ABC's Raddatz baselessly claimed that national security seems "a bit of a foreign language" for Democrats
On the April 29 edition of ABC's This Week, during a roundtable discussion about the April 26 Democratic presidential candidates debate, ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz asserted: "I think when you listen to [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] on national security and when you listen to some other Democrats, as well, it does seem a bit of a foreign language. There is a learning curve there that they all have to get used to." Raddatz echoed the myth, frequently repeated by the media, that Democrats are weaker and less experienced on issues pertaining to national security and foreign policy than Republicans, despite polling showing that the public does not share that view.
During the lead-up to the 2006 midterm elections, media figures often uncritically reported on the Democrats' "image as soft on national defense" or "the idea that the Democrats are weak on national security." Even after the Democrats' victory in the midterms, the media persist in repeating this talking point, now in the context of the 2008 presidential election. For instance, on the January 10 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, asserted that the Democrats "need to prove themselves on national security." Additionally, on the April 6 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted without evidence that "Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy issues."
In fact, several polls conducted over the past year have shown Democrats with an advantage on national security and foreign policy issues:
- In a March 21-22 poll, Rasmussen Reports found that "[f]orty-six percent ... of voters trust the Democrats more on National Security while 44% prefer Republicans."
- In a March 7-11 New York Times poll, 45 percent of respondents thought that the Democratic Party was "more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq," while 32 percent said the Republican Party was more likely.
- A February 22-25 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 52 percent of respondents "trust[ed]" congressional Democrats "to do a better job handling ... [t]he U.S. campaign against terrorism" while 39 percent of respondents favored President Bush.
- An Associated Press poll conducted August 15-17, 2006, found that -- including "leaners" -- 47 percent of respondents preferred Democrats when asked, "Who do you trust to do a better job of protecting the country?" By contrast, 40 percent chose Republicans. Without "leaners," 37 percent of respondents chose Democrats and 32 percent favored Republicans.
- In a February 22-23, 2006, poll, Rasmussen Reports found that respondents had "a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent ... say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President."
From the April 29 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
[begin video clip]
FORMER GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM): If two of our cities were attacked, what would I do? I would respond militarily, aggressively.
OBAMA: The first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response.
FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): The first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY): I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.
[end video clip]
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): The post-debate spin has been dominated by that series of exchanges in the Democrats' first presidential debate on Thursday night. Here to deconstruct that buzz -- as always -- [Washington Post columnist] George Will, [Newsweek International editor and ABC News analyst] Fareed Zakaria, and Martha Raddatz.
And, George, let me start out with that series of exchanges. There was probably no big news, no game-changer over the course of the debate, but Senator Clinton's team and the other candidates have been making a lot of the fact that when Senator Obama was asked, "What would you do if Al Qaeda attacked two U.S. cities?" in his first response, he didn't say the U.S. would respond militarily. He fixed it later, but that was not his instinct. They say that was very telling.
WILL: Well, whether it's telling or not and whether it's salient or not, it goes to his problem, if he has a problem, and that is, he's young. He was a state legislator three or four years ago and the question then is: Is he comfortable with the hard decisions necessary of a president wielding military force and killing people and the question -- the Democrats presumably have a lingering problem with national security questions, although probably less so now than the Republicans have, but I think it's making a molehill out of less than a molehill.
ZAKARIA: Yeah, I think some of this is kind of the question of have you done these debates long enough and know the sound bites and the buttons you're meant to press. And after all, Obama gave a speech in which he said the United States should act militarily, unilaterally, if necessary --
STEPHANOPOULOS: And raise the defense budget.
ZAKARIA: -- and raise the defense budget. So, it doesn't seem to me that there is more here than the fact that Obama didn't do exactly what you're supposed to do in these situations, and clearly at the debate, he -- this is not his format. I think that Obama does much better in speeches. His eloquence comes through; his personality comes through; and this kind of particularly circus, you know -- there's a format where there are so many people -- it doesn't play to his strength.
RADDATZ: But he's going to have to do well in this format because he will -- may well have this format in the future. I think what you had here is a dressed rehearsal for the next debates. In the next debates, they'll all know what mistakes they made -- and there weren't a whole lot of mistakes made, that's for sure -- and how they will come back in the next debate.
I think Obama really does -- I think when you listen to him on national security and when you listen to some other Democrats as well, it does seem a bit of a foreign language. There is a learning curve there that they all have to get used to.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And I think you're exactly right. And I think that's how all the candidates treated it, as kind of a dress rehearsal, and they did try to take away a lot of lessons. George Will, I wonder if one of the lessons for the front-runners is going to have to be: Do they try to find a way to get out of these debates? And I know there's two schools of thoughts. On the one hand, you could say, "OK, they're the big dominant front-runners. They go in there, make no huge mistakes. They win." On the other hand, when they're up on a stage with six other candidates --
WILL: There's Mike Gravel.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but setting aside Mike Gravel -- who provided the comic relief -- everyone else seemed credible, seemed intelligent, seemed like they knew what they were talking about. That has to bring the front-runners down a bit.
Martha, my dear, the Democratic language of national security sounds like a foreign language only to those who believe that military force is diplomacy.
boom.
No one could have said it better.
High-five...
Thanks Deeznuts!
MMFA is misrepresenting what Raddatz said. She said, "I think when you listen to [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] on national security and when you listen to some other Democrats, as well, it does seem a bit of a foreign language. There is a learning curve there that they all have to get used to." She is clearly referring to "some Democrats" who don't have the necessary qualifications on national security and military strategy. She did not generalize; MMFA did. That being said, anybody who who thinks that Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Pelosi, or their ilk don't have step learning curve ahead of them needs to stop being partisan. Let us face facts and force some of these Democrats to brush up on their knowledge. This doesn't mean the Republicans are exempt from criticism. This Iraq misadventure is a mess. However, even this mess doesn't obscures the simple fact that some Democrats (including most of your frontrunners) haven't the faintest clue about national security. Can you think of a Pres. Kuchnich, a Pres. Obama, or a Pres. Pelosi performing adequately in a 911-like scenario? Given their records, I do have serious doubts about their competence - individually and as a group.
Typo:"step" = steep
That doesn't make any sense. It sounds like a foreign language to me. The issue that MMFA seems to take is the consistent negative portrayal the media tends to cast against Democrats and liberals, and this is another glaring example.
You're correct in the assessment that Republicans and conservatives are not extempt. Other than Keith Olberman, Air America radio and the Daily Show, what other examples can you give that any media outlet holds Republicans and conservatives under the same scrutiny?
Did George W. Bush have a complete and total grasp of national security when he took office? No, this is where a president surrounds himself with good people that can offer sound advice and alternate points of view. Bush never did that.
What foreign experience (or any other necessary experience, for that matter), did our current prez have before he was appointed to office?
Bush's pre-2000 foreign policy experience? None... zero. When he expressed interest in running for President his father, according to Bob Woodward, enlisted Suadi Prince Bandar to mentor George W. on world affairs. George W. had never even been to Europe. You would thinkthat as a rich kid with the means to travel he would have had at least some curiosity to see what Europe was like. Why do you think the big-wheel Republicans put Dick Cheney on the ticket in 2000? Bush's lack of foreign policy experience scared even them... although his boyish good-guy personna that made him electable was too attractive for them to pass up.
That is my point, really. Conservatives have so obscured the larger picture of national security that sensible people like Kucinich, Obama or Edwards sound out of step.
Liberals realize that national security encompasses more than the conservative doctrine of death. Violence begets violence.
What liberals know is that our national security has at its foundation secure ports and infrastructure. But the even larger portrait of longterm national security includes energy independence and a clean environment (green economy), a strong middle class, quality health care and education for all and reformation of our international reputation.
Edwards is right, we need to be patriotic about more than war. We need initiatives that will recast our role as nation of peacemakers. We need to battle the causes of terrorism; poverty and disease. We need to work with our international neighbors to monitor and infiltrate terror cells with the goal of bringing them to justice. That's just common sense.
So, to Martha Radditz and conservatives who believe that authority, discipline and punishment are the greatest moral values, the liberal language of mutual responsibility and faith in our system of laws does sound foreign.
A LEARNING CURVE...who established our present curve....the Babelists in this White House that is who. Security by any other name is Security. And if the Repubs think we are safer by being in Iraq because here it comes...ready..."they will follow us here", I got a tip for them...or from Tenet..they are HERE.
If the Dems are speaking a foreign language that language would English to these deaf Repubs. Don't they understand the word NO. The American people are saying NO to the Repubs and their insanity. The R's had it all but blew it to a rum-dum who can't speak English, let alone understand it...so much for an MBA from Yale.
"ABC's Raddatz baselessly claimed that national security seems "a bit of a foreign language" for Democrats"
Baselessly? Really? Even when Democrats oppose NSA Surveillance, want to weaken the Patriot Act, oppose coerced interrogation for terrorists, and want to give terrorists lawyers and the same rights as American citizens?
Oh, rino. Stop misrepresenting, make an honest argument would you?
The Republicans are the ones skirting FISA, what's wrong with getting warrants to spy on citizens, what is the Administration hiding?
The Patriot Act is a joke, it limits free speech for Pete's sake. what is a free speech zone and why is it different than any other square inch of American soil?
