Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (208103)	12/7/2001 9:58:11 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

Such a Loooonnnnggggg post <g> Re your comment: "I am saying that when our government is criticized for no reason during a time of war it is "siding with the terrorists". A - Well I guess I'd say that too, if it were for "no reason" at all, which it isn't. Re my earlier question: "Who 'besmirched' anyone?", and your answer: "When you question the motives of our leaders with no basis it "besmirches" the U.S." A - 1) I didn't question anyone's motives (possibly their wisdom, though). On second thought, it's been fairly clearly established that most authoritarians seek to increase their powers... and that American Presidents, of both parties, have rather successfully increased their powers over the generations. 2) "No basis"... well, that's in dispute. Re: "stating that our military will not give a fair trial" A - I didn't. Re my comment that: "It is certainly an appropriate criticism to say that excluding the Judiciary from trials, Congress from constitutionally mandated oversight...", and your answer: "It is not. Military tribunals make sense in a time of war and the allegation about mandated oversight is false. I view these as destructive criticism..." A - You don't allow much constructive criticism in your world, do you? Not even discussions between citizens within a democracy about how that democracy works. So what is left for political speech (the most highly protected form of speech under our system). You're not wearing a brown shirt now are you :) Furthermore, I never said that military tribunals don't make sense. I actually believe that they can be a useful tool under our present circumstances, or in many war-time situations. Hard to tell how you think you ascertained my views on this topic, when I never even mentioned it... but now that you've brought it up, I think one important thing to realize is that the RULES mentioned so far by our A.G. for these 'tribunals' appear to be quite different than those for a standard military courts martial. Perhaps the President or A.G. will clarify this (today, for example, was the first day they ever said that there could be ANY KIND of judicial review for these 'tribunal' cases), much is yet unexplained, time will tell. But imagine this: A 'trial' (show trial, anyone?) where your 'lawyer' is provided to you by the same agency that provides the prosecutor, where the government can exclude any evidence that it wants to on 'national security' grounds... without any appeal or review. Where defense evidence cannot be entered if the government objects to it's introduction, and a system where one's judges are under the direct command of the same government that is prosecuting you, and need not reach a unanimous verdict to condemm you. A trial that (perhaps) does not meet the international norms that your nation has sworn through treaties to uphold. Imagine that. Sounds a lot like a totalitarian Communist government, doesn't it? Now imagine that the US is never able to criticize Communist China, or Columbia, or Saudi Arabia, or any tin-pot dictatorship anywhere, when they hold phonied-up 'show trials' in the future... because they can always point to the one time maybe we did the same (or at least, were perceived to have). How useful would that be for America? How counter-productive to our interests? Re my statement that: "Not one of our vaunted constitutional freedoms occasioned this attack", and your response: "Again you look backwards at one event instead of forwards towards any and all possible events." A - What the heck are you saying? Are you admitting that we were not attacked because we have freedoms (even though the President said that is why we were attacked)? Or are you saying we WILL be attacked in the future because we have constitutional freedoms (and your answer is to give up some of those freedoms now so we won't be attacked anymore?) Your position sounds confusing. I repeat: "Pretty funny way to run a railroad, by shooting yourself in the same foot your enemies want to shoot you in...." As to pointng "out what freedoms are being trashed" - see my other posts. As to whether "Leahy's and Kennedy's and Feingold's criticisms" are CONSTRUCTIVE or DESTRUCTIVE, I'm not familiar with their comments or thoughts - only my own. But apparently you and I disagree on what makes America strong. I say free speech and democracy (and our constitution and free markets) is what fundamentally makes us strong. And that if we turn away from our 'most perfect union' we will only be defeating ourselves. No external enemy can truly defeat us, only we can do that.

To: Srexley who wrote (208103)	12/8/2001 10:34:24 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

I agree. But stating that our military will not give a fair trial with evidence to the contrary is not what I would call "constructive". Would you agree that destructive criticism is not good? If so, I would like to see the examples of constructive criticism regarding the "trashing" of our constitution. Again, I don't feel it has been trashed. If you can show me that it has been I will switch to your side. Indeed. Are these demolib pinheads claiming that military tribunals would be good enough for the kid next door who violates the UCMJ while in the service of our country but not for the murdering animals who executed the WTC atrocity??? JLA