[Winstonm]

Quote

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people's rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.

National security letters permit the executive branch to seek records about people in terrorism and spy investigations without a judge's approval or grand jury subpoena.

"The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets," Cheney said.

"The Department of Defense has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act," he said. "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights.

My ccomments:
Maybe I am totally wrong and have been living with misconception, but I have had the understanding that the CIA was not allowed to operate within the U.S.

It seems to me that allowing the DOD to investigate is close to if not an actual violation of posse comitatus, as civilian investigation is a police action.

We have in place methods of gaining quick court orders and warrants, so why is the secrecy needed? Is the WH saying they do not trust our court systems with this information?

And lastly, it was only a matter of time but now we have a government official quoting the government's rights granted by the Patriot Act to justify nefarious actions.

So the question is: should the executive branch be allowed to secretly fight its global war on terror without judicial or congressional oversight? Where do individual rights of privacy and national security concerns merge?

[mike777]

1) Why not? Perhaps the CIA would have better luck finding WMD in the USA?
2) One does wonder what the Presidents limits are? I am still waiting for the Congress to impeach him over the gunships in Africa? Have not heard a peep yet and you?

[macaw]

Sort of off topic, but does anybody remember him saying something truthful in the past 6 years? All I can think of are examples where he said one thing and then did the exact opposite, in the name of national security usually. I don't recall him saying anything truthful yet. Makes me nervous about Iran!

If they balance my checkbook, I hope they'd give me the records as I haven't done that in about 8 months

[Winstonm]

Quote

2) One does wonder what the Presidents limits are?

According to the President's signing statements, his powers are unlimited in presiding over the "unitary executive" branch.

Quote

So, when Alito assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one, not even the President, is “above the law,” that palliative answer had little meaning since under the “unitary” theory favored by Alito the President effectively is the law.

The theory on which Bush operates is the "unitary executive" theory. Under this interpretation, the President alone has sole rights to supervise any and all parts of the executive without oversight. Basically, these amount to dictatorial powers concerning the executive branch - and it seems Bush does indeed subscribe to this view by using the NSC to eavesdrop electronically without judicial oversight and having the CIA investigate U.S. bank accounts.

To futher compound the presidential authority, the republican Congress (with help from some willing democrats) passed bills that were signed into law that furthered the president's ability to declare martial law, use the military against domestic insurrection, allow confinement of enemies without judicial process, and ignore the normal conventions of international law with respect to torture of captured enemy.

Now a movement is on to bring "independent agencies" under the umbrella of the executive branch. If this occurs, then by utilizing the right to supervise the "unitary executive", the President could have the SEC ignore investigations into corporations favourable to the president and ratchet up investigations into corporations that opposed him.

Likewise, direct and total control of the FCC would mean that broadcast licenses could be revoked for those who opposed presidential views (Nixon tried to find a way to punish the Washington Post and failed.)

Under the guise of the threat from terror and radical extremists, the current president has been granted near dictatorial powers, and those powers not specifically granted are assumed under the theory of unitary executive.

Odd thing is that whether the final outcome of total dictatorial power is granted will come from the Supreme Court if a constitutional interpretation is needed, and if they support the president's views they will in essence make themselves and Congress impotent.

[Winstonm]

macaw, on Jan 14 2007, 02:57 PM, said:

Sort of off topic, but does anybody remember him saying something truthful in the past 6 years?  All I can think of are examples where he said one thing and then did the exact opposite, in the name of national security usually.  I don't recall him saying anything truthful yet.  Makes me nervous about Iran!

If they balance my checkbook, I hope they'd give me the records as I haven't done that in about 8 months

I cannot remember a single U.S. public figure being so unashamedly, unapologetically, and brazenly unrelenting in ignoring previous falsehoods, going so far as to deny making statements that are on record.

Just today I read a 60-minutes interview where the president said that he felt he was right in overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime - not one word about the falsities of WMD, the ignoring of warnings of flawed intelligence, the chemical stockpiles that were not there, the nuclear weapons program that the CIA said did not exist, and the al-qaeda connection that has been proven never to have existed.
Have we all forgotten that this man went in front of the U.S. and indeed the whole world (at the U.N.) and made the case that Iraq was an imminent danger because of all the above - and not a single argument turned out to be truthful. How can we allow this to simply be ignored with, I was right to topple Saddam?