Coerced interrogation? That's areal sweet term for torture and yes the left opposes torture.
Lawyer's for terrorist suspects? What's wrong with the rule of law?
We simply want to apply the practices and ethics that make us America.
two for two!
You are on FIRE today, Roundhouse.
You mean like abortion on demand, adultery, perjury, obstruction of justice, selling the Lincoln bedroom for political contributions, making messes of blue dresses, etc.?
Kevin, I'll bet that if you got out and met some girls, you'd realize that torture, war ,and trashing the Constitution made you as mad as some other guy getting a hummer does now.
Just a guess.
"trashing the Constitution"
You mean trashing the Constitution as in creating new rights that aren't in the Constitution such as the "right" to get an abortion and the "right" to marry someone of the same sex?
That's a lovely straw man you've built there.
He needs a hat though.
Abortion? I find it appalling that those that want to ban abortion have no problem letting children go hungry in America (not to mention the world), or remaining silent when innocent people die in conflicts around the world. However you call it, it's terribly one-sided, and the arguement to protect the "silent innocents" is nothing more than white males trying to extert additional control over women, by limiting their decisions.
Same-sex marriage? This arguement needs to be reconstructed. We shouldn't tell religions how they should view marriage. There is no way that the religious right is going to budge on this one. However, that said, the government should make sure that the benefits that are afforded to married couples are also extended to those that choose to spend the rest of their lives with another human being. What's wrong with that?
Not all rights are spelled out in the Constitution, but they are still rights...and the Constitution does spell that out.
It would take way to long to get a warrant for every single phone call that had to be monitored. It would basically render the program useless, as they would have to wait a while to get the warrant, and would miss the entire conversation.
The Patriot Act isn't a joke. It's enabled us to gather much more intelligence and break up terrorist cells in America. It's vital for our safety and national security. It scares me that you actually oppose something so vital for our national security.
Coerced interrogation is necessary to get information from terrorists. You're not going to get information from terrorists by asking them nicely. I'd rather have a terrorist go through a little discomfort than have millions of dead Americans.
Lastly, terrorists shouldn't have the same rights as American citizens. The vast majority of them are not citizens of this country, and the ones that aren't citizens aren't afforded the protections under our Constitution.
RunawayO, you never answered me...Are the Republicans against anything illegal? I posted it before this but you went off again...waiting for your answer...Republicans=Illegalities or Republicans+legality...
I debated whether or not to even answer your idiotic post, but I guess I'll write something briefly. All of the policies that the Bush administration has put in place to keep you, I, and the rest of us from being killed are completely legal. Your post is laughable and merely left wing propaganda. The courts have not struck down any Bush administration policies. Everything they have done is completely within the law.
None of that has been put to the legal test yet.
Just wait.
At least you thought for a moment. You are coming along just fine. Keep up the hesitation(thinking) and you will find your way out of the dark. Although I believe that you just do this for fun. And my post wasn't idiotic, VERMIN can't be idiotic, just Verminese. Oh no, I hope the Feds aren't monitoring this..they may put me in Gitmo.
Rhino, don't argue the Constitution with DNutz, you are outbrained
The courts have not struck down any Bush administration policies. Everything they have done is completely within the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are of course WRONG AGAIN. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/08/17/federal-court-strikes-down-nsa-wiretapping-program/
a federal judge in Michigan has ruled, in a suit brought by the ACLU, that the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. Here is an AP story and here (via CNET) is the decision.
Amend FISA, if 72 hours is not long enough to secure a warrant extend it. We have enough technology and big brains to make survailance conform to Constitutional privacy rights. Frankly, people who so easily give away their civil liberties scare me.
The Patriot Act is a good example of civil liberty infringemnt. Again, it too can be tailored to fit within constitutional bounds. The Patriot Act is workable, but as it is now, do you want Hillary with that kind of authority over your private life? I doubt it.
Torture is torture, it is a human indignity and we are suppsed to be better than that. Torture yields faulty intelligence and it has been shown that building relationships with prisoners yields more reliable information.
And sorry, dude, the phrase all men are created equal doesn't just apply to Americans. If we love the Constittution upon which our country is seated, we must follow and be an example of its charity and strength and wisdom.
American principles work, why do you fear them?
Idiot.
You need to go back to school, little boy, and READ the Constitution of this great nation.
It doesn't say "no citizen", it doesn't say "no American.""No person"If the detainees at Guantanamo are guilty, great. Screw 'em. Gather your evidence, present it in court, and send them to prison for the rest of their lives. Let them rot, says I.
But you CAN NOT, by law, hold them indefinitely without access to counsel, evidence, or trial. Period.Sorry, but if you aren't willing to follow the Constitution, get out.
If you want to turn people into a bunch of knuckle-dragging savages, slaughtering people left and right every time you feel threatened, fine. Just do it somewhere else. My America doesn't want you.
Osama may embrace that ideology, but I do not.You and your Republican friends have chipped away another "inconvenient" chunk of the American way of life. Congratulations.
There's the door...
Obviously, you're no legal scholar.
Obviously, you're no sane poster.
Guess again, genius.
I will absolutely spank you on anything having to do with Constitutional law.
Just try me.
Obviously not if you think that foreigners are afforded protection under the UNITED STATES Constitution. Our founding fathers would be dumb founded to think that OUR constitution would be used by some to give terrorists the same rights as U.S. citizens. They assumed when they wrote it by all rational reasoning that people would realize that the AMERICAN Constitution is for AMERICANS.
Sooooo...lemme see if I've got this straight.You are interpreting the very clear phrase "no person" in the 5th Amendment to mean "no American citizen" even though it says right there, in black and white, "no person".And in the same thread, you chastise liberals for wanting to rewrite the Constitution and interpret things that aren't plainly laid out.So, basically, according to your interpretation of the 5th Amendment, the US government can go to a foreign country, kidnap foreign nationals and place them in an offshore detention center, indefinitely, with no recourse, to be tortured without ever having provided evidence of their guilt.What you have done is taken the sentence "No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and twisted it. Correct?That IS what you're saying, right?Think hard before you answer.By the way, if everything the Bush administration has done vis a vis "enemy combatant detainees" has been completely legal and above-board, as you claim...why are they being held in a foreign country, outside of our own borders? If everything is a-ok regarding how they're being treated and the circumstances of their detention, why aren't they sitting in a facility in, say...Quantico...or any federal penitentiary within the United States for that matter?Why is it that they are held just off shore, in a military facility, under supervision (and duress) by military interrogators (even though we are not at war)?Yeah. Totally legit, dude. Totally.
PS: Don't come whinin' about being called an idiot. You'll get no such political correctness from me. I tell it like I see it. You know not of what you speak, and I dismiss you utterly.
"So, basically, according to your interpretation of the 5th Amendment, the US government can go to a foreign country, kidnap foreign nationals and place them in an offshore detention center"
If we were actually in a war against a country like France for example, we would be obligated to abide by the Geneva Conventions while we had their soldiers in custody. They are a country that signed on to the Geneva Conventions, abide by it, and their soldiers wear uniforms and fight for a country. The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq wear no uniform, fight for no country, haven't signed on to the Geneva Conventions, don't abide by the Geneva Conventions, and aren't entitled to Geneva Convention protections.
The reason that we don't hold terrorists in the U.S. is because it would be unsafe. It's as simple as that. If something terrible happened and they were able to break out of prison, we would have hundreds of new terrorists roaming around in the U.S. There's no telling what they would do. Most of them live by the rule that as many Americans as possible should die, and they wouldn't hesitate to kill as many Americans as they possibly could. We need to keep these terrorists away from America.
You are just defining those held at Guantanamo as terrorists even though this has not been established. MANY of them were just turned in for bounty by warlords in Afghanistan. EITHER they are prisoners of war OR they are criminals and that needs to be established by the justice system. What is not acceptable is just to TREAT them as criminals with no evidence or SHOWING of criminal conduct. They do not become terrorists as soon as the Bush administration SAYS they are terrorists. Fighting against a foriegn occupation also does not make anyone a terrorist this is a RIGHT by international law. There are acts going on in Iraq that are terrorism and not fighting foriegn occupation but lets not blur the distinction between the two. It is ludicrous to invade a country kill their people then snivel that they are killing us back. THAT is not terrorism.
Nice try Nutz, but your opinions contrast starkly with over two centuries of US Supreme Court case law. "The people" is interpreted by the Supreme Court as US citizens. In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez the Supreme Court found that non-resident aliens on foreign soil do not have Fourth Amendment protection. Johnson v. Eisentrager stated the same in connection to the Fifth Amendment rights during war. The Rasul v. Bush decisions reasonably decided that the US courts have jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees, but it did not address the Fifth Amendment merit of the cases.
Your other incorrect assumption is that constitutional rights are applied equally within the jurisdiction of US courts. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which non-resident alien combatants are subject, certainly does not guarantee the same rights to detainees as the Constitution guarantees to civilians.
"The people" is interpreted by the Supreme Court as US citizens.
No, no...absolutely not. While "people" include citizens, the courts have found many rights to apply to non-citizens as well. While the record on extra-territorial application is mixed, non-citizens within the U.S. enjoy much of the protection of the Constitution.
In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez the Supreme Court found that non-resident aliens on foreign soil do not have Fourth Amendment protection.
