Will the "War on Terror" Ever be Over? - Page 4

JudeB · 03-04-2007, 05:48 AM

Indago, that picture just says it all doesn't it? Our Commander in Chief. I am so proud to be someone following him.(please, get the sarcasm here.lol)
Sorry, just had to stop and laugh some more. Can't see a thing(binoculars) but he sure got the costume thing right.
I will quit laughing and head back into the discussion.lol I know that the "War on Terror" will never be over. But, I don't happen to think that the war in Iraq IS or SHOULD BE considered the "War on Terror". To me, the "WoT" is the ongoing careful protections of our country. KNOWING WHO IS IN OUR COUNTRY(see illegal aliens), being a big one. The Iraq War is a sad situation that lies got us into. I guess my question should have been, will the IRAQ WAR ever be over???

JudeB · 03-04-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by America first

It's because we(Americans) allow it to happen..

You are right..........I just hate feeling personally powerless to institute change. ie. I might vote for anyone other than Dubya, yet our majority voted him in office. and I am stuck with him, dangit! lol

Preacherman · 03-04-2007, 06:14 AM

No it wont be over any time soon. BTW no matter what Bush did, we still would be at war with terror. Im more affriad what will happen once the Dems take total control, and think they can apease terrorist.

indago · 03-04-2007, 08:37 AM

Journalist Anthony Lewis wrote for the New York Times 14 October 1996:

Quote:

Bill Clinton has not been called to account in this campaign for the worst aspect of his Presidency. That is his appalling record on constitutional rights.

The Clinton years have seen, among other things, a series of measures stripping the courts of their power to protect individuals from official abuse -- the power that has been the key to American freedom. There has been nothing like it since the Radical Republicans, after the Civil War, acted to keep the courts from holding the occupation of the South to constitutional standards.

The Republican Congress of the last two years initiated some of the attacks on the courts. But President Clinton did not resist them as other Presidents have. And he proposed some of the measures trampling on constitutional protections.

Much of the worst has happened this year. President Clinton sponsored a counterterrorism bill that became law with a number of repressive features in it. One had nothing to do with terrorism: a provision gutting the power of Federal courts to examine state criminal convictions, on writs of habeas corpus, to make sure there was no violation of constitutional rights.

The Senate might well have moderated the habeas corpus provision if the President had put up a fight. But be broke a promise and gave way.

The counterterrorism law also allows the Government to deport a legally admitted alien, on the ground that he is suspected of a connection to terrorism, without letting him see or challenge the evidence. And it goes back to the McCarthy period by letting the Government designate organizations as "terrorist" -- a designation that could have included Nelson Mandela's African National Congress before apartheid gave way to democracy in South Africa.

The immigration bill just passed by Congress has many sections prohibiting review by the courts of decisions by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Attorney General. Some of those provisions have drastic retroactive consequences.

For example, Congress in 1986 passed an amnesty bill that allowed many undocumented aliens to legalize their presence in this country. They had to file by a certain date, but a large number said they failed to do so because improper I.N.S. regulations discouraged them.

The Supreme Court held that those who could show they were entitled to amnesty but were put off by the I.N.S. rules could file late. Lawsuits involving thousands of people are pending. But the new immigration law throws all those cases -- and individuals -- out of court.

Another case, in the courts for years, stems from an attempt to deport a group of Palestinians. Their lawyer sued to block the deportation action; a Federal district judge, Stephen V. Wilson, a Reagan appointee, found that it was an unlawful selective proceeding against people for exercising their constitutional right of free speech. The new immigration law says the courts may not hear such cases.

The immigration law protects the I.N.S. from judicial scrutiny in a broader way. Over the years the courts have barred the service from deliberately discriminatory policies, for example the practice of disallowing virtually all asylum claims by people fleeing persecution in certain countries. The law bars all lawsuits of that kind.

Those are just a few examples of recent incursions on due process of law and other constitutional guarantees. A compelling piece by John Heilemann in this month's issue of Wired, the magazine on the social consequences of the computer revolution, concludes that Mr. Clinton's record on individual rights is "breathtaking in its awfulness." He may be, Mr. Heilemann says, "the worst civil liberties President since Richard Nixon." And even President Nixon did not leave a legacy of court-stripping statutes.

It is by no means clear that Bob Dole would do better. He supported some of the worst legislation in the Senate, as the Gingrich Republicans did in the House.

Why? The Soviet threat, which used to be the excuse for shoving the Constitution aside, is gone. Even in the worst days of the Red Scare we did not strip the courts of their protective power. Why are we legislating in panic now? Why, especially, is a lawyer President indifferent to constitutional rights and their protection by the courts?

-----------------

America first · 03-04-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preacherman

No it wont be over any time soon. BTW no matter what Bush did, we still would be at war with terror. Im more affriad what will happen once the Dems take total control, and think they can apease terrorist.

Don't worrying about that, the illegals will wipe us out way before the arabs ever get the chance..

tadpole256 · 03-14-2007, 08:39 AM

Of course the War on Terror will never be over, just as the war on drugs will never be over, that's what makes them such great profit machines. It's all about the military industrial complex. You can't fight an abstract concept with military forces. It doesn't work.

KnightOfSappho · 03-14-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Of course the War on Terror will never be over, just as the war on drugs will never be over, that's what makes them such great profit machines. It's all about the military industrial complex. You can't fight an abstract concept with military forces. It doesn't work.

DAMMIT!!!

Where's that applause gif????

tristanrobin · 03-14-2007, 01:31 PM

garysher · 03-14-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Of course the War on Terror will never be over, just as the war on drugs will never be over, that's what makes them such great profit machines. It's all about the military industrial complex. You can't fight an abstract concept with military forces. It doesn't work.

tadpole I thought you recently served in Afghanistan?

Do you oppose our involvement there?

KnightOfSappho · 03-14-2007, 01:45 PM

Thank you Tristan!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode