America's "Judeo-Christian founding"

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Well, this could end up being a Constitutional debate, and then it's really just going to matter what your view of the Constitution is, ie, are you an "originalist", or one who sees the Constitution as a living document, etc.

 

Comments about the founders doing this or doing that seem to indicate that there are people who think that their hand was driven by some divine force, almost like the writers of the Bible. History and their writings would seem to indicate otherwise. Wasn't the Constitution driven by compromise to get the colonies to remain together, at least in part? And while the founders did a wonderful job, I don't know that I'd expect them to know what was going to happen 100 or 200 years hence. They didn't bother to include women in the right to vote, for example. Only land owners could be voters, etc.

 

To answer the question about what this administration has done to limit my freedoms...

Well, thusfar, the other side of the aisle has managed to force compromise enough to keep the most draconian attempts thus far, but...

We do have the Patriot Act, which is well-intentioned, and meant to protect us, but includes invasions of our privacy, and now the administration would like to remove judicial safeguards to make sure these powers are not abused. Now, there are probably those who say "well, if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear". Well, people thought the same thing before the McCarthy hearings. The Japanese probably thought that they were good Americans until other good Americans threw them all in prison during World War II. The administration is currently attempting to extend the Patriot Act so that anyone, citizen or not, can be seized at anytime, on U.S. soil or not, and held without charge for any period of time, simply by being declared an enemy combatant. And who gets to decide that? The president, without recourse. There's a real danger here that if we play footloose and fancy free with the Geneva Conventions, our enemies will free to do the same when they capture our citizens. You can be wiretapped and have your house searched covertly, and you'll never know it was done, and they don't have to tell you. Check out a library book and nuclear weapons, and you too can find yourself basking in the sun at Guantanamo Bay. My "right" to clean air is being taken away as this administration tunes rules and regulations to allow big industry to pollute further. Energy policies are being formed without seeing the light of day, taking away my right to transparency in government. "No Child Left Behind" is a nice idea, until you find out that it's yet another unfunded mandate. The president himself decrease it's funding a year after it was passed. My child's right to an education is being hampered by schools that now spend a certain amount of time every year to learn how to take the tests that are being forced on them. Now, not all of these "rights" will be listed in the wording of the Constitution, but I think they are something we expect, nonetheless.

 

Talking points for liberals? Sure. But I'm way past the point of letting this president say "trust me", and I'm going to take his word for it. I voted for his dad, but this man, no thanks.

 

As far as the votes in states on gay marriage, yes, the people have spoken, but I'd be interested in looking in those states to see exactly what people spoke.

 

So, now that we've gotten WAY OT, are we there yet?

[Eagledad 2785]

>>As far as the votes in states on gay marriage, yes, the people have spoken, but I'd be interested in looking in those states to see exactly what people spoke.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Just for clarity sake, how many US citizens are in Gitmo that checked out the wrong book from the library? I havent heard about any but I have been away

[Kahuna 172]

Backpacker: The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress, not put into force by executive order. Congress will decide on the continuation or form the continuation will take. It looks like it's up to the Senate to modify or continue it at this point, since the House has passed on it's version. I would point out that this isn't the action of the administration, although it certainly is the administration's desire. While I agree that we have to watch the government closely, lest we end up with a police state, my concerns apply equally to Republicans and Democrats. In any case, it's your representatives and senators who will decide the issue, not the Bush administration.

 

It is wartime. Whether you like it or not, we are war with forces of evil in the world. We aren't fighting it on the scale of WWII, but the results can be equally disastrous to us. During WWII, citizens of the U.S. were willing to put up with a lot to fight the war: curfews, lighting restrictions, rationing, limitations on travel, a draft for the military and a lot of secrecy about what was going on. Enemy combatants and suspected spies and saboteurs could be picked up and held for the duration of the war. And yes, the government interned Americans of Japanese ancestry and confiscated their property. We are nowhere near that kind of restrictions today.

 

The Geneva Convention does not and never has applied to combatants not in uniform, fighting for an entity that is not a signatory to the Convention. Although during WWII, we treated our enemies, including the Japanese, who were not signers, according to the Convention, we were not obligated to, nor did it help our POW's in Japanese hands. As to how the enemy treats captured Americans, how much worse could it get? They behead them on TV, they burn them alive and hang them from bridges. They blow up women and children. The Geneva Convention has no meaning for them and treating our captives according to it makes no sense. Neither does providing with lawyers and judicial hearings. Our POWs in Viet Nam were held for up to eight years and not treated according to the Geneva Convention. We can hold these guys as long as we want. They are being housed properly, fed properly, allowed their religious rites, given copies of the Quran. What more could we do? We could let them go and they will show up in Iraq with weapons.