True. However, the important distinction here is that the search clearly occured outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The search was carried out with consent of the foreign authority. (This shouldn't be read to broadly; the Constitution has also been found to apply to individuals outside of U.S. territory in certain circumstances.)
Johnson v. Eisentrager stated the same in connection to the Fifth Amendment rights during war.
That claim was essentially rejected in Rasul v Bush. In any event, the basis of much of Eisentrager, Ahrens v. Clark, was overturned in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky. So, reliance on Eisentrager is problematic.
And you are?
Don't know how well I can reply to you RINO. I think you might be under informed on the strageries for phone tapping. I'm pretty sure I don't know much about it, but your description is too simple for fishing with software as I believe its done today on our nations phonelines.
The Patriot Act is more about infringing our rights than being effective against international terror. International cooperation is the major key to being effective against this. There are parts of it that are useful in the struggle. I'm sure that I would have heard of any terrorist cell in america, post 9-11, that had been captured. I'd think I should be saturated with media images of the capture/trial of a real live cell. There have been sucesses some in the thank god variety. But as far as I know this was due to observant people than intelligence. You got info I don't have?
Coerced interrogation? You seem to be trying for some emotional distence from the word torture. Experts I've heard have nothing positive to say about torture. You want effective? Try sensory deprivation. You don't get that the satisfaction of hurting the bad guy. What kind of trust do you have in information gained this way? So yes I think you can get effective information by asking nicely. Last sentence there, these are the only choices you think are realistic?
Rights lost as seems appropriate. What flashes in your mind at the term moral relativism. Can't quote chapter and verse but somehow I think your last statement is wrong and that foriegnationals do have some protections under our constitution.
"It would take way to long to get a warrant for every single phone call that had to be monitored. It would basically render the program useless, as they would have to wait a while to get the warrant, and would miss the entire conversation."
-----
That's why they have 72 hours after the monitoring to get the warrant from a judge. That right-wing talking point has been debunked countless times, but that doesn't prevent the ignorant from spouting it time after time.
"The Patriot Act isn't a joke."
-----
You're right. It's a crime.
If it's a crime then how is it still legal? And why do you want to put other people's lives at risk just so you feel as if you have more "civil liberties?"
I can't believe you want to curtail the civil liberties of 300-million Americans based on a statistically infinitesimal number of deaths.
You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning...TWICE...than you do of being the victim of a terrorist attack on US soil.
But, yeah...by all means, let's do Osama's job for him and erase over 200 years of American law, government, and tradition because we're all terrified he might do it again. Let's make all 300-million of us suffer.
The invasion of Iraq was the Republicans' late-Christmas present to bin Laden. All that was missing was the tinsel and a bow.
If you support the curtailment or suspension of ANY civil rights which Americans have enjoyed for decades based on the fear that terrorists might attack us, you are bin Laden's lap dog. I hope that bone tastes good. Just make sure to sit up straight when he yells "heel!"
"I can't believe you want to curtail the civil liberties of 300-million Americans based on a statistically infinitesimal number of deaths"
So how exactly has the Patriot Act affected you personally? What civil liberties have you had to give up because of the Patriot Act?
I freakin' KNEW you would retort with that exact specious argument. An argument that has been debunked and completely destroyed by people much smarter than me (and you) dozens of times.
You have now made it very clear to everyone here that you have NO idea what civil liberties are about.
Your knuckles are bleeding, dude. Try walking upright for a change.
That a way to avoid the question. Your post made absolutely no sense. You didn't even attempt to answer a very valid question. Also, are you talking about civil liberties as in the right to keep and bear arms? Or what about the right of entrepreneurs to run their own business as they see fit? What about their right to decide whether to allow smoking in their businesses or not? Or what about the right of private property owners to be able to have control of their own land without government interference? Did you forget about those civil liberties? The fact of the matter is that conservatives are the ones who generally stand up for civil liberties, while liberals generally want to take our freedoms away. It's only when it comes to protecting ourselves against evil that liberals invoke the "civil liberties" cry. That's because liberals don't believe in evil. They believe that all human beings were born good and aren't capable of doing evil. They believe that we don't need to put policies in place to combat evil, because evil doesn't really exist. Thus, they cry out about civil liberties whenever the right tries to confront evil. The rest of the time, when there is no evil present, liberals engage in their usual big government, anti-liberty agenda.
That's because liberals don't believe in evil. They believe that all human beings were born good and aren't capable of doing evil. They believe that we don't need to put policies in place to combat evil, because evil doesn't really exist.
