We’ve lost the right to serve in the military openly –we lost it because Clinton had a secret plan to rescind DADTDH as he was leaving office, but the Bushes got to the north portico of the WH too soon and Pres Clinton didn’t have time to rescind that policy by EO.

We lost the right to get security clearances under Bush.

Hint: No, you can’t. Not with a straight face anyway.

As someone else recently said: Left-liberals generally “cave” when faced with real fascists and dictators, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the perpetrators of the Muslim cartoon intimidation. Yet our bookstores today are freely overflowing with left-liberal-penned books against Bush. Imagine that!

The NSA terrorist-wiretap discussion is particularly inane because it has nothing to do with placing anyone under criminal jeopardy - the sphere where warrants apply.

The NSA terrorist surveillance has to do with FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING, a total different and separate sphere that every Democratic President has asserted is his right and duty to conduct.

But you failed to condition that on the following: a) in time of war, regular civilian rights can and do get suspended; and b) it doesn’t apply to enemy combatants captured as a consequence of that war. I know, you’re doing the Russ Feingold shuffle: avoid, twist, spin and hope something –ANYthing– sticks.

I don’t know of a single person who is supporting Bush’s attempt to constrain individual rights –because he isn’t doing anything even close to that except in the minds of rabid Democrats seeking partisan advantage or the ACLU –opps, that’s the same thing.

You write, “Bush has tried to curtail these basic rights and protections because they inhibit the power of the State”. No, again, Tim he’s trying to discharge his sworn duty to preserve and protect… and to keep Americans from harm by terrorist states and actors. Have you learned nothing in the deaths of 9/11 or the WOT? You are amazing in your blind hatred and anti-Bush paranoia.

And on the point about Washington turning down the crown –let’s remember he was a Federalist… the precursor of today’s GOP. He understood service to country –something the GayLeft has conveniently left at the curbside on their march to irrelevancy. You might want to read about Washington’s great internal debate about accepting that crown –Flexner has written well on it as a Washington scholar. Get educated. No, Tim, you have –once again– gotten more wrong than just your political opinions.

Actually, Timmeh, this is what I said:

That’s because the only ones with which they interfere are your rights to plan and carry out crimes, V the K.

The point was clearly made that the Patriot Act and the wiretapping of known terrorists do nothing to the rights of individual Americans, but wreak havoc with the rights asserted by leftists like yourself that terrorists have to plot and carry out schemes meant to kill thousands of Americans.

But if that’s all you can come up with, enjoy. You’ll still be shrieking about how terrorists are being deprived of legal protections for as long as Bush is in power, because it hasn’t anything to do with reality; it merely has to do with complete and total opposition to Bush.

Why would I have been embarrassed, ND30? You were the one who made an idiot out of yourself, with your statement that the “rights of the accused” only protect those who wish to commit a crime. I’m trying to help you here — because for someone who claims to love America, you don’t seem to know very much about what your country (and in particular, the Constitution of your country) stands for. Unfortunately for us, the same complaint can be made of Bush.

… you insist that you know that every “American citizen” who the Bush administration has held accountable for actions or planning of terrorism is completely innocent.

I don’t insist that, and I don’t have to. According to our common-law judicial tradition, an accused person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Because the accused must be presumed innocent, the government is not entitled to abridge his/her individual rights — including the right to due process (14th Amendment), the right against unwarranted searches and seizures (4th), the right not to incriminate oneself (5th), and the right to a “speedy and public trial” (6th). Bush has tried to curtail these basic rights and protections because they inhibit the power of the State (as do all individual rights). You are supporting his efforts.

50: I guess that’s why many of those lofty Framers –those same guys that the GayLeft likes to embrace so often when their own logic to persuade fails– sought to make it King Washington, rather than President under the Articles of Confederation.

No, Mighty-Mouse, that’s why Washington refused the crown, and why he limited his presidency to two terms. It’s also why John Adams said “The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty,” why Franklin reminded us that those who would give up liberty for “temporary safety” deserve neither, and why the Framers refused to approve the Constitution without the promise of a Bill of Rights.

Ah, the Clinton theory of ethics: It’s okay to do whatever you want as long as you don’t get caught.

That’s because the only ones with which they interfere are your rights to plan and carry out crimes, V the K.

Seen this?

I guess that’s why many of those lofty Framers –those same guys that the GayLeft likes to embrace so often when their own logic to persuade fails– sought to make it King Washington, rather than President under the Articles of Confederation. Or King again when the current Constitution was adopted? Or why Jefferson sought unprecedented powers and an expansion of govt control over non-US citizens?

Right, Tim. I think you should hold off on making any characterizations of what the Founding Fathers and Framers really wanted… to remind you again, they had utter disgust at the prior administrations and limited powers under the Articles… the Framers sought more power for the Chief Executive, not less. The Bill of Rights is APPENDED to the Constitution, you twit.

Absolute power corrupts? Really, the Framers knew that? That phrase wasn’t even in vogue at that point, Tim. Lord Acton was still 110 years into the future before the epic warning would be issued to Bishop Mandell Creighton.

One thing you don’t get when you pontificate Tim is the Pope’s claim to infalliablity when he pontificates.

BTW, former Secy of the Navy under RR, John Lehman –and a 9/11 Commissioner, too– thought that epic Acton warning about political power needed to be changed… he offered: “Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.”

When I watch Bush in action, I think he believes that, too.

Now, the problem is, Timmy, that in your attempt to twist yourself out of the little trap you created, you opened another one; namely, you insist that you know that every “American citizen” who the Bush administration has held accountable for actions or planning of terrorism is completely innocent.

Then provide the evidence, because the government has built a substantial case that they’re not. Please provide an excuse for why people would be making calls to known international terrorists, why these people would be stockpiling terror-related materials, why they would be planning terror attacks, and others for completely benign reasons.

So far, Timmeh has shown nothing but imaginary and hypothetical threats to civil liberties. If only the threat of terrorism were so hypothetical and imaginary.

For Mr. Liberal:

#9

If you are so comfortable with it then you wouldn’t mind similar unlimited power in the hands of say President Hillary Clinton or President John Edwards. I know I would, how about you?

It’s interesting how we’re supposed to believe that liberals are uncomfortable with the surveillance, but not a damn one of them wants to get rid of it. They want to play political games with it and the DNC Times wanted to run a book ad on the front page.

#14

Every president since Carter has had to comply with FISA, which this President decided not to do. The question hadn’t been raised before FISA and therefore whatever was done pre-FISA is really of no relevance.

Since it was approved by the FISA Court of Review, then I have to believe that the question had been raised.

NDT, somehow we had all the information we needed to prevent 9/11 before the event without having these ridiculous shadow programs under the guise of protection.

That’s interesting since the individual highjackers didn’t know the details until that day. Perhaps the CIA had ESPN and could read minds?

I was the one who (correctly) used “tinfoil hat-wearing” on you when you were advancing that old absurd claim. And that must still really sting for you, because in your current step forward, you are still trying to copy it and throw out your own “tinfoil” accusations - perhaps so we won’t notice that you have made a little step forward?

I don’t mean to burst your little ego-bubble, but actually I don’t remember you calling me a tin-foil hat wearer. Sounds fun to me.

I got the expression from Lily Tomlin’s play, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe.

I’m still searching.

ND30, you’ve claimed that under my argument, I would have to oppose laws against murder because I could conceivably be charged of the crime. That’s a ridiculous conclusion — hence the absurdum. Here’s why:

First, I hope we’re both agreed that murder violates another individual’s right to life, and is therefore wrong. But if we all were somehow unable to commit murder, we wouldn’t need laws against it. It’s because we’re capable of committing this act (even though statistically, it rarely happens) that we require laws against it, police to enforce these laws, and courts to judge whether persons accused are guilty or not. Likewise, it is because police are capable of abusing their powers against accused individuals that we’ve passed laws prohibiting certain actions and requiring judicial oversight for others.

For instance, there are limits to the types of surveillance you can be subjected to without a warrant — and that’s true even if you’re suspected of operating a meth lab. A judge must deem “probable cause” before your home can be searched; you can’t be searched for no reason. A judge must issue a warrant either before or shortly after your phone is tapped. When police search your property for evidence and you’re not there, they have to notify you promptly. When you’re arrested, you must be charged with a crime or released: You cannot be detained indefinitely without charges or a trial.

At one time or another, the Bush administration has tried to strip American citizens of each of these basic protections — which are either contained or strongly implied in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Framers put those protections in the Constitution for a reason: Although it’s true that police generally have our best interests at heart, and endeavor to protect us against force and fraud, it is also true that as safeguards on police power are relaxed there is a correspondingly greater opportunity for abuse and misuse. Hence, the laws against them.

And V, the belief that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is not paranoia. It’s human nature as the Framers understood it.

Man, I keep thinking, WEAK…….they usually accuse us of being Nazis who want to strip gays of jobs and housing and ship them off to the concentration camps they say have already been built.