1. Not adequately 2-3. I daresay that the government has better things to do than to open everybody's mail. I really doubt they would open mail to "find out who's a terrorist." More likely they already know and are just looking for further connections to move up the chain of command. Your Sam's Club bill is safe. 4. The Constitution has been amended 26 (?) times. It is far from perfect or complete. It was written two hundred years ago while we face enemies they couldn't even imagine.
2-3. You were the one saying they were going to assess who were terrorists. Again if they know who a terrorist is then why not get a warrant and open their mail. The warrant insures they aren't just fishing but have actual cause to open the mail. It is called checks and balances. It is part of the American governing system. 4. The constitution can be amended again. If it needs to be then let's do it. This signing statement is against the constitution and doesn't amend it in any way. There is a process for amending it if it needs to be amended.
This deserves more emphasis because you have tried to bring this up many times. 1. An American President that begins acting like a tyrant is far more dangerous than terrorists or any other enemy we face currently. The founding fathers were aware of that and thus wrote in the protections they did. 2. The enemies faced by our founding fathers were far more of a danger and threat than the terrorism of today. The capitol was burned to the ground fighting the enemies of our founding fathers. Foreign troops were all over the U.S. at that time. The enemies we face now while not imagined by our founding fathers pose much less of a threat to us than the enemies they faced. The greatest threat the terrorists pose to us isn't from their attacks but that they will cause us to toss away are freedoms, and liberties... that we will govern without reason, and react based on paranoia and fear. The biggest way to fail in fighting those enemies would be to do exactly as you prescribe and give our liberties and freedoms, and allow a govt. to act without checks and balances, which is to voluntarily submit the American people to tyranny. U.S. soldiers and veterans in wars throughout our history fought to preserve our freedoms. It is a disservice to them to turn around throw away those freedoms at the first sign of trouble. We need to have more heart, loyalty and appreciation for our nation than that.
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” --Cardinal Richelieu (Look him up.)
ty·rant (tī'rənt) Pronunciation Key n. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person. Let me know when a tyrant comes aprowlin'. Don't see where any American president (thanks to the Constitution) could become an American tyrant. S/he does have many restrictions-- including impeachment proceedings and term limits. I've not detected any cruelty, oppression or harshness in any of our presidents, although Carter's cardigans came close.
Bush is already trying to govern without restrictions. He has removed more restrictions on him than any of our past presidents. This ability to open mail without a warrant removes yet another restriction. Our President seems to have little understanding of the idea of seperation of powers, and issues signing statement after signing statement in an effort to exactly the opposite of what the legislative branch legislates. He did it with the torture amendment, wiretaps, e-mails, now letters. That was a good line about Carter's sweaters. But a president that locks up American citizens without bringing charges, issues a signing statement allowing his govt. to torture, strikes down habeas corpus, is on the way to tyranny. I hope and pray it would be stopped before it gets to full blown tryranical rule. But one would of thought that acting against our constitution as much as Bush has would have been stopped already. The thing that worries me about it, is that some folks like yourself applaude and support the President in his march toward tyrrany. There isn't one of those things that you mentioned that can't be fought against while still keeping our constitution intact. The fact that there are different ways for an enemy to attack doesn't mean we should toss out our constitution. They aren't capable of killing more of us than an army could. Which WMD's do they have? Which WMD's do the terrorists have? An army accidentally has killed many times the number of citizens in Iraq than terrorists have in all their attacks against the U.S. AND ITS ALLIES. The Army doesn't have to mean to kill more, it just will by the nature of its weaponry. Taking of towns in the days of our founding fathers were much harder on the population than isolated terrorist attacks even at their worst. The war of 1812 is primarily what I was referring to when I spoke of the the enemies faced by our founding fathers. This is certainly close to paranoia. You are believing in the boogey man right now. There are a miniscule amount of terrorists in our midsts, and within the parameters of the constitution there are many ways to thwart them now. It is ridiculous to think that opening snail mail without a warrant will somehow make you safer. That is just ignorant. 