There have certainly been previous falsehoods that led to war - the Gulf of Tonkin and the sinking of the Maine - but never before have such profound inaccuracies been allowed to die so peaceful and quiet of death, not once they were uncovered.

Where is the press?

Here's another question: if the U.S. now had the draft as they did during Vietnam, so that the impact of the war was felt at home by the 18-year-olds and their parents, would we see such a seemingly apathetic press and populace? After all, we see polls showing 70% disapproval, but where are the student riots and draft card burnings that made for such good T.V. ratings?

If your 18-year-old son only had 4 options: going to Iraq, going to college, moving to Canada, or going to jail, would you then be more aghast at the lack of accountability for the situation?

[mike777]

Are you suggesting that 18 year olds and their parents would not support a draft to fight the war on terror or radical islamists or afghanistan or to revenge 9-11? What if anything would they fight for? Just asking.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that 18 year olds and their parents would not support a draft to fight the war on terror  or radical islamists or afghanistan or to revenge 9-11? What if anything would they fight for? Just asking. 

Mike, all I am saying is that Vietnam had more personal impact than Iraq due to in great part to the draft.

Unless you join the military, your chances of being affected tomorrow by the war in Iraq is virtually zero; however, if you hold in your hand that delightful letter that begins: "Greetings from the President of the United States", you have a more immediate reason to determine your attitudes about the war.

Unless you work for Exxon-Mobil, your chances of being transferred by your company to Iraq is pretty slim.

As far as who would fight for what, I can't speak for what others would do. But I am fairly certain that other than those draftees who truly supported the Vietnam war, the other draftees were there because they didn't want to go to jail, didn't want to go to Canada, and either couldn't get into or could not afford college.

[mike777]

I was just asking.

In Looming Tower, Cobra II and other books the radical islamists say they believe that the answer is no to those questions. Of course many argue there is no war with radical islamists as portrayed in those books so there is no need to fight anything.

[Al_U_Card]

Brainwashing involves the acceptance of repetitive statements as fact, solely because they are repeated incessantly while the subject is in a receptive state of lessened discernability.

1984/Brave New World/America in the new century......welcome

[Winstonm]

A question about these books. Where did the authors find persons willing to describe themselves as "radical islamic extremists"? If the authors know the whereabouts of these persons, and get along with them so well as to be able to interview them, then why aren't the authors sitting in Guantenemo as "enemy combattants"? Why isn't the U.S. nearly drowning and shocking the testicles of these authors to give the names and whereabouts of these extremists?

Or is this perhaps just the author's opinions on these beliefs rather than etched in stone facts?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that 18 year olds and their parents would not support a draft to fight the war on terror  or radical islamists or afghanistan or to revenge 9-11? What if anything would they fight for? Just asking. 

Let's consider the following:

If Bush is to be believed, "The War of Terror" is the greatest challenge facing the United States. Yet he can't convince his own daughters to serve in the military. Looks like they seem to have better things to do with their time... Right now, I think that most 18 year olds probably also have other priorities.

Face it: There is an enormous disconnect between this administration's rhetoric and its actual behavior. Immediately following 9-11 the Bush administration had a real opportunity to mobilize America and convince them that self sacrifice was necessary. Personally, I would have liked to see a combination of

1. Military action in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban
2. Economic stablization programs throughout the third world
3. More open trading policies with developing countries
4. A carbon tax

Unfortunately, Bush wasted the opportunity...

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that 18 year olds and their parents would not support a draft to fight the war on terror  or radical islamists or afghanistan or to revenge 9-11? What if anything would they fight for? Just asking. 

From the Bush speech:

Quote

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

(emphasis added)

Your question about supporting a draft to fight a war on terror first has to determine if that war is real.

Note that even the president concedes this is "an ideological struggle". The U.S. and the world have encountered many "ideological struggles", from the U.S.S.R. to Red China without going to war. The very word ideological speaks of ideas, or beliefs - one does not change another's beliefs with bombing raids and troops.

The U.S.S.R. finally collapsed because the U.S. used its economic superiority to increase its military to the point that soviet spending could not keep up. Red China became less red over time due to the flaws of Communism, not because the U.S. bombed Peiking.

If there is indeed a global war of ideology, the only way to win that war is by changing the oppositely held perceptions and beliefs.

Unless, of course, you are willing to kill every last person who disagrees - I guess that would ensure a victory.

