. That is if a president became tyranical and Congress remained amblivious.
