<p>1of42</p>
<p>I don’t want to diminish what the Canadiens are doing in Afghanistan. They are one of the few NATO allies that are really pitching in and willing to take on dangerous missions. However, the insinuation that the US had “forgotten” Afghanistan and the implication that we were letting Canada take on the major load needed to be responded to. US deaths in Afghanistan far exceed those of Canada as does our troop strength.</p>
<p>In addition to death and taxes, we can be sure of one more thing. Give government the power to spy on civilians without providing any rationale to an independent third party, and government WILL use that power to its fullest extent in every possible context.</p>
<p>The supposed conservatives who support unchecked executive power leave me scratching my head. Why would you have so much faith in Hillary Clinton’s judgment about who she should spy on? Why would you trust her to wield this power judiciously and wisely?</p>
<p>Thanks ff.</p>
<p>While the US may not have forgotten Afghanistan in terms of contributing troops, the public almost certainly has, and that is unfortunate.</p>
<p>Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that had the US not mired itself in the war in Iraq, there is definite potential that Afghanistan could be well under control by now (given that there’s about 10 times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan). Instead, there continue to be difficulties in Afghanistan with the Taliban (though at least there public opinion is firmly with international forces), and Iraq is obviously still an enormous issue. It’s really a shame. Had Bush not tried to parlay the war on terror into a mandate for international regime change operations, I think we’d all be better off at the moment.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>100% right on.</p>
<p>“Had Bush not tried to parlay the war on terror into a mandate for international regime change operations, I think we’d all be better off at the moment.”</p>
<p>Actually, he parlayed the war on terror into the world’s largest opium crop.</p>
<h1>89.
</h1>
<p>Here in OR, we have Brandon Mayfield. The just one example:
[U.S</a>. Settles Suit Filed by Ore. Lawyer - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901179.html]U.S”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901179.html)</p>
<p>[OregonLive.com:</a> Everything Oregon](<a href=“http://www.oregonlive.com/special/terror/index.ssf?/special/terror/mayfield.html]OregonLive.com:”>http://www.oregonlive.com/special/terror/index.ssf?/special/terror/mayfield.html)</p>
<p>and he was lucky. If he hadn’t been a lawyer, and a relatively high profile person,</p>
<p>Wow, Washington’s Republican Caucus gave Ron Paul 21%.</p>
<p>I wonder if Oregon, which is even more Republican/Liberatarian/Constitutionalist will give RP even a greater number.</p>
<p>Here is what the FISA court says about its own authority in 2002 (citing a 1980 case of Truong):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t sound so unconstitutional to me. Notice the distinction that they rightfully make regarding foreign intelligence versus criminal law.</p>
<p>thisoldman,</p>
<p>All your Oregon case proves is that the law has not been relaxed to the point that the government “has unrestricted ability to monitor our activities”. First, this case had nothing to do with wiretapping or intelligence gathering. But, secondly, even if you extend the allegation to presume, as lealdragon does, that the government has been granted some power to throw people in jail without warrant or reason, this proves that it does not - otherwise he would still be in jail. </p>
<p>All this proves as there is incompetence in all branches of government and that there will always be people who are falsely charged. No big surprise there. That’s why we have the courts.</p>
<p>Gonzo vs John Ashcroft.</p>
<p>This was not an Oregon case. This was Federal, National case. Terrorism. External pressure was applied to finally get Mayfield, US citizen, Member of the Bar. released. Wiretaps and illegal searches were made, hence the $2 million negotiated settlement. </p>
<p>
I wonder how many American Citizens feel more confident in your statement??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s common knowledge. Just read the patriot act and do some searches regarding it.</p>
<p>^^^ Like I said, BS like this is spread through the left blogosphere like it is common knowledge and the drones pick it up and spread it.</p>
<p>FF,</p>
<p>Is there no BS spread through the Right blogosphere? :D</p>
<p>Eat more prunes.</p>
<p>ff, are you calling me a drone?</p>
<p>And, have you ever read the patriot act?</p>
<p>leal, post 113, I think he was referring to me, or to Gonzo and Ashcroft, depends if the start of the carrots begins with the post 113 or the one preceding. Never sure how they calculate these things, unless you ask. </p>
<p>Wrong word, ‘drone,’ does not reflect well. Try another simile.</p>
<p>“And, have you ever read the patriot act?”
Have you? If so, it should be an easy matter to point to the part that allows: “any citizen can be thrown in jail without a trial and without cause, searched without a warrant, etc.”</p>
<p>I haven’t read the Patriot Act. I count on my Congressional representatives and Senators to do so, much as I count on them to read classified national intelligence reports before voting for war and aggressive, hostile occupations. </p>
<p>(Sometimes my trust is betrayed…:rolleyes:)</p>
<p>I have not read the Patriot Act but I do know that its proponents rarely ever want to discuss the merits of the contentious issues. </p>
<p>For instance, I have not heard Bush, Cheney or a surrogate ever provide a specific explanation on TV to the American people why it was (and is) not possible to get a secret warrant from a secret and nearly always sympathetic judge before wiretapping an American citizen. Why is it necessary to provide retroactive immunity to the phone companies that co-operated with such wiretaps? Why can’t the law be written to better safeguard the rights of innocent people who are mistakenly suspected of being terrorists? </p>
<p>Instead of providing clear explanations to Americans, the administration chooses to simply repeat the demand that “Congress needs to pass this law as we have written it to allow our law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism.” </p>
<p>The not-so-subtle message is “if you don’t vote for this law you are being unpatriotic, you are on the side of the terrorists, your opponent will use this against you at the time of elections and if there is ever another terrorist attack then we will blame you”.</p>
<p>Edit: Looks like the administration is again getting its way.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Terrorist-Surveillance.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Terrorist-Surveillance.html</a></p>