Now that we've lost the "Ashcroft is censoring us" nonsence we have a lot to agree on.
All that I am saying is that some of the things that Bush and Ashcroft have done in the post 9/11 era most certainly skirt the boundaries of constitutionality, and they are worthy of discussion.
As long as you mean that they should have their facts straight I am 100% in agreement.
There's no constitutional crisis here, and there never will be as long as we keep these people under constant scrutiny.
I never rule out that there couldn't be, but within reason from what I've read I agree with you entirely. I completely agree that we need to keep watching also and check out allogations when they arise. I hope you have found this discussion as meeting these requirements.
The mechanism by which this will be accomplished is the free and frank discussion and exchange of ideas that Ashcroft would like us to stop participating in.
Actually, I think as long as they have their facts straight that he would not mind at all.
I don't see how "stop criticizing me, you're undermining the country" can serve in any way as a "rebuttal."
I see that is where we might differ. I didn't read the words "Stop critisizing me" in anything he said. He gave a warning that I will discuss a bit further where it is appropriate, but he never said "quit", "stop", "cease" or "desist" or anything like it.
All right, I'll bite. When somebody like (for example) Bob Barr (R-GA) expresses concern about how President Bush may be taking the powers of the Executive Branch too far without the consent of the Congress, how does this "aid terrorists?"
Of course you really don't expect me to fall for this do you? Its an obvious setup. You can't even prove that this occurance *is* what Ashcroft was talking about. If you show me the relevance then maybe you'll answer your own question. Until then I do think that the essence of the question deserves a response.
I have nothing against the discussion asked for by the senator from Georgia. I do not see it as weakening the resolve of this country. I see him as someone who is responsible in how he goes about disagreeing. I see him as someone who understands what his words could do, and is very responsible with them.
If I were a terrorist, and my cell partner was arrested under immigration violations, I would welcome greately many of the exagerations and outright lies that have been lambasted at the white-house.
"Ashcroft has illegaly detained them." Well no he hasn't. It was all rather legal. But lying about it would not only knock down the government support. It may goad them into freeing my terrorist brother so we can finish our plan. Granted it is not everyones case, and in no case is illegaly detaining someone warranted on profiled suspicion. But that is simply not happening here. Ashcroft is flirting with a line, and maybe snuck across a few times. But to my satisfaction he has not passed it.
"Ashcroft is censoring me for saying he is illegaly detaining people." Well that is a lie propped up by another one. I would welcome greatly the peoples stewing emotions against their government created by such lies. I would welcome how it brings my brother one step closer to gettin g out, not becuase he is innocent, but becuase popular pressure built on lies brought him out.
I do take notice of your efforts to quelch a reasonable and valid response with a marked ad-hominem. As I recall your quote is "I'm not looking for some nebulous, namby-pamby non-answer like 'it erodes national unity.'" Unity is a major concern in war time. It gives rise for sabateurs and traitors which are arguable the most damaging thing that can happen in an army. The Senator from Georgia knows this already. I wish more people on k5 did. For a crash course in such doctine I suggest they watch "Death by Pizza."
Now let me be very specific and clear about this. I am for voicing dissent, and to some measure even in war time. I do not tolerate insidious propaganda lies and half-truths generated by people within our nation that weaken our fabric in a time of need. There is no use for them. There is no reason to protect the efforts of those exposing their discredit by claiming censorship.
[ Parent ]