Bush vs the Constitution.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Coulter article is better than the Limbaugh article. She's a sociopath, but she's still more coherent than Rush

[/ QUOTE ]I understand that the Limbaugh "article" is actually a transcript, only slightly edited, of the man's on-air monologue. Coulter sits down and writes her piece.

I don't know if she actually sits down, I'm just speculating.

Quoting Coulter, from ExSub's link: [ QUOTE ]
"This terrorist plot — like all other terrorist plots — was stopped by ethnic profiling. Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead."

[/ QUOTE ]Coulter seems fixated on "ethnic profiling", which she apparently suggests is the ultimate weapon against terror. (Notice the hyperbolic "all other plots".) What the British achieved in the recent scare, they achieved primarily through intelligence and not through "ethnic profiling" as such.

Of course British intelligence snooped within the Muslim communities first and foremost - but that's like the policeman watching more intently a bunch of people who have threatened the store owner.

IMO, ethnic profiling means moving pro-actively against certain ethnic groups and then sorting the guilty out. The British did not target Muslim passengers specifically but all passengers. It was the intelligence that was pointed towards their communities and other places that brought results, just as British intelligence was focused on Ireland and other places when they were dealing with the IRA. (Notice too that Coulter is, as usual, cavalier with her terminology: This would NOT be ethnic profiling, but religious profiling. Muslim extremists come in many nationalities and ethnic groups.)

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all suicide bombers in the present day are of Middle Eastern descent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Some are not even of Muslim descent. One of the 7/7 London bombers, Germaine Lindsay, was a convert born in Jamaica. Richard Reid was the son of a Jamaican father and English mother. Neither had any significant Middle Eastern or Muslim world connection/"blood."

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Exsubmariner, if you read and agree with the spirit of those arguments, you're an idiot of great purity. Cherish yourself and never remove yourself from the idiot box you came in, lest you lose value.



[/ QUOTE ]

I love posting Rush and Ann links to get the left fring wackos rowled up, Bison. I happen to think that preemption through whatever means necessary is the best option to stop terrorism. So far, it has proven effective, at least as far as 2000 or so people who were going to fly to the US from Britain are concerned. It is also significant for at least one infant I heard of whose dad was going to blow him up. In this case, the ends justifiy the means. Does that make me a Neocon? If you want to think I'm an idiot, I honestly don't care. I value your opinion far less than I value the potential number of lives that would be saved given the question at hand. I am continually amused at the stance liberals take that their views are "enlightened" when they seem incapable of understanding that outside the borders of this palace you call a country, there are a myriad of people who want to kill you for standing up for their "right" to do so.

I can only explain such irrationality by thinking that the liberal establishment is doing everything in its power to facilitate another terrorist attack on American soil so it can be used as political fodder to get back in power, which seems to be their only obsession. The lives of the voters obviously don't count. If it happened to a plane load of Republicans, it would probably be better in the eyes of liberals.

Tell me bisonbison, what's your solution to stopping international terrorism? Are we going to stop buying oil and ride bicycles? Are we going to have a hug in for suicide bombers? Are we going to let the UN handle it by sending an international peace keeping and observation force to New York? Are we going to convert to Islam? You'd be really screwed then, especially if you don't believe in anything. Tell me your brilliant, masterful, politically correct and internationally redeeming solution. I really want to hear it.

So keep the drum beat up that all those who challenge the "enlightened" views of modern liberalism are idiots. Please continue to stump for terrorists. The "idiots" out there are not as blind to your motives as you are. See you at the ballot box.

Oh and by the way, I thought this forum was closed a little while back because of things like name calling. Haven't you read the sticky? I hope the Godfather suspends you for a few days. Then again, I don't. I enjoy it too much when you are appaplectic because your arguement has been destroyed.

[iron81]

No that's not right. The judge has the authority to order a stop for the whole country. I'm wading really far out here, but that means that if no other action besides the decision took place, the Plaintiff in the case (ACLU?) could demand a contempt of court citation if any person in the country was subject to the wiretaps.

There is also a practicial problem: the wiretapping program is so broad that it would be impossible to filter out the calls in that particular circuit (3 or 4 states) so that those calls weren't tapped.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Coulter seems fixated on "ethnic profiling", which she apparently suggests is the ultimate weapon against terror. (Notice the hyperbolic "all other plots".) What the British achieved in the recent scare, they achieved primarily through intelligence and not through "ethnic profiling" as such.

Of course British intelligence snooped within the Muslim communities first and foremost - but that's like the policeman watching more intently a bunch of people who have threatened the store owner.

IMO, ethnic profiling means moving pro-actively against certain ethnic groups and then sorting the guilty out. The British did not target Muslim passengers specifically but all passengers. It was the intelligence that was pointed towards their communities and other places that brought results, just as British intelligence was focused on Ireland and other places when they were dealing with the IRA. (Notice too that Coulter is, as usual, cavalier with her terminology: This would NOT be ethnic profiling, but religious profiling. Muslim extremists come in many nationalities and ethnic groups.)



[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree with profiling, so long as it's based on the "right" criteria?

[iron81]

First off, your definition of preemption is different than everyone elses. You seem to think that police action to arrest terrorists is preemption, when the rest of the world thinks it means invading/bombing countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism. No one is saying that law enforcement isn't a vital tool.

