| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Lindsey Graham's tribunal tantrum |
| 2006-09-14 |
As soon as President Bush asked Congress to enact legislation codifying military tribunals to try suspected al-Qaida terrorists and to permit warrantless eavesdropping on suspected al-Qaida communications in and out of the United States, Graham started objecting. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #21 Yes, rights to AQ, this is certainly a pltform to run on when you want to be pres...... And to get Powell in the mix? |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-09-14 22:55 |
| #20 ROFL. Of all the items you listed, only Cecelia evoked anything but a smile... Proof of Law Enforcement using anything it can find to do its job. I don't see, other than the possibility that Cecelia is as stated - which not necessarily true, anything but good news in those egregious examples of "abuse". Do you REALLY think ANY of those are bad things? The cops have been on the short end of the stick for the last, what, 40 years? Since the "rights" people you seem to think are so sensible, tied their hands behind their backs and gave so many benefits of the doubt to the crooks and killers and pedos that we've seen a flood of people, guilty as hell, skate on technicalities. Look, I love freedom. I also love law and order. I want bad guys nailed. You have proven nothing other than the cops have more tools, for the first time in 2 generations, to fight the assholes among us. Hey, no sweat. Fear on. There are, indeed, unscrupulous assholes who might actually misuse the law. None of your examples proves any such thing. They demonstrate that people are smart and resourceful. They demonstrate that there were unintended benefits to the Patriot Act, LOL. Y'know, unscrupulous political assholes don't need the Patriot Act. The San Antonio DA figured out a way to force a good politician into retirement by using the OLD ways of fucking the system. And he's succeeded in spite of the fact it was as transparent as glass. Does that prove anything? No, but I wanted my post to be as long and as impressive as yours. I don't know if I've succeeded, but it's been fun. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-09-14 21:59 |
| #19 flyover: http://tinyurl.com/lkfwf "...Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens." http://tinyurl.com/p7fox The USA Patriot Act made it possible for federal investigators to search and bug a 360-foot tunnel under the U.S.-Canadian border, then watch and listen as hundreds of pounds of marijuana was carried through it. http://tinyurl.com/nbfk2 "These documents underscore the ACLU's concern that the JTTF inappropriately regards public protest as potential 'domestic terrorism,' and investigates and builds files on the political activities of peaceful dissenters because of the mere possibility that their activities will attract participants who may violate the law," said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director. "By casting its net so unjustifiably wide, the FBI wastes taxpayers' money and threatens to chill legitimate dissent." "Homeland Security makes 500 local gang arrests." "US teen gets prison for making 'terrorist school threat'" 'Town claims Patriot Act authorizes it to kick "homeless people out of a train station"' "Under guise of anti-terror policy, feds issued subpoena to get information on student anti-war protestors and military intelligence agents probe 'suspicious' attendees at law school conference." "Anti-terror task forces investigate and spy on domestic environmental and hunger activist groups." July 14, 2004: "In fact, of the 38 cases cited in the report as examples of how the Patriot Act has been used, 18 appear unrelated to terrorism. Many have to do with crimes such as child pornography and child molestation." Provision of Patriot Act intended to exclude potential terrorists from truck driver certification is interpreted by TSA to bar "law-abiding ex-offenders whose criminal records have nothing to do with terrorism or national security", mostly drug offenses, from truck driver work force. http://tinyurl.com/qqfzz "Cecilia Beaman is a 57-year-old grandmother, a principal at Pacific Middle School in Des Moines, and as of Sunday is also a suspected terrorist..." "In the name of homeland security, state strengthens trespassing laws on farms to protect animals from activist groups." "NSA insiders report that Hayden approved special intercept operations on behalf of Bolton and had them masked as ‘training missions’ in order to get around internal NSA regulations that normally prohibit such eavesdropping on U.S. citizens." "FBI shuts down 20 antiwar web sites: an unprecedented act of Internet censorship" My point is not to argue that these are unreasonable. My point is that under a president like Bill Clinton, each of these possible abuses could be magnified a hundred-fold. Remembering the abuses they committed even before these strong laws were passed. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-14 21:41 |
| #18 Capt'n predicts: McCain has named his prospective cabinet, Opie is Attorney General and Warner is SoD. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-14 21:31 |
| #17 The system's broken. We have 3 branches to keep power in check, yet the democraps have during Clinton's dark days murdered a White House staffer, murdered the Secretary of Commerce, wipped out a religious cult, man, woman, and child, and kidnapped a child immigrant and delivered him into servitude without a mumble from the Department of Justice. The Congress finally revolted when he started open sexual encounters within America's house, which he was renting out piecemeal. Selling military secrets, stealing presidential flatware and White House gifts, pardoning damgerous criminals and destroying evidence are Slick Willy Clinton's legacy. This kind of behavior was not supposed to happen. It was supportive democraps who helped Clinton through all of these examples of bad behavior. As patriotic Americans, it is our duty to destroy the corrupt democrap party regardless of political concerns. If the republicans are to be opposed, then let those who would start a party of honest people to do so. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-14 21:12 |