9/11 was not planned by pen-pals. There are already ways for the govt. to open the mail of suspected terrorists. It already existed. It also came with checks and balances thank goodness. Again you trust people to dertimine judiciously who is and who isn't of interest to them in the war on terror, who have already violated the people's trust many times. You wish to ignore the the pre-war lies so I will leave those alone. Let's looks at the lies about how many Iraqi troops and brigades had already been trained and were ready to handle things in Iraq. Let's look at lies about the President listening to the military generals on the ground, who now is going to replace the commanders on the ground and do the exact opposite of their plan. The list goes on and on. And these people who have proven themseleves untrustworthy time and again, are the ones you trust. That is just foolishness. Do you understand the nature of the war against terrorism. Terrorism will never be wiped out. IT can be minimized and its effectiveness reduced but terrorism is infinite. So when would this right place be? Also if you look at history the govt. doesn't like to give up power it snatches. That is true of all govts. throughout history. Power has to be taken from them, they don't give it back. I do too. It is ashame our current govt. has become so untrustworthy. Sadly, sometimes, our enemy is even more trustworthy. Remember the aluminum tubes that our administration said could only be used for one purpose and that was for a nuke program? They said this despite being told that the tubes were difficult if not impossible to be used for a nuke program. They were told that they were much more suitable to be used for conventional weapons. Yet our govt. told us the ONLY purpose of those tubes was for nukes. Saddam himself came out and said that they were for conventional weapons. Of course after the invasion of Iraq we find out that in this instance Saddam was telling the truth and our govt. had lied. When you lose a battle of honesty to Saddam to Hussein then you know things are bad. I'm not the one who lost my heart and willingness to preserve our constitution.
Then arrest him if you can. Did he do something illegal or just out of the loop? He has taken liberty but he and we have faced new threats. Every branch of government probably resents separation of powers because it is intended to thrwart them from doing what they wish. Again if he did something illegal go get him and stop your bellyaching... "March Toward Tyranny" sounds like a John Philip Sousa number. I'm sorry but I just can't get into your melodrama here about the capitulation of the American republic. Again, the Constitution is still there working the way it always did for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of us. Small price to pay for safety. Damnit man, you put the Boogey Man in the White House.... I've seen some of these terrorists who reside here arrested. A few years ago 19 of them were killed in a horrific accident OF THEIR MAKING. You can have your opinion, too. That's up to the elected officials who have the responsibility to provide for our collective safety. Even Nancy Pelosi? Whatever. Melodrama in my opinion. Ridiculous. As I said it has been amended 26 times so it's not perfect. It's precious but it's not perfect.
This sums it up. If one doesn't care about what the founding fathers risked life and fortune for, for us, or simply have their head in the sand, oblivious, then by all means, live on in your delusion. But what SM posted tells the whole story, in black and white. People like giddy, who is really disappointing me here, can conjure up all manner of shades of grey. Go ahead, giddy. Just leave my rights under the Constitution alone, OK? And you can tell your hero, George W. Bush, the same, if you see him. Thanks. D&D. Freedom... Our Ancestors Fought and Died for it. Don't Give it Away.
I am not interested in arresting him. I don't even know that acting against the constitution is actually an arrestable offense. But it is wrong. You may call Bush's tyrranical leanings melodrama, but I've listed specific incidents of it happening. Yes, I believe Nanci Pelosi needs to have checks and balances too. Again you claim that the infringement on the constitution didn't affect you or most of us so it is really alright. The constitution wasn't made to protect the majority, but the minority. Again if you live in N. Korea and don't intend to overthrow the govt. then why complain about loss of freedom? If you lived in Nazi Germany and weren't gay, a jew, or gypsy, why complain about what is going on. For most of the people there, they weren't in any danger from the govt. As I said the measures needed to stop the terrorists are already in place. It doesn't need to be changed. Checks and balances don't need to be thrown out. I didn't put the boogey man in the whitehouse, the whitehouse put it in your home apparently. Yes there were terrorists who carried out 9/11. Opening their mail without warrants wouldn't have changed that. You may think it is ridiculous that Bush lost a battle of honesty to Saddam Hussein, but he did. I thought it was ridiculous and even shameful. I have shown you the facts regarding that specific incident. One of the players was honest. His name was Saddam Hussein's Govt. The other was Bush's govt. One was proved to have been telling the truth, the other was proved to have been lying. You trust a proven liar to be in charge of your constitutional freedoms, I prefer a system of checks and balances that still allows for our protection. Giddy, I like you, but you are being a coward, letting your fear of terrorism trump your love of freedom and the American way.
