when were attacked again and i beleave we will be, we can blame thes smucks
Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.
Discussion is locked
when were attacked again and i beleave we will be, we can blame thes smucks
It's getting the story out at whatever the cost....that's the part that's sad to me. Lives will be lost because of the NYT story just as much as lives were lost due to Newsweek's lying story....and neither one of them will ever pay the price for their irresponsible actions. And yet, if we had yelled FIRE in a theater, with the same results of innocent lives lost, we would have been prosecuted immediately.
Though I also disagree with this guy's suit trying to get folks off. From the reports, there's probably nothing wrong with what Bush has done. But there's everything wrong with the way Bush has done it, refusing to follow the proscribed procedure (obtaining warrants within 72 hours). His argument that somehow the power is implied by the war powers section of the Constitution (when war hasn't been declared!) is laughably thin. Why is it that when it comes to protecting individual rights, the Bush Administration only wants ''strict construction,'' but when it comes to expandin the power of his Presidency beyond what the Founding Fathers had in mind, he's willing to accept logic that would make the ''loosest'' liberal jurist blush? Here, btw, is an excellent refutation of his ''Congress agreed'' argument by someone who should know, having voted for the measure Bush cites as authorization, and having been involved in negotiations where Bush requested such powers and was specifically denied:
Daschle says Congress denied Bush war powers ''in the United States.''
>> The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority ''in the United States'' in negotiations about the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., published in today's Washington Post. <<
And here's the link to his opinion article, reprinted in the Houston Chronicle.
(Chronicle login: firstname.lastname@example.org; pw = speakeasy)
>> Taking Liberty with the Law By TOM DASCHLE
In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al-Qaida. On Tuesday, Vice President **** Cheney said the president ''was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done.''
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al-Qaida did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.
On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to ''deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.'' Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize ''all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided'' the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words ''in the United States and'' after ''appropriate force'' in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ? where we all understood he wanted authority to act ? but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I saw no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused. <<
Remember what Ben Franlin said about ceding liberty to seek security!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
It's not HIS or Congress' power TO give. It is given to the President in the Constitution.
... how much liberty are you willing to cede for Social Security? A whole lot more than this current kerfuffle ever could infringe upon!
you dont know your enemy.
you die dk
remember that as your heads being lopped off
ovr and over and over in various threads, not ONE left of center member, including you, has commented on the irresponsible and unpunished actions of the news media which has caused death and destruction with their stories, which Newsweek's turned out to be a total fabrication and not even a distortion of the truth.
And yet, nearly every single one of you guys condemned our troops for that abuse as a substitute for torture when the story hit the stands and the internet. It was so easy for you to believe the worst....and never once retracted your condemning statements when the truth finally was revealed.
Now....when you consider that our military have been investigated and punished for their torture/abuse actions, not one of you has hollered for punishment of any kind against Newsweek for causing DEATHS with their story and riots where people were injured and jailed.
You want bias....????? It's all over your posts and your silence when it counts. I'm sorry, but if you want a fair and just accountability, you are going to have to start looking in the mirror more often, DK, because it's people like you who actually buy into the garbage out of distaste for our Administration and President who keep feeding the sharks (the media).
The very fact that Newsweek got off with killing people for the sake of headlines is the kind of action that gives the USA a black eye.....not the Administration itself.
It's not the New York Times's fault Bush didn't bother to get warrants. If he'd done that one simple thing, there would be no story.
... that the terrorists know about it now. It IS their fault that they deliberately publically disclosed CLASSIFIED information leaked to them. Bush did what he felt was needed at a time of war to protect the country.
... with her Idolitarian of the Year Award
2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, the New York Times.
What's "Idiotarian"? Popular warblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Pajamas Media coined the useful term to describe stubborn blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-Sept. 11 mindset. The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review: ...