| #16 Good news, Enemy of the State will be on AMC tonight, confirming beyond any doubt your worst fears are fact. Be afraid. Be very afraid. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-09-14 20:44 |
| #15 I'm with 'moose. I'm not afraid of having these laws to do what we all want them to do. But I am afraid of a Clinton or a Nixon in the WH who use them to terrorize people for reasons utterly unrelated to the initial purpose of the law. Look at the way obstruction of justice and lying to an investigator have been used on Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, Conrad Black, and many others. Look at the way they handled Craig Livingstone, the anthrax guy, and Rush Limbaugh's medical records. There are bad men in government and they do abuse their power. So we should not be surprised when we give them expanded powers in an emergency and they abuse them sooner or later. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-14 19:46 |
| #14 Okay. I give up. I'll respond to what I see that moves me... You're far more paranoid than anyone I personally know, so your comments strike me as obviously outside the norm. I think I hear you saying that laws like the Patriot Act would become dangerous in a Dhimmicrat's (or any true demagogue's) hands. Possibly, if they're written incredibly badly. The Patriot Act s not an example. If you can point out an abuse of that law, just to kick off some substance, then I'd be grateful. It is my understanding that no credible example has ever been found... just bullshit paranoia and dire warnings from phoney guardians of the constitution (ACLU , etc) or tinfoil twits (too numerous to name) of how abuses were inevitable - which seems to be at the heart of your comment. Prove it. This is the hallmark screed of the "truthy" segments... "Danger! Bush will be breaking down your door any minute!" Uh huh. I require more than such manufactured fears. Show me the proof. "But the WoT is winding down." No. Not hardly. Not for a decade or two of this slow-motion death by a thousand ACLU cuts, grinding PC shit, and judicial agendas - or whenever they get their hands on a nuke or two - whichever comes first. The camel's nose is under the tent in several places - and if needed I can provide examples of Islam's progress in undermining our societal norms... I happen to agree with you about the inertia thing, but obviously not to the same degree. There have been classic dire warnings bandied about since the republic was founded. We're still here. To your stated end, I happen to believe in rational sunset provisions being added to every law. Makes common sense - something that's in short supply in DC, or not part of the "plan" to rape, loot, and pillage as long as the sponsors hold office, LOL. I guess I'm just not paranoid about having laws that allow us to seek out and capture or kill the assholes who would kill us. I don't mind being vetted for travel or whatever. I have nothing to hide and nothing of which I am ashamed. They can take my prints - or any other biometrics they want which can uniquely identify me, and use it when I vote or seek a DL or anything else that can be used as ID. What the fuck is wrong with that? I don't fear it, I welcome it because it allows us to end this overstayed visa BS, the illegal hordes can be picked off as they attempt to access our systems, bogus voters could be shut down forever, and on and on. A threat to me or my freedom? Hardly. I shut down my crack and meth labs months ago and my supernotes operation has produced more than I could ever spend, anyway. Done here. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-09-14 19:22 |
| #13 So...McCain, Warner, and Graham Cracker are possibly in favor of bail being set for captured terrorist 'suspects'? How far are they willing to go to sell out/PC pander our country down the river of 'legal' handwringing? How does this situation qualify for the "better to set one guilty person free than convict 5-10 innocents"? Have they no concept of US citizen rights vs everyone else in the world? This is intolerable insanity and the cause of national suicide. I would expect President Bush to veto any milktoast 'bill' passed out of this senate committee. This situation qualifies for the Law West of the Pecos....fair trial and hang the guilty bastards. |
| Posted by: Phineter Thraviger1073 2006-09-14 18:22 |
| #12 flyover: Timetable. Before 9-11, both political parties were big advocates of increasing security. Clinton's ID checks at airports and Gore's national ID card idea, for example. However, while the republicans were looking at the real threat, the democrats were looking at new and better ways of controlling "the people" of the United States. It's a socialist thing. They ignore the big picture in favor of controlling the minutiae of peoples' lives. Someone called it "government by boy scout", really caring what people eat for lunch and what brand of toilet paper they use, while ignoring things like, say, war. And it was also corrupt, using their office and power to keep power, and oppress their political enemies. Well, 9-11 happened, and thank god the republicans were in office. They passed an s-load of new laws to tighten security, and USED those laws against the enemy. But the WoT is winding down. The next president will inherit it, and will have very different priorities. Domestically, some of these priorities will be like Patriot Act II, getting rid of security measures we thought we needed, but don't really accomplish anything, cost a lot of money, and annoy the hell out of the public. But government programs have hellacious inertia. They are terribly hard to get rid of. So, when looking at the democrats, we face two possible futures. Sooner or later they will get some control in government. Our first alternative is them turning these republican security laws against the American people, making our lives miserable. Raw politics, utterly shameless in trying to get and keep power. They WON'T continue to pursue terrorists with them, so keeping them at all is just giving a loaded