Quick question for those who support the president on this and other matters (wiretapping, rendition, torture, etc..) So you're ok with this vast expansion of presidential power, but at the same time, many of you claim to support "strict construction/interpretation" of the constitution and rail on the Supreme Court for "activism" all the time. Which way does it go then? So the president can interpret legislation unilaterally and issue signing statements/executive orders that grant him vast amounts of new power but when the courts have no right to overturn and interpret laws in an "activist" manner. The prez can interpret legislation through a signing statement and grant him/herself the power to search through our mail but if a court interprets the constitution to allow for gay rights, then "OH ****, the courts are out of control and are destroying the separation of powers and the constitution."
good point. another point i would add would be to those who say that they did nothing wrong so they have nothing to hide, why dont you hold your government to the same standard? if cheney did nothing wrong than why has he fought tooth and nail to keep the energy task force meeting from spring 2001 confidential? if cheney did nothing wrong than what has he got to hide? why wont he even disclose who was at the meeting - these people formed OUR energy policy - dont we have a right to know at least who was there? kenny-boy, im thinking of you! why the double standard bush-supporters?
Don't get me wrong and I hope I don't offend because although we disagree heartily and often, I respect your passion and thoughtfulness on all issues-- even the ones we disagree about-- but the melodrama is your response not President Bush's actions. You can misunderstand my meaning when you want to: I don't think it is ridiculous that Bush lost an "honest" contest to Saddam Hussein, I think it is ridiculous that you think he did. Again, no offense intended; I'm just trying to be as plain and clear as I can.
How did he not lose that particular contest. His govt. lied about the possible uses for the aluminum tubes. Saddam's govt. told the truth. If the contest over honesty is to have the least of it, then Bush's administration won that battle. Otherwise please tell me how there can be any diffferent result? Bush's administration was proving to be lying when they claimed there could only be one use for the aluminum tubes.(they were informed beforehand that there were more than one use for the tubes, and the one they claimed was difficult if not impossible.) Yet they still made the claim. Saddam's administration said the tubes were for conventional weapons. We found out later that, indeed, they were for conventional weapons. One group lied to us, and the other group told the truth on that issue. I think it is shameful to be shown up when comparing honesty by Saddam Hussein. I am not going to trust an administration that lies like that with my freedoms, especially not without checks and balances.
I can't argue with the disparity, but I'm still amazed that you want to tally one for Saddam. In the heap of events, this is but a trifling exageration. While the Admin has "lied" about their certainty of the purposes of these tubes (could tubes like these have been used to gas Kurds?), Saddam actually gassed the Kurds and you're more pissed at Bush... Damn the tubes; don't major in the minors. The important thing is the important thing.
I am not eager to tally 1 for Saddam. It saddens me that it could be done at all. That is the point. The administration said the only purpose of the tubes would be for a nuke program. I am not more pissed at Bush than I was at Saddam, nor do I think Bush is a worse person. I am pointing out that Bush's honesty is not something that ranks high on the list when he can lose out in a particular battle to the likes of Saddam Hussein. When he can't win that battle, then he certainly isn't someone I trust in removing checks and balances when it comes to freedoms of U.S. citizens. Let him have the power as he already did, but there needs to be some kind of accountability and checks in place.
Can't we be mad at both of them? (granted more angry at Saddam but nonetheless be concerned about Bush) Seems very silly to say, "well, he may have lied but Saddam is worse so in the end, no biggie"
I obviously beleive Saddam to be worse. I wasn't comparing who was the worst. Just that the Bush administration is so untrustworthy that in this case, even Saddam was more trustworthy. The Bush administration lied about the threat faced, yet somehow now we should trust that administration to have unchecked power for peeking into the mail of U.S. citizens? Why should we trust them to judge and be honest about the threat faced of folks mail they are opening?
Why would anyone so patently "lie" about something which could so ultimately be proved inaccurate? It just doesn't pass the smell test. They know they have enemies poking around their garbage pails-- and I mean Democrats. To me this viscerates your accusation of "lying." The evidence may have been 60/40 or 40/60 but you make it sound like the Bush Admin made it up out of thin air. Was that really the case? I am amazed that you even wish to compare the two. Saddam told one truth out of how many lies and Bush told how many ( ) lies (a stretch IMHO) in an effort to protect our citizens NOT KILL THEM. I just think it is sad that you think that way.