[mike777]

Yep, as I have argued on these pages often, if there is no war with radical Islam then what Bush is doing is insane along with many others.

If there is a war, a real war, let's fight it in some manner to win, whatever that means.

My guess is and it is only a guess, most if not almost all seem to feel there is not really a war that is worth fighting for in any fashion. Bush is just an insane war monger wanting to make a few rich.

Make Peace not War, can't we all just get along in peace and harmony or if not just win some economic battle and make everyone want American Blue jeans?

[pbleighton]

"My guess is and it is only a guess, most if not almost all seem to feel there is not really a war that is worth fighting for in any fashion. Bush is just an insane war monger wanting to make a few rich.

Make Peace not War, can't we all just get along in peace and harmony or if not just win some economic battle and make everyone want American Blue jeans?"

So Mike, in your worldview one of two alternatives must be true:
1. We are engaged in a "war" which will take decades, we must kill millions of Muslims, etc., etc.
or
2. There's no problem whatsoever! Don't worry, be happy!

Am I reading you correctly?



Peter

[mike777]

How we fight the war is certainly open to debate. As I said before my guess is we will have many strategies over the decades. Some will be better than the others.

In the cold war how many russians did we kill? How many Americans died in various battles, Korea, Vietnam and many others?

Based on the views expressed here my guess is most others have the view be Happy, Make love!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Yep, as I have argued on these pages often, if there is no war with radical Islam then what Bush is doing is insane along with many others.

Mike, I don't agree with this logic. There is certainly a war, but it is not with radical Islam but on radical Islam. The question is who declared war on whom and for what reasons?

To say it is insane is to imply lack of ability to determine right and wrong actions, and I doubt anyone believes these people or actions insane; rather, what I would believe is that most doubters would think these actions deliberate, based on an arrogant belief that the U.S. domination is criticial to global survival and therefore any means that ensures survival of U.S. dominance is justified.

The oil profits are only seconday issues for supporters; the real oil issue is America's Achille's heel of oil dependency, and any means to accomodate that need is justified.

Does anyone seriously believe that an army of radical Islamist could invade and conquer the U.S. and change our way of life?

[mike777]

Heck Winston I am the guy who thinks technology will invade, be invasive and radically change our lives before 2050

[pbleighton]

"Based on the views expressed here my guess is most others have the view be Happy, Make love!"

Bad guess, Mike.

Peter

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

Based on the views expressed here my guess is most others have the view be Happy, Make love!

it's funny how our perceptions of what others mean differ... you see the above, i see something more along the lines of: a sovereign united states has lost importance, it's much better to aim for a one world gov't... that one world gov't will be under the auspices of the u.n., under it's laws, etc... nat'l interests are passe, the rights of the many (countries) outweigh the rights of the few (countries)

[Winstonm]

Quote

How we fight the war is certainly open to debate. As I said before my guess is we will have many strategies over the decades. Some will be better than the others.

This statement implies (by saying "the war") that you accept the president's premise that there is indeed a necessity to protect America from Islamic extremists. It seems to imply paralels between this "war" and the "cold" war.

I might point out some discrepancies?

In the cold war, there was a single entity upon which to focus, the U.S.S.R. In the terror war, there is no single entity but a somewhat vague extremist who could be anywhere.

In the cold war, the debate was political, communism verses democracy. In the terror war, the argument is religious, Islam verses everyone else.

In the cold war, the enemy had the military capacity to anihilate the U.S.
In the terror war, only small isolated attacks are possible - and then only rarely.

In the cold war, there was direct threat to the U.S. as Krushev declared, 'We will bury you."
In the terror war, the threat of destruction is against Israel.

Now a couple more questions: The CIA factsheet for 2006 estimates the world Muslim population at 1.6 billion. How many are fundamental extremists? Of those, how many are active terrorists? The answer is: no one knows.

So to claim a war on terror is in actuality a war on 1.6 billion suspected terrorists, is it not, as there is way to know which of those 1.6 billion are involved in terrorist actions. Otherwise, all that is possible is to attempt to prevent direct terrorist actions and react to terrorists actions, both of which fall more under police action than military action.

And here is a final question: even assuming there are Islamic fundamentalists who are bent on destroying the American way of life, what actions could they take to accomplish that goal? In other words, Mike, in your opinion how big of threat is radical Islam?