Stuart Taylor: Obama should carry on Bush legacy of illegal wiretaps and ‘kick’ the Left ‘in the teeth.’
Stuart Taylor: Obama should carry on Bush legacy of illegal wiretaps and ‘kick’ the Left ‘in the teeth.’
National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor offers President-elect Barack Obama some national security advice in his latest piece today:
[T]he prospect of anyone in the U.S. being inappropriately wiretapped, surveilled, or data-mined seems to stir the viscera of many Bush critics more than the prospect of thousands of people being murdered by terrorists. This despite the paucity of evidence that any innocent person anywhere has been seriously harmed in recent decades by governmental abuse of wiretapping, surveillance, or data mining.
On these and similar issues, Obama will have a choice: He can give the Left what it wants and weaken our defenses. Or he can follow the advice of his more prudent advisers, recognize that Congress, the courts, and officials including Attorney General Michael Mukasey have already moved to end the worst Bush administration abuses — and kick the hard Left gently in the teeth. I’m betting that Obama is smart and tough enough to do the latter.
Matt Ygelsias notes, “For years now the sensible center has engaged in the weird conceit that dislike of illegal violations of Americans’ constitutional liberties is some kind of odd symptom of possessing unduly vocifierous dislike of George W. Bush. But the issue, of course, extends far beyond Bush. The issue is whether or not we’re going to have meaningful limits on the power of the federal executive to conduct surveillance.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
- – Who knew Ned Flanders was a real, live person?
December 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pmFacism to keep us safe.
History’s heard that argument before….
December 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pmWhat country did this guy grow up in? Because it sure doesn’t sound like the United States of America to me.
Ending “the worst Bush administration abuses” isn’t enough. We want them ALL ended.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pmWhy do’s this guy hate the constitution.?…..Blessings
December 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pmRemember when Keith Olbermann said that Obama’s “compromise” on wiretapping immunity was a sign that he wasn’t going to cave in to the “far left”?
December 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pmManly men don’t need no Constitution to feel manly.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pmHey, it makes sense to someone who works for the National Journal. I’m sure it makes sense to people working for the National Review and World Net Daily as well.
The right wing is just whistling past the graveyard on this one. Obama has been a constitutional scholar for a long time and he has pledged to review each and every Bush executive order for constutionality. His new AG has expressed a distaste for these unconstitutional practices for a long time. I wouldn’t worry about what some schmuck from the National Journal says.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pmBadmoodman Says:
Who knew Ned Flanders was a real, live person?
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
LMAO!
Who the phuck is Stuart Taylor and is it just me but doesn’t he look like a weasel.
Bush’s legacy!?! More like Bush’s war crimes against humanity.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pmO.T, sorry..Judge sentenced O.J. to at least 6 year’s in prison….Should of been 60 year’s when one take’s into account past offence’s…..Blessings
December 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pmRight Wing pundit advice to Obama: Do what we did! See how well that worked out?
December 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pmAlejandro Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pmRemember when Keith Olbermann said that Obama’s “compromise” on wiretapping immunity was a sign that he wasn’t going to cave in to the “far left”?
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Obama shouldn’t cave in to anyone. Hopefully he will do what he believes is best for our country not for a percentage of the population on the right or left.
ooooh, another tough guy…. pfft.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pmTo be fair, a “kick in the teeth” probably doesn’t mean much to this guy. The force of the blow would mostly be deflected by his solid titanium ’stache.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pmNote to witch1 –
Please don’t use apostrophes in words that are plural . . . it makes them appear to be possessives and makes your posts confusing to read.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pmI laughed my a$$ off the other day while watching the local news and hearing that governor Pawlenty had some advice for president-elect Obama. What advice could republican yes man Timmy Pahhhlenty have for Barack Obama? How to raise taxes without calling them taxes by calling them fees, etc. Sorry Timmy Barack doesn’t need your advice and you should be more concerned about the dire shape your State is in then giving out worthless advice.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pmHAHAHAHA….IT WON’T BE THE LEFT THAT HAS TO WORRY ABOUT WIRETAPS AND SPYING
December 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pmAll Barack Hussein Obama has to do to hunt for those evil terrorists is GET A WARRANT.
All he has to do to that tame FISA court is make a case–an if there’s no time, he can do it AFTERWARDS.