What an extraordinary inane comment. If you believe this, you have been so brainwashed by the Limbaugh's of this world that you are likely irretrievable. I know many liberals. ZERO think that way. I would very much like to put policies in place to shore up our cargo containers at America's ports, to protect us from the next school shooting, to enhance our military readiness rather than seeing it compromised daily by this senseless Iraq quagmire. Please try to post with intelligence opinions, not this drivel.
Okay. I might have gotten a little carried away with that. I'm sure that there are many liberals who believe that evil exists. It just seems to me as if liberals only care about "civil liberties" when we are trying to protect ourselves against evil. The rest of the time it seems as if they are trying to take away our liberties. Examples: Gun control laws, higher taxes, more business regulation, stringent environmental laws, etc. Maybe it's just a coincidence. I don't know. Maybe you can explain in to me.
Actually conservatives dont believe in freedom or liberty they believe in fascism. A statement at least as valid as liberals dont believe in evil.
It is revealing that no liberal can ever adequately pony up one substantive example of a civil liberty they have been forced to surrender as a result of the Patriot Act. They always speak of it's stripping away our rights, yet cannot detail specifics.
Putting the question to posters of this forum - and apparently only to "liberal" posters - is not a scientific survey. Unless you're just plain delusional, it's hard to miss the stories of others' right being violated. The possibility that no MMFA readers having standing preclude them from seeking to protect the rights of others.
Maybe you're too self-centered to care about the rights of others. However, you should still care for your own sake. To quote, "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?"
You still haven't explained how the Patriot Act is violating your "civil liberties." Let's face it. If you're not involved with terrorist cells in the U.S or abroad, the Patriot Act doesn't even affect you. If you're a law abiding citizen, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. You have the exact same freedoms as you had before, and you have mechanisms in place that are there to protect you from those who are seeking to kill you.
Wooosh...right over his head!
Here's a hint - that wasn't the "question" I was addressing. However, if you really are interested in educating yourself on the issues of concern, try starting with Wikipedia and it's plethora of links. Also, the ACLU has an overview of some of the issues and their actions in regard to those.
Yeah because government power is ONLY used against the bad guys. I hope you were kidding that was ludicrous. The FBI no longer needs the finding by a judge of probable cause to enter and search my house. THAT is a freedom lost.
A man for all Seasons one of my favorite movies and the best part OF that movie. What a dialogue
"It is revealing that no liberal can ever adequately pony up one substantive example of a civil liberty they have been forced to surrender as a result of the Patriot Act. They always speak of it's stripping away our rights, yet cannot detail specifics." Tommy
The designation of free speech zones, by their very nature, obviates that free speech is denied expression unless expressed in government sanctioned zones. That is a civil liberty taken from me, not surrendered.
If I am labeled an enemy combatant, I could disappear sans due process (anyone heard from Rusty Shackleford lately? ; )) That is a civil liberty taken from me, not surrendered.
If classified information is brought against me, it is not subject to judicial review. That is a civil liberty taken from me, not surrendered.
If, for whatever reason (title VII, sec. 811) our government so choses, I am labeled a domestic threat, my right to privacy is null and void. They can take any of my records, from college transcripts to consumer reports to library habits to banking files and build any case they want against me all while suspending my Habeus Corpus right. That is a civil liberty I did not surrender. It has been stolen from me.
the list goes on and on. So take your smug comments and shove them where interrogators are most likely to search first.
"If I am labeled an enemy combatant, I could disappear sans due process"
BS. The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that U.S. citizens that are suspected of terrorism are afforded the same rights as other U.S. citizens arrested for domestic crimes. The government couldn't hold you indefinetely without giving you access to a lawyer and other constitutional protections. It's only non-U.S. citizens that aren't afforded U.S. Constitutional rights.
I bet Jose Padilla would disagree.
Not to mention, that in the Patriot Act the language specifically includes 'conspirators' along with alien or foreign agents. There is no distinction between foreign or domestic conspirators. Conspirators are you and I, Rino, if the powers that be so choose. And if they do give us that label we are most definitely screwed because they really don't have to prove anything. They'll get what they want from you during interrogation. How long would you last before you confessed to whatever they want to hear?
It's a real scary document, having read it, I get nervous writing about it.
The fourth amendment says there will be no search or siezure with out a warrant and finding of probable cause. The Patriot act says WITHOUT such finding the FBI can enter my house search it and NEVER TELL ME, without a judge finding probable cause. Now I cant say that has happened to me but the RIGHT to NOT have it happen without a judge finding probable cause is GONE.
How about a real world scenario?
Say you donated money to a charity. Then it is discovered that said charity if a front for a terrorist organization.
All the donors, including you, are arrested for aiding a terrorist group and are then imprisoned without access to a lawyer and due process.
Our president has the power to do that to you, even though in your mind you've done nothing wrong.
Why do YOU want to erode our civil liberties so YOU can feel safe? Franklin said Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Thats YOU deserving neither safter nor liberty. Just how much of the bill of rights should we toss in the ashcan so YOU can feel safer? Personally I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
BUNK. Your first argument is ludicrous on the face of it. Since the warrants can be obtained up to 72hrs AFTER the taps begin the time factor isnt even relevant. It is only PARTS of the Patriot act that were being criticised and that was a bipartisan effort.
Torture is wrong. PERIOD. Reasonable and civilized people know this to be true. What good is it to save lives at the cost of our souls? There is a cost benifit ratio to everything. The cost of torturing is too high even if it DOES save some lives which is questionable at best. Many experts say it is unreliable. The COST is that we lose all moral suasion. We can never again be taken seriously when we talk about the human rights violations of OTHER countries. We can not seriously complain when OUR citizens are tortured and they WILL be tortured. If you have to torture someone to save my life, let me die, I dont want that Karma, I dont want to be part of the excuse that people use to allow American to join the evil doers club. Torture is EVIL, it is just that simple. To make excuses for it is unconcionable. If WE can torture people what right do we have to criticise OTHERS for having tortured people. They can make the same claim. They are terrorists. We are only saving lives. Suppose the Germans had tortured our POWs. They could say they have knowlege of military tactics used to kill Germans so we are RIGHT to torture them. Its soul numbing. You know there is no integrity involved in doing what is right when it is easy, when there is no risk. Only when it is hard, when there IS a risk does a good person or a good people show their integrity by continuing to do the right thing not because there is no risk not because it is easy but DESPITE the risk, despite it being hard. IF we are willing to abandon our ethical standards as soon as the going gets rough, which is what you are advocating, we are NOT a good people. THAT cost is too high. We must not torture people no matter the risk because we must not become the kind of evil we are fighting against or what are we fighting for? We must not become that kind of country. We must show we ARE a good people by BEING good people and DOING what is right, no matter the risk BECAUSE it is right and because the cost of relinquishing the right to call ourselves good people is too high.
Rino
Is that you Karl?
RinoHunter,
Yes, the Democratic Party is against anything illegal. Go ahead, your turn. Please tell me the Republicans are pro-constitution and against anything illegal. Please agree with me.
Am I getting p.o.'d by the wrong statement?
I'm more aggravated by Little Stephy calling Mike Gravel "comic relief" than I am about the usual charge of Democratic incompetence in foreign policy. I thought Gravel was the most refreshingly candid politician I have heard in decades.
The pablum spouted by the so-called frontrunners is just so much more of the tepid nonsense that we are so accustomed to hearing from all these candidates who are terrified of standing out from the herd that we don't know how to handle a genuine firebrand. This was the man who helped get rid of the draft if everyone has forgotten.
God, it felt good to be able to say YES! to something a candidate said instead of congratulating him or her on "not making any mistakes".
I've talked to several people who feel that Gravel "won," if there is such a thing. Even though he's a long-shot with nothing to lose, his frank responses were welcome. I thought Obama would serve this need, bit Gravel was far better. I hope Gravel stays in it long enough to have a positive impact.
I love reasoned debate. Having said that, I don't understand why so many bother responding to RINO and his like. It's obvious from his false premises and disingenuous comments that he just loves to yank chains. I admit it is a little boring to try to summon up outrage for yet another parroting of WH talking points as objective fact (dispite being grateful for MMA for bringing them to our attention) but if you feed the trolls, they keep coming back.
Having said that, if you don't mind - knock yourself out!
UnEasyOne, we all get sucked into it here and there, especially if they can at least post one coherent comment.
I still fall for it here and there, but usually realize if I've explained something once and it is ignored, it'll be ignored 20 times.
It is fun to watch for short periods, the ones like RINO referring to the posters who just KO'd him as "idiots".
For example, look below-- righty radio and Fox news hammered the "Defensive, not Offensive" chant all week, and the zombies actually think it's something they observed and figgered out themselves.
Look...V
Show me where in any of my posts where I've used the word "idiot." That's right. You can't. I simply come on here and bash the liberal ideology. I don't engage in personal attacks. I won't stoop to your level.
And just for the record saying that a post is "idiotic" isn't the same as saying that someone is an idiot. I've never called anyone an idiot on this site. I simply said that that particular post wasn't very well thought out.
That's stupid, simply idiotic, ridiculous in the extrememe, completely and utterly devoid of rationality. I think you're a real smart one though. Obviosly, not at all lacking in any mental measure.
that's right, you BASH the liberal ideology. You don't intelligently refute it, you don't present rational arguments against it, you BASH it.
heheh. he walked right into that one.