 

I do agree on the education issue. And I certainly can't find anything in the Constitution that puts the federal government into education. We would all be better off if that were left to the states, IMHO. On the other hand, the Democrats ideas for education just involve throwing a lot of money and denying us any choices in education, so we wouldn't be any better off with them in charge.

 

As to the trust issue, there's and Air Force agency who has as it's motto, "In God We Trust. All Others We Verify."

 

So much for a rant from the other side.

 

BTW, Barry, OT means off topic.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I've been reading quickly, Barry. Hopefully, someone else has passed on that OT means "Off Topic"

 

Well, just because I happen to take a particular side on these discussions doesn't mean I don't understand the other side.

 

And, I didn't say that I disputed the elections, only that I'd be interested in seeing the details on the results in regards to exactly what question was on the referendum (this can affect how people vote), and what the demographics were of the people that voted. Sometimes elections are won because the opposing side didn't do a good job of getting their people out to vote. I never said I questioned the results of the election. Those are "facts" that I'd like to have.

 

I looked back through most of my posts on this topic, and didn't see any particular mention of making the point that Christians are dominating the direction of politics. I do think that there's a religious conservative minority that is making itself very visible at this point. Regardless, I'd say that while it's untrue for the majority of the country, it's probably a good observation for the direction of the Republican party at this point.

 

I also didn't say anything about most people being religious fanatics. I think that most people look at groups like "Focus on the Family" and such and wonder who those people are; I don't think that they represent the majority view, either. They say they do, but when you look at the details of their agenda, I wonder about that.

 

I'm wondering what I've said on this topic that makes me some sort of liberal extremist? Thinking that this president is doing an incredibly poor job in most areas? Accusing the administration of ignoring our treaty responsibilities? We're doing it. There's no question about it.

 

OGE, I don't think that anyone has been sent to Gitmo based on their library usage, but based on how the law can be used at this point, it's possible that someone could be declared an enemy combatant and sent there, citizen or not, for a wide variety of reasons that could then be kept secret. The law itself could be used responsibly, and mostly is, I think, but it is troublesome that the president would like the debate to include the removal of oversight provisions that are now in place. That was the point, not the unlikely possibility that the law would be misused in such a way.

 

Kahuna, the Patriot Act was passed by Congress, but as with all Congressional sessions, the agenda is set by the Executive Branch. That's just how it is.

 

Actually, the concerns I cited about ignoring the Geneva Conventions were not mine, but just passing on what's been said in interviews with military leaders. They're the ones that want the Administration to follow the Conventions. You're right, also, that we have no obligation to follow the Conventions in some of these cases, but it has been our history, I think, until this Administration, that we largely followed the Conventions regardless.

 

As to whether the guys at Gitmo could be released only to show up later with weapons, sure, they could. On the other hand, so far I think the total number of prisoners actually charged with anything is close to zero, while about 200 have been released after a couple of years of imprisonment when it was found that they had done nothing wrong. Of course, it's hard to know because the charges are kept secret, the evidence is kept secret, and they have no right to counsel. Does anyone here think that that's how America should be doing things?

 

Yes, Kahuna, we are at war. Unfortunately the war on terrorism being fought in Afghanistan is taking a back seat to the invasion of Iraq, which, as far as anyone can tell at this point, has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. This is apparently part of some other agenda that the Bush Administration has that hasn't seen the light of day yet.

 

I think at this point, the Republicans have lost the right to accuse the Democrats of throwing money at things. I agree, tho, that it may not be any better under a Democratic administration. I doubt that it could get any worse, tho. Both major parties are, at this point, more interested in taking political potshots at each other. They're like a bunch of little kids.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

The prisoners at Gitmo were taken from the the field of battle, were armed and were intent on killing Americans. At least thats how I understand it. If I am wrong, enlighten me. Being taken prisoner after shooting at American Forces isnt like shop liting at the local 7-11.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Bush- 50,456,002- 47.8%

Gore- 50, 899, 897- 48.38%

2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS

General Election Date: 11/7/00

Updated: December 2001

 

Bush- 62,040,610- 50.73%

Kerry- 59,028,111- 48.27%

Popular vote counts:

David Leips Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections as of May 28, 2005

 

Winning is winning, no matter what the outcome, as has been established both in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.

 

The Presidential election results do not indicate a "mainstream" America where there is a clear majority of people that are in charge. Mainstream America is a concept that was viable in the 70's and 80's but not now. The results indicate a divide and that there will be a swing one way or the other, depending on the issue(s).

 

Oklahoma is 76% white and 86% Christian and 32% Baptist. In 2004, Democrats controlled the OK Senate 26 to 22 and the Republicans controlled the House 57 to 44. Third parties are not eligible for primaries but OK still has the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and the Communist Party. OK now has 4 Republicans and one Democrat as Representatives in Washington. In 2004, GWB carried every county in the state. His victory in winning Oklahoma's 7 electoral votes was by the overwhelming margin of 32 percentage points and 65.6% of the vote. Yet, despite this, there are still more registered Democrats in Oklahoma than Republicans. So, it appears that voting the issues instead of the party is important, even in mainstream OK.

 

I believe that war should always be the last option but it is an option, as opposed to the alternative. There are clearly ominous threats of weaponry much greater than C-4 waistbands and manure bombs, considering that the last two are still significant. Protecting ourselves in a complex and highly dangerous world has to be a priority. How it is done is an issue that takes skill and knowledge. Considering Gore's or Kerry's possible actions is a question that I have pondered. The problem with politics is that there is never a clean solution to a problem. Every choice is littered with lobbyists from all walks that demand their input and their part, so to figure out the possibilities are endless. Bush's record in the war so far is filled with that mixture of entities that have their own needs that are being met. I don't believe it is possible to change Iraq into a mainstream democracy no matter what is done or who is in charge. "Staying the course" appears to mean that nothing will be accomplished except the American lobbyists will be satisfied and more people will be killed for a goal that is unattainable which brings us full circle to the next election.

 

Whoever runs in 2008 will need a message that is clear, one that has goals that can be reached. I hope that running the world is not one of them. Getting along with others is fine with me.

 

FB

[stlscouter 10]

I understand the ferver with which folks agree or disagree with President Bush but to add that we still have American Troops that were committed by President Clinton 10 years ago in Bosnia fighting again Muslims gives me pause to think not about OUR role but who the enemy is and how WE can defeat them. I am reminded of my ex father-in-law's (Command Sgt Major)statement "What have you personally done today to insure your neighbor's freedom? Food for Thought?

[Kahuna 172]

Backpacker: Both major parties are, at this point, more interested in taking political potshots at each other. They're like a bunch of little kids.

We can at least agree on that statement. I don't like either one of them very much. I would vote Libertarian, but that just deprives me of a vote, because they aren't in danger of winning or even influencing elections.

I don't know what military officers you have heard saying they want to follow the Geneva Convention. Possibly Wes Clark? My impression as a retired USAF officer, is that the vast majority of military officers want to do whatever we can to get these guys off the battlefield and find out what they know that can help us find more of them. I also don't understand why you and many others feel that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or that the war in Afghanistan is somehow being put on the back burner. It's obvious to me that the Iraq government had many ties to Al Queda and that a lot of the fighting being done there is against Al Queda members or sympathizers. In short, we are killing them there so we don't have to kill them here. It strikes me that we have made a lot of progress in Afghanistan and, not coincidentally, with the Pakistanis. Our relations with the Pakistani government has led to their taking measures against the more extreme elements and particulary the extremist madrassas.

OGE is correct, as far as I know, in saying that all those at Gitmo are men who were taken on the "battlefield," wherever that may be. IMHO, they are being treated far better than they have any right to be. Those who were released were not, as far as I know, released because they hadn't done anything wrong, but because they could be turned over to their own governments.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Kahuna

Actually, that was me.

 

OGE, those comments were something I saw on a cable TV news report some time ago where they were asking retired military leaders what concerns they would have about the U.S. not abiding by the Geneva Conventions by making arbitrary decisions about who was covered by it and who was not.

 

I think the "field of battle" is part of the problem. The Administration is taking the stand the the whole world is the field of battle, so anywhere they catch someone makes them an enemy combatant. Unfortunately, international law hasn't kept up with modern conflict, and the administration is taking advantage of that. I'll have to check again, but it was my understanding that the majority of those at Gitmo were not typical warriors, ie, they weren't on a traditional field of battle carrying weapons. Of course, it's hard to know because the administration has made it their policy to imprison these people without charges or evidence that they are willing to reveal. According to reports that I read, the majority of those released were released because of lack of credible evidence. Once again, hard to know in this adminstration of secrecy.

 

I'm sorry, but hasn't pretty much EVERY legitimate intelligence source said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the war started?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

After the OK bombing, everybody in the U.S. was not at fault. People wanted those responsible to stop them from further harm. Everybody that put on a uniform and practiced para-military maneuvers was not a suspect. Everybody that hated the U.S. and spoke about it openly was not at fault. The police found those that were the killers and prosecuted them. Today, what can happen in this country or other countries is that anyone from the Middle East can become a suspect because they look the part and they are an easy target. Terrorism is a method to bring people into an indirect conflict and repress the rule of law. It will separate people and coalesce those that would not have thought about being the enemy before. It becomes a continual killing spiral of hatred and vengeance. The idea is to make the U.S. look as bad as the lies the enemy spreads about it are. The more the U.S. looks the part of the bad guy, the more the world will take sides against us. The question was asked about what could be done. The answer is to support an even handed policy that is based on the rule of law and not to engage in a killing spree of innocents. We desperately need to find the bad guys and punish them.

 

The harder question is can people that have had a member of their own family blown apart needlessly keep their sanity and keep themselves from abridging the law? The longer it goes on, the more likely we will become the tyrant that we have been painted. This type of war is a slow blood letting that is done in the dark by those that nobody suspects to be the killers. It wears down the capacity to be fair and then we mirror the enemy except everyone knows who we are.

 

[Kahuna 172]

Sorry, Prairie Scouter! Didn't mean to mis-address you.

I'm sorry, but hasn't pretty much EVERY legitimate intelligence source said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the war started?

No, they haven't. The intelligence agencies are well aware that there was an ongoing relationship between Hussein's government and Al Queda. The link below is not from intelligence sources, but I believe it reflects what the agencies believe.

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/al-queda-iraq-connection.html

[Rooster7 11]

I'm sorry, but hasn't pretty much EVERY legitimate intelligence source said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the war started?

 

Which agencies are the legitimate intelligence sources?

 

Legitimate intelligence sources were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. For all we know, they didstill do. I dont buy the argument that they would have been found by now. How many small children are abducted each year in America? Do we find them all? What makes you think that our intelligence gathering is so refined that a country with billions of dollars to draw upon could not find a way to hide these kinds of weapons?

 

When so-called legitimate intelligence sources claim Iraq never had a connection to Al Qaeda before the war all liberals bow down and believe. Yet, if another legitimate intelligence source says Iraq was conspiring to build WMDs, liberals cry foul claiming the agency to be a puppet of the Bush administration. Do you really believe that George Bush is planning his retirement by invading Iraq? Was not the president doing pretty well before he took office? Wouldnt you think that hed rather do some good for our country than submit to sleazy influences so to earn millions that he doesnt need? Isnt that the implication being made by the peace loving leftthat Bush is corrupt...hes complicit with the oil companies. I find it all to be quite preposterous a desperate and ridiculous claim by a bitter and disillusioned left. No lie too big to tell so long as they achieve world peace. If the people of this country swallowed this kind of dribble when Reagan ran against Carter, wed probably be speaking Russian by now.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

"Peace loving left"? As opposed to what? The "war loving right"? Both claims are equally silly.

 

I remember Bush being pretty ineffective before the attack on 9/11. He seemed to still be finding his way. Granted, it was early in his first term, but there was nothing there to indicate a great leader in the making. I'd propose that nothing has happened since to support such a view, either.

 

Here's an old joke, but it fits the situation...

"Hey, did you hear they finally found the WMDs?"

"Yeah, they were in North Korea!"

 

And, I'd prefer that we not attack Jimmy Carter. He's probably the last intrinsically good man elected president. Granted, overall, not a very good president, but a very good man. As far as what would have happened had he won a 2nd term, we'll never know, but we probably wouldn't have had the Iran/Contra problem. Reagan will be remembered for giving America back it's pride, something that was taken away by his fellow Republican, Richard Nixon.

 

I personally don't think that Bush is corrupt, but I do think he is being misguided by his handlers and advisors. History may show that he presided over a country with deep divisions, and did little to correct that.

 

As far as the claims being made by "the left" that you cite? Probably no more preposterous than trying to bring down a president for no reason other than his not being able to keep his zipper up.

 

[Rooster7 11]

"Peace loving left"? As opposed to what? The "war loving right"? Both claims are equally silly.

 

That is perhaps the one thing we can agree upon.

 

I'll leave history to decide who was a good president and who was not. As for Carter, I liked him - as a man, until he decided to be this country's unofficial ambassador to Cuba.