There is NO operational advantage to working without a warrant. NONE. You can be EVERY BIT AS EFFECTIVE with warrants as without.
The one advantage to working without a warrant is that there’s no record of what you did. And that just protects you from the rest of the government who might not like yjat you are spying on your political opponents, or on the offices of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, or Oprah Winfrey.
The Bush Crime Cartel wanted warrantless wiretapping for one reason: so that they WOULDN’T GO TO JAIL.
GET A WARRANT.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pmTaylor, like most of his ilk, makes the unsupported leap that security and illegal wiretapping are mutually exclusive. His limited imagination can’t grasp the idea that we can have both civil liberties and any level of security, or that we can defend ourselves without violating the rule of law. Pinhead.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pmResponse to TOM…I am so very sorry…I cant spell, so shoot me…
December 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pmOhhhh.
Another tough guy projecting his desire to beat up a non human entity.
Sounds to me like someone not only didn’t get the girl of his dreams, but had his teeth kicked in by her boyfriend.
Mucking foron!
December 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
“You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”
-MALCOLM X
“The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”
-TEDDY ROOSEVELT
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-PATRICK HENRY
“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts”
-ABRAHAM LINCOLN
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
-HARRY S. TRUMAN
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”
-CLARENCE DARROW
“If we do not maintain Justice, Justice will not maintain us.”
-FRANCIS BACON
“All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.”
-ANDREW JACKSON
The words of wisdom from these men have rung true through the history of our Nation. Piss-soaked reasoning from a snivelling shithead like Stuart Taylor do nothing to advance the safety of our Country. He should go Cheney himself with a rusty rasp until bleeding and infected.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pmFunny how all these morons who were smearing Obama months ago are now trying to give him advice…
December 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pmTom,
We don’t mind the Great Lady using apostrophes wherever she pleases. It’s her thoughts that count, and they are good ones. If and when a misplaced apostrophe causes ambiguity, we’ll ask her what she meant.
You keep doing what you’re doing, Witch1. You know we love you. :)
December 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pmYes, Stuart, the prospect of having my freedom stripped away on a promise of security by people who have always resented real liberty “stirs my viscera” as you so lamely put it. What I wouldn’t give for the opportunity to kick YOU in the teeth.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pmAm just lovin’ all the wingnuts stepping up with their helpful advice to the President-elect.
And I’m certain that President Obama will give all their suggestions the time and consideration they deserve.
Zero.
PEACE
December 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pmWitch1 is a great poster here.
Her sometimes misplacement of apostrophes never defer from the post’s meanings.
She posts from the heart, a true gift.
And I second Wayne’s comment.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pmWe Love You, Witch1!
Why do these people place so little value on the First Amendment, but would yell bloody murder if there was even the slightest threat to the Second?
Can anyone imagine Stuart Taylor saying, “[T]he prospect of anyone in the U.S. having their right to bear arms abridged to even the slightest degree seems to stir the viscera of many gun nuts more than the prospect of thousands of people being murdered by people who should never have possession of firearms.”
I have a couple of observations here. First — if it was Obama advocating the use of unconstitutional wiretapping, and if whistleblowers were reporting that he was using that power to spy on political enemies instead of potential terrorists, the wingnuts would be all over him, and rightly so.
Second — Stuart Taylor doesn’t seem to be denying that abuses aren’t taking place. Instead, he’s defending the abuses because nobody has been “seriously harmed”. This is a conveniently subjective term — what constitutes “serious harm”??? And should we expect people who don’t think waterboarding constitutes torture to give us a sensible answer on that one?
And third — Taylor is going with the meme about how any criticism of warrantless wiretapping will “weaken our defenses”. It still hasn’t been satisfactorily proven that warrantless wiretapping is necessary when wiretapping with a warrant is legal and uncontroversial. Warrants, when there is a legitimate need for them, can be obtained quickly. If a wiretap must be employed immediately and there is no time for a warrant, one can still tap and then get a retroactive warrant within 24 hours. The only reason one would require the power of warrantless wiretapping is if you want to spy on somebody without any justification for a warrant. Warrants are issued to eavesdrop on terrorists, and even potential terrorists. Courts tend to err on the side of not allowing an act of terror to slip through the cracks. Warrants are not issued so damaging information can be gathered on political enemies for blackmail purposes.
Stuart Taylor has nothing of value to offer except the usual GOP fearