For those who said "It won't happen here."

[Brassmask]

I'm already on record as wanting to roll back our laws to about 1960 or so, and implementing an automatic expiration date for all future laws (so they'll have to be periodically renewed).

So, your blanket stance is your way of stating that no one should be held incommunicado by the Bush "administration"?

[Amianthus]

So, your blanket stance is your way of stating that no one should be held incommunicado by the Bush "administration"?

Actually, I was against extraordinary rendition during the Clinton years as well.

Were you?

[Brassmask]

Were you?

I had no idea it was going on then.  It was never written about in the bottom of any of my margarita glasses.

[Amianthus]

I had no idea it was going on then.  It was never written about in the bottom of any of my margarita glasses.

Guess you're not against RICO laws and roving wiretaps, either.

Until someone brings them up in relation to Bush. Then it'll be one your rallying cries.

[Brassmask]

I had no idea it was going on then.  It was never written about in the bottom of any of my margarita glasses.

Guess you're not against RICO laws and roving wiretaps, either.

Until someone brings them up in relation to Bush. Then it'll be one your rallying cries.

If I could go back in time to when Clinton was in office and find out that he was using these tactics and holding people incommunicado and so forth, I would and I'd be equally disgusted and a lot more embarrassed for having supported him and voted for him.  I'm on record as having no real love for him or his wife anymore.  If that can't suffice, then you are just S. O. L.

Bush has done nothing BUT this kind of crap and so, here I am, involved and aware of what's going on in this country and disgusted by it now.  Here and now.

We can't change what has been done before, only atone for it.  And a good way to start that atonement is to prevent it happening again and continuing to happen now.  Can't you get with that?  Or do you only participate in activism when it is in your best interest?

[hnumpah]

Minus the distorted applications of the above claims...

Where, exactly? Have not each and every one of those taken place and been defended by the current administration and it's lackeys as vital to prevent another terrorist attack?

...who is spouting we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure?

You have the same access to the news accounts of the day and the forum archives that I do. Go look them up.

Hint, mine won't be one of them

I don't recall mentioning anyone by name; why this overwhelming need to defend yourself?

Seems like these things have been defended by the last 5 or 6 administrations.

Don't see anything in what I said that limited it to just Bush's administration; the examples I provided are simply the most recent, thus the first that came to mind.

Just because Clinton did it, or Olbush, or Reagan, or Carter, or anyone else, does not excuse the fact that it is going on now. I didn't like it anymore during any of the preceding administrations, but there are a couple of reasons I don't bring them up. One is that I wasn't a member of this forum then, though I did protest similar activities elsewhere. The other is that Clinton, Olbush, Reagan, Carter, et al are no longer president; Bush is. Hard to press Clinton to change his administration's activities in that direction when he's no longer in office, innit?

[Amianthus]

Or do you only participate in activism when it is in your best interest?

Activism is always in my best interest, regardless of who is in office.

I don't just place blame on the current officeholder, though.

[Brassmask]

Or do you only participate in activism when it is in your best interest?

Activism is always in my best interest, regardless of who is in office.

I don't just place blame on the current officeholder, though.

That's true.  I've only ever heard you "blame" Clinton or Carter for anything.  Any time there is something the left doesn't like about Bush, you can always be counted on for a hearty, "Clinton did it too!" but never a "Damn, that sucks that Bush is doing that now.  How disappointing because I always hated that Clinton was doing that.  Now, here's my guy doing it too.  Dang."

[BT]

What a tremendous opportunity for the incoming congress to take a stand on these flagrant abuses and correct them.

This will happen, won't it?

Ball in your court.

[Amianthus]

That's true.  I've only ever heard you "blame" Clinton or Carter for anything.  Any time there is something the left doesn't like about Bush, you can always be counted on for a hearty, "Clinton did it too!" but never a "Damn, that sucks that Bush is doing that now.  How disappointing because I always hated that Clinton was doing that.  Now, here's my guy doing it too.  Dang."

Really? Can you point out one post where I said "Clinton did that, too" as my only response?

I usually point out - as I did earlier today with pen registers and trap and trace "wiretaps" - that the Supreme Court found them lawful.

It's a shame, but it's not illegal.

I'll always condemn an illegal activity. Pointing out that "Clinton did it" is not a defense, unless it was found to be legal when Clinton did it.

[_JS]

It is one thing to make something technically legal, it is another to actually use it.

I could give a damn less about Clinton or Bush. But, certainly Bush's overseas prisons and use of Guantanamo are concerning. The idea of locking away individuals with no access to the legal system, no charges, no real reasons given - whether or not they are foreigners or not is extremely concerning to me.

[sirs]

Have not each and every one of those taken place and been defended by the current administration and it's lackeys as vital to prevent another terrorist attack?

Yes, they have.  And to date, I still haven't lost any liberties, outside of the possibility my phone could be tapped if I were in contact with a foreign terrorist.  Next?

...who is spouting we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure?

You have the same access to the news accounts of the day and the forum archives that I do. Go look them up.

Excuse me?  You made the claim.  You provide the back up

I don't recall mentioning anyone by name; why this overwhelming need to defend yourself?

Confusing.  When you do it, it's just a posting.  When I do it, I'm somehow "overwhelmingly" trying to defend myself.  Were you?

Don't see anything in what I said that limited it to just Bush's administration; the examples I provided are simply the most recent, thus the first that came to mind.

Try providing some objectivity then, by denouncing such erosions that have been occuring for quite some time now.  Otherwise it just comes across as just another, in a long list of lefties decrying how everything was right as rain until that evil moron Bush took office

[Plane]

It is one thing to make something technically legal, it is another to actually use it.

I could give a damn less about Clinton or Bush. But, certainly Bush's overseas prisons and use of Guantanamo are concerning. The idea of locking away individuals with no access to the legal system, no charges, no real reasons given - whether or not they are foreigners or not is extremely concerning to me.

What has been the usual appeals procedure for Prisoners of War?

[Amianthus]

It is one thing to make something technically legal, it is another to actually use it.

So, you're trying to say that the Clinton Administration went to all the trouble to set up the extraordinary rendition program, and then they didn't bother to use it? I find that rather hard to believe.

[hnumpah]

Excuse me?  You made the claim.  You provide the back up

If I had made the claim about anyone in particular, I would have already researched the news and forum archives to do just that. I made a general statement based on recent news accounts and what I have seen in some of the posts here, defending the actions taken as necessary for our security - which you agreed has occurred.

Hnumpah - Have not each and every one of those taken place and been defended by the current administration and it's lackeys as vital to prevent another terrorist attack?


Sirs - Yes, they have...

So what's your beef?

Try providing some objectivity then, by denouncing such erosions that have been occuring for quite some time now.  Otherwise it just comes across as just another, in a long list of lefties decrying how everything was right as rain until that evil moron Bush took office

Done already. Next.