gun to rapist sociopaths. And *this* is why I proposed that the democrats take the same stance they took after Vietnam and Watergate against security. It might well be better for us, the American public, if our security wasn't as tight as it could be, *if* it took these powerful tools out of the hands of the corrupt morons who would turn them against us. In other words, if we are to be led by dangerous, unethical, immoral wackos, we want to keep them as powerless as possible. They will never seek to help us, so at least let's not let them have the tools to hurt us. And ironically, if they do turn again to strict limitations, they might help a republican president eliminate the parts of security we don't need, while keeping the ones we do. This is one of the problems of bad security law. It is hard to eliminate what doesn't work, without appearing to be "soft on security". |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-14 18:09 |
| #11 If Teddy wasn't camped there for life, Goober Graham would be far & away the stooopidest and most useless member of the Senate. He makes Specter tolerable. This RINO bastard makes me puke whenever I see or hear his voice, just like Teddy. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-09-14 15:56 |
| #10 Don't just blame Graham, although he deserved it, also blame John Warner and McCain. These people live in a world of ideals, sans reality. One justification is that, should one of our soldiers get captured without a uniform, we would want him/her to be treated in the same manner we treat terrorists. What pure bullshit! If anyone (US or otherwise) is caught out of uniform by the enemy, they (either US or otherwise) would not be eligible for the Geneva Conventions. Warner, McCain, and Graham shouldn't win reelection (or elected president). They should be ashamed to show their faces in public. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-14 15:45 |
| #9 WTF? Sheesh. Reality check: "This may eventually force the democrats to go against the grain and oppose intrusive security as "anti-freedom". Not surprisingly, they might make considerable political gain by doing so, that is, offering to prune away federal surveillance, inspection, databasing, and information collection and manipulation." HUH? LOL. You been hiding out under a rock for the last 4+ years? This is beyond dumb... As for the rest, beware that "woop woop" sound. Got any, y'know, facts to present to back up the paranoia? Man, I am flabbergasted. For someone who usually makes good sense, this is just a pile of silly half-baked shit. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-09-14 14:25 |
| #8 On the flip side, almost as soon as "anti-terrorist" legislation is passed, ambitious and political prosecutors try to use it against anybody, often based on unpopular crimes and unpopular defendants. This happens to most new laws. Remember the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act? 95% of the time it is used to "arrest" peoples' houses and cars for drugs, even if the people themselves aren't arrested, and it's not even their drugs. But when it was passed, it was done with the assurance that its draconian measures would only be used against organized crime syndicates. The bottom line is that, no matter how much we like a tough law against terrorism, we have to live in fear that another Bill Clinton will be elected, who with the complicity of his own Janet Reno and hand-picked federal prosecutors, will viciously turn that law against ordinary American citizens, who have done things like vote republican. Ironically, even though democrats are the most likely to crave intrusive laws and abuse them, such as Al Gore's national ID card idea, the republicans have seized on the issue and used such tools for good anti-terrorist purposes. This may eventually force the democrats to go against the grain and oppose intrusive security as "anti-freedom". Not surprisingly, they might make considerable political gain by doing so, that is, offering to prune away federal surveillance, inspection, databasing, and information collection and manipulation. Of course, for the wrong reasons. But better they should be in this frame of mind, than having a democrat Justice Department compiling and using dossiers on their political enemies. Eventually, it will be good to lift the WoT laws anyway, once the threat has been reduced. No reason in the world to search blond haired, blue eyed grandmothers in airports, unless you suspect they are illegally smuggling kinky underwear. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-14 14:14 |
| #7 From the same people who play slight of hand with the terms immigrant and illegal immigrant. Considering that SCOTUS just extended 'American' protection to non-Americans, it's just another three card monty with terms. |
| Posted by: Chulet Throsh6262 2006-09-14 13:16 |
| #6 Right Sherry. The Goober wants to put major power in the hands of politically connected bad lawyers. Goober is an asshat. I could see that in 1998. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-14 12:35 |
| #5 How has it come to be, that a single, un-elected judge has become the person to determine whether or not a person is a terrorist? |
| Posted by: Sherry 2006-09-14 11:29 |
| #4 but no American should be monitored by their government believing they're part of an enemy plot -- Goober Graham Hey, Goob': Ya got any proof or are you making a strawman? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-09-14 11:26 |
| #3 So what if a few real Americans are caught in the crossfire. As long as it's not a Crossfire™. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-09-14 09:12 |
| #2 "but no American should be monitored by their government believing they're part of an enemy plot without some judge checking the government's homework." And no Al Qaeda member is an American. So what if a few real Americans are caught in the crossfire. Be nice, apologize, set them back on their feet whatever it takes, and carry on. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-09-14 01:55 |
| #1 AL QAEDA ARE AMERICANS = NOT AMERICANS??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-09-14 01:10 |