now that they’ve appointed the majority of federal judges and SCOTUS justices.
mcrdsays
Bit of a reach. There are people who think the judiciary is being a bit inflexible dealing with the extrajudicial problem of “terrorists”. Terrorism is the waging of war
by combatants posing as noncombatants. Groups of individuals representing religious and sectarian entities. The rules of war and laws pertaining to war and now inoperative. The closest thing that we can come to these people are that they are an ongoing crominal conspiracy, but they don’t fit that definition as well. So what do we do know? As I see it we punt. We waive some of our laws and constitutional guarantees for specific groups of people because if we don’t stop or negate this problem very shortly we may find that we will be in a deeper hole that we may or may not be able to climb out of.
stomvsays
is as strong as your spelling and grammar in the above post.
soomprimalsays
Sure, we can go on with our globally destructive lifestyle and do what you said or we can start genuinely caring about and respecting other people and cultures in the world and maybe people who use respond to extreme tactics with extreme tactics will start to become irrelavant.
<
p>
“Terrorists” should be treated as criminals and investigated and tried as such. It’s unnessary and unconstitutional to create a special distinction for these people. People who join our military trust our leaders to assign them to worthwhile tasks that genuinely better and protect our nation- Our military has better things to do than play world police. We also have better things to do than torturing and incarcerating to extract innacurate intel from people who are being held without any criminal charges and against long-establish traditions of basic human rights and the rights of the accused. The neo-cons had no problems turning the legal system upside down by branding people guilty until proven innocent, yet bitch day in and day out about “judicial activism.”
<
p>
We have effective and sufficient laws and rules to deal with terrorism, nothing was different about 9/11 than any other attack, if you believe the gov’t side of things, we just weren’t paying attention enough and they “slipped” by. The threat has always been there and always will as long as we continue on the path that we are. Right or wrong, we must understand the consequences of our actions.
centralmassdadsays
He has to go all out to counter the flip flop image. He looks like he is flailing, but (sorry no link) his Iowa and NH numbers (the only numbers that matter, except maybe SC) are looking better.
<
p>
Though Guantanamo has been a PR disaster, one can understand the reasons behind its creation. A purely law enforcement approach to terrorism tens to result in circus trials that consume vast judicial and prosutorial resources for months on end, and give the defendant a nice opportunity to speechify. Just look at the circus in VA a few years ago with the “surviving 9/11 hijacker” guy. Worse, the law enforcement approach is a little light on the prevention side for my taste.
<
p>
It sure would be nice to know that the Democrats have an idea about what that problem. Oh wait, they don’t need any policies, they just need to oppose whatever exists now.
<
p>
It would make it a lot easier to pull the D lever in 2008 if one didn’t have the sense that the following conversation would take place on the second day: “Okay, we have closed Gitmo and withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, ended electonic survelance and repealed the Patriot Act in its entirety, rather than just the nasty bits. Umm, now what do we do?…. (Silence)”
eury13says
a single credible Dem candidate call for withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, I’ve heard plenty talk about how we can’t properly fight against the resurging Taliban or al qaeda in Afghanistan because our forces are bogged down in Iraq.
p>
Richardson makes a point about redeploying forces in Afghanistan and keeping troops in the middle east in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to give us striking capabilities against al qaeda wherever they are.
<
p>
Sadly, Hillary and Edwards do not have detailed foreign affairs policy on their web sites.
<
p>
As for the other issues…
No one is advocating the end of electronic surveillance, simply that it is done within the realm of the law. (You know, get a warrant from a FISA court, even up to a few days AFTER the wiretap is in place…)
<
p>
Gitmo, like Abu Ghraib, has turned us into a country of moral hypocrites. As long as we’re water boarding “enemy combatants,” we open our own troops up to the same or worse interrogation techniques. And the “they would have done it anyway” argument doesn’t fly. I don’t hear anyone arguing that we should start our own suicide bomber corps. If we stoop to their level, the terrorists have won.
<
p>
Yeah, the Dems spent a good while simply opposing Bush’s policies (as well they should have), but to say that they have no vision for how to protect this country is nothing more than a parrot of a talking point with nothing to back it up. Disagree with their agenda all you want, but at least acknowledge that they have one.
stomvsays
We have doctors, nurses, surgical assistants, and so forth “on call” all over the country. Their pager beeps, they make a phone call, and sometimes have to rush to the hospital. Their pay reflects their on-call status.
<
p>
Why not have on-call judges for search warrant issues? Need a search warrant in 20 minutes? Fine. We’ve got 100 judges on call (1+ in each state, plus federal jurisdictions), complete with secure telephones, televisions, and emergency transportation.
<
p>
Why do we have to give warrants post-search? Why not just have a small number of judges on call, ready to issue a warrant at a moment’s notice when appropriate? Furthermore, what happens if an agency applies for a post-search warrant and the judge turns it down? Where’s the recourse? Where’s the protection for the citizen?
centralmassdadsays
For ordinary criminal matters; it wouldn’t be that hard to expand.
sabrinaqedeshasays
This is Romney drinking the Kool-Aid. Ultimately it still won’t work, Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson will join the race and they’ll drop Romney like yesterday’s lotto ticket.
from your third link:
<
p>
<
p>
Heh.
Don’t single out Mitt, that’s everyone’s answer except for Ron Paul.
now that they’ve appointed the majority of federal judges and SCOTUS justices.
Bit of a reach. There are people who think the judiciary is being a bit inflexible dealing with the extrajudicial problem of “terrorists”. Terrorism is the waging of war
by combatants posing as noncombatants. Groups of individuals representing religious and sectarian entities. The rules of war and laws pertaining to war and now inoperative. The closest thing that we can come to these people are that they are an ongoing crominal conspiracy, but they don’t fit that definition as well. So what do we do know? As I see it we punt. We waive some of our laws and constitutional guarantees for specific groups of people because if we don’t stop or negate this problem very shortly we may find that we will be in a deeper hole that we may or may not be able to climb out of.
is as strong as your spelling and grammar in the above post.
Sure, we can go on with our globally destructive lifestyle and do what you said or we can start genuinely caring about and respecting other people and cultures in the world and maybe people who use respond to extreme tactics with extreme tactics will start to become irrelavant.
<
p>
“Terrorists” should be treated as criminals and investigated and tried as such. It’s unnessary and unconstitutional to create a special distinction for these people. People who join our military trust our leaders to assign them to worthwhile tasks that genuinely better and protect our nation- Our military has better things to do than play world police. We also have better things to do than torturing and incarcerating to extract innacurate intel from people who are being held without any criminal charges and against long-establish traditions of basic human rights and the rights of the accused. The neo-cons had no problems turning the legal system upside down by branding people guilty until proven innocent, yet bitch day in and day out about “judicial activism.”
<
p>
We have effective and sufficient laws and rules to deal with terrorism, nothing was different about 9/11 than any other attack, if you believe the gov’t side of things, we just weren’t paying attention enough and they “slipped” by. The threat has always been there and always will as long as we continue on the path that we are. Right or wrong, we must understand the consequences of our actions.
He has to go all out to counter the flip flop image. He looks like he is flailing, but (sorry no link) his Iowa and NH numbers (the only numbers that matter, except maybe SC) are looking better.
<
p>
Though Guantanamo has been a PR disaster, one can understand the reasons behind its creation. A purely law enforcement approach to terrorism tens to result in circus trials that consume vast judicial and prosutorial resources for months on end, and give the defendant a nice opportunity to speechify. Just look at the circus in VA a few years ago with the “surviving 9/11 hijacker” guy. Worse, the law enforcement approach is a little light on the prevention side for my taste.
<
p>
It sure would be nice to know that the Democrats have an idea about what that problem. Oh wait, they don’t need any policies, they just need to oppose whatever exists now.
<
p>
It would make it a lot easier to pull the D lever in 2008 if one didn’t have the sense that the following conversation would take place on the second day: “Okay, we have closed Gitmo and withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, ended electonic survelance and repealed the Patriot Act in its entirety, rather than just the nasty bits. Umm, now what do we do?…. (Silence)”
a single credible Dem candidate call for withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, I’ve heard plenty talk about how we can’t properly fight against the resurging Taliban or al qaeda in Afghanistan because our forces are bogged down in Iraq.
<
p>
If you want to know how a Democratic president will protect us, there seems to be plenty of info out there:
http://www.barackoba…
http://www.barackoba…
http://www.richardso…
http://www.richardso…
http://joebiden.com/…
http://joebiden.com/…
<
p>
Richardson makes a point about redeploying forces in Afghanistan and keeping troops in the middle east in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to give us striking capabilities against al qaeda wherever they are.
<
p>
Sadly, Hillary and Edwards do not have detailed foreign affairs policy on their web sites.
<
p>
As for the other issues…
No one is advocating the end of electronic surveillance, simply that it is done within the realm of the law. (You know, get a warrant from a FISA court, even up to a few days AFTER the wiretap is in place…)
<
p>
Gitmo, like Abu Ghraib, has turned us into a country of moral hypocrites. As long as we’re water boarding “enemy combatants,” we open our own troops up to the same or worse interrogation techniques. And the “they would have done it anyway” argument doesn’t fly. I don’t hear anyone arguing that we should start our own suicide bomber corps. If we stoop to their level, the terrorists have won.
<
p>
Yeah, the Dems spent a good while simply opposing Bush’s policies (as well they should have), but to say that they have no vision for how to protect this country is nothing more than a parrot of a talking point with nothing to back it up. Disagree with their agenda all you want, but at least acknowledge that they have one.
We have doctors, nurses, surgical assistants, and so forth “on call” all over the country. Their pager beeps, they make a phone call, and sometimes have to rush to the hospital. Their pay reflects their on-call status.
<
p>
Why not have on-call judges for search warrant issues? Need a search warrant in 20 minutes? Fine. We’ve got 100 judges on call (1+ in each state, plus federal jurisdictions), complete with secure telephones, televisions, and emergency transportation.
<
p>
Why do we have to give warrants post-search? Why not just have a small number of judges on call, ready to issue a warrant at a moment’s notice when appropriate? Furthermore, what happens if an agency applies for a post-search warrant and the judge turns it down? Where’s the recourse? Where’s the protection for the citizen?
For ordinary criminal matters; it wouldn’t be that hard to expand.
This is Romney drinking the Kool-Aid. Ultimately it still won’t work, Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson will join the race and they’ll drop Romney like yesterday’s lotto ticket.