"I debated whether or not to even answer your idiotic post..."- RINO Hunter
If you'd like to argue that "idiotic" is not precisely "idiot", you're technically correct, but not worth taking seriously.
Sorry, I didn't see your moronic weasely backpedal from your earlier post.
See? I didn't call you a moron or weasel, just pointed out that your comments weren't very well thought out. Hey, that feels good, not engaging in personal attacks.
Raddatz is an extreme liberal and MMFA is attacking her? Incredible. She was correct about national security being a foreign language for Obama. His stance was completely defensive instead of going on the offensive against terrorism.
Care to provide some sources to back that up?
I didn't get that from any Obama stuff I've read or speeches I've seen.
Maybe we're each talking about a different Obama?
The one I'm familiar with is a tall, sorta dark-skinned guy. You know...the one that's smarter than all of the Bush administration put together. You might know him as America's next President or VP?
Don't expect any documentation. JamesBondKevin is a Talking Points Dittobot. He's only been posting here for a few days, and he's already regurgitated 17 years worth of Rush Limbaugh propaganda. He's really fond of the old Clinton stuff, like the Lincoln Bedroom. I'm sure he'll bring up Monica Lewinski or Travel Gate any minute now.
Maybe JamesBondKevin can explain what going on "offense" in the War on Turr entails, and how our being in Iraq makes us any safer from international terrorism. I have yet to see one of our resident Dittobots explain that talking point. If JBK is half as smart as he wants us to think he is, I'm sure he's up to the task.
I must say that even my 5 year old great granddaughter can identify the person who is dumb as a stick about foreign policy and it is no Democrat. For her, it is Mr. Bush. Of course they are making 5 year olds much smarter these days.
To think a Newsy would think the Democrats take the prize for not understanding National Security defies the obvious. Just look at New Orleans and imagine that was some horror perpetrated by a terrorist. Now that should give anyone a lot of pause. You know, "great job Brownie" etc. Dumb as a stick like I said.
The funny thing is, pundits put these statements out there precisely because PRIOR to the last year the GOP beat the Dems on National Security polling for years and years and years. Was it a myth then too?
My point is that the reason the Dems are ahead in the polling on National Security is not because they suddenly woke up with a brilliant new strategy. They have been put there by default due to Republican incompetence. It is the Republicans who have dropped in the public eye, not the Democrats who have raised themselves up. Of course they look better by comparison. The bar has been lowered and the Dems are now marginally above it, at least until they get control for a few years.
The truth is that neither party has an inherent advantage in the foreign policy arena. The long-perceived Republican superiority on matters of defense was a carefully cultivated myth, just like the "liberal media" and the greatness of Ronald Reagan. By totally screwing up Iraq, the Republicans have poked a hole in their own balloon. Whether the Democrats are smart enough to take advantage of Republican incompetence and hubris remains to be seen.
Not responsible! Park and lock it!
Rococo: Danger! You haven't seen the last of me!
Danger: No, but the first of you turns my stomach.
to all the constitutional authorities out there-- the issue in Roe was whether or not the government had a right. The constitution if you ever read it says all rights not provided to the federal government belong to the states or the people. Subsequent amendments from the civil war put limits on the state as well. the right to privacy while not described as the right to privacy in the constitution has always been a way to describe the set of rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. In particular the 4th amendment collection of rights referring to the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects was a enshrinement of the right to privacy as it was sometimes called in England. The idea that a fetus was a person was something the founders might have agreed with now given modern science but at the time I dont think they would have beleived in that definition back then. Therefore Roe really recognized the limits on government and was consistent with the language of the constitution given the civil war amendments. Abortion may be murder but the proper solution is an amendment to the constitution. More fundamental issues are at stake --being the proper limits on government as set forth in our constitution. those who want to do an end run around the constitution want "activists" judges who will reach certain results. the conflicting rights decided in Roe were the alleged right of the government to take away an individual right. As this right was not specifically given to the government it was correctly left to the people per the specific provisions of the constitution. I might be willing to support an amendment to the constitution to recognize the fetus as a person but do not murder the constitution as a short cut to reach a particular outcome! I find it appalling to hear people talk about the constitution with such certainty when their discussion shows they have no idea about it or what it says or how it was changed by proper amendments. America is the constitution and we should all know it much better.
Martha Raddatz is a "liberal" and says things like this. Isnt there an incongruity there? What exactly has she said on the air that supports the notion that she is liberal? Has she never said anything else that would sound conservative or reactionary? Where do these wisdoms come from? Is it foolish to accept the conventional wisdoms?
See its about grading on the curve. To kevin anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a far left liberal.
Democrats know one word about foreign policy: Surrender
Republicans have only one idea about foriegn policy to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can