The main problems that liberals have with how Bush is waging the War on Terrorism are:

1. We don't believe that preemptive war is an effective means of fighting terroristm. In fact, it is obvious that when US throws it weight around the Mideast, it [/b]creates more[/b] terrorists. Frankly, at this point in time, more terrorists are being created than are being killed or captured and this is going to continue as long as we give very good reasons for muslims to blow [censored] up.

2. The violation of civil liberties. I am not being the least bit sarcastic by saying that if we surrender our civil liberties to fight the War on Terrorism, the terrorists have won. Civil liberties are the bedrock of what makes our country great and any President, who swore to uphold the Constitution, who chooses to ignore them deserves a special place in hell.

Since you asked, here is the Liberal's plan to win the War on Terrorism:

1. Leave Iraq.
2. Continue law enforcement actions
3. Improve border security/first responders
4. Diplomatic and cultural efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world
5. Respect the Constitution

Sure, it is a short plan, but there is nothing else we can do that has more than a remote chance of success. It has been proven time and time again, starting in Algeria v. France and continuing to the current insurgency in Iraq that military muscle will not win this conflict.

Oh, and the idea that liberals want another terrorist attack is baffling. People of all political persuasions were killed on 9-11 and this liberal is certainly worried about another terrorist attack. The reason people like me haven't taken the "if you don't like it, leave" suggestion is that we care about America and want it to be strong and free. That is why we are so vocal in our opposition to the Bush administration, because they are going about the War assbackwards. Please do not slander liberals with nonsense about wanting another terrorist attack.

[vulturesrow]

What civil liberties have you lost ?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
What civil liberties have you lost ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just a matter of the civil liberties I have lost, it is also a matter of the civil liberties conservatives want me to give up. Within that framework:

- More invasive airport security lines
- Privacy in my phone call/e-mail correspondance
- The right to Habeus Corpus if I am suspected of terrorism charges (the courts are doing a decent job here rolling back Bush Admin decisions here)
- Freedom of the Press (attacks on the NYT for exposing the violations of the Constitution)
- Freedom of Religion. Not really related to the WoT, but as an athiest the increasing government endorsement of evangelical Christianity is troubling to me
- Most of th 4th, 5th and 6th amendmenst if suspected of terrorism. And Bush decides who is a terrorist.
- Rights to peaceably assemble and petition government: restriction of protests near the President and other public events to "free speech zones

[BluffTHIS!]

A key element in this ruling and without which it can't stand up on appeal, is the judge's finding that the defendents represented by the ACLU suffered actual harm. I don't see how that can truly have been proven when they can't show without access to secret government records, just who was a target of such warrantless wiretaps. The judge had to have overreached to find actual harm unless there is factual evidence showing who some targets were that I haven't read yet.

[iron81]

While that is normally true Bluff, Judges are generally very lenient when granting standing in civil liberties cases like this one. I forget what the legal term is, but if a judge finds that 1. Something needs to be ruled on. 2. It is obvious that there is a potential for massive harm but 3. It will be very difficult to figure out who was harmed and to what extent, a judge has the authority to say screw it and let any random group like the ACLU file the suit. Also, judges don't like it when the only way to figure out who has standing (govt. records) is being withheld by one of the parties.

[bisonbison]

I love posting Rush and Ann links to get the left fring wackos rowled up, Bison.

I'm a moderate liberal. I don't live on the fring.

I happen to think that preemption through whatever means necessary is the best option to stop terrorism.

It's best to believe in an option that will never be pursued in a sane society. You're never proven wrong.

So far, it has proven effective, at least as far as 2000 or so people who were going to fly to the US from Britain are concerned.

Stopping these plots has nothing to do with preemption. It's traditional intelligence work in action.

"Hey guys, it turns out police forces are a good idea, let's have a terribly planned ground war and occupation in iraq."

In this case, the ends justifiy the means.

Ugly.

Does that make me a Neocon?

No, it makes you an apologist for indiscriminate and hugely destructive violence.


Tell me bisonbison, what's your solution to stopping international terrorism?

International law enforcement. Sharing of intelligence resources between interested states. Allocation of resources away from pointless military expeditions towards interdicting the flow of weapons and communication between terrorist organizations operating in the mideast, east asia and europe. Removing American forces from middle eastern states where they serve primarily to assist the recruiting efforts of radical groups.

Are we going to stop buying oil and ride bicycles?

What?

Are we going to have a hug in for suicide bombers?

What?

Are we going to let the UN handle it by sending an international peace keeping and observation force to New York?

Ask me another stupid question, I dare you.

Are we going to convert to Islam?

You're on a roll.

Please continue to stump for terrorists.

What?

Oh and by the way, I thought this forum was closed a little while back because of things like name calling.

Sorry for the name calling, but how else to express this opinion: your description of the political landscape is ludicrous, your goals are unreachable, your suggested means of achieving those goals are horrific and callous, and your posts are entirely without merit.

I mean, I could write that, and explain at length why affection for the hateful writings of Ann Coulter and the deranged musings of Rush Limbaugh indicate that a person has said goodbye to complicated reality and wrapped themselves in a comforting, polarized world without nuance or regret.

Or I could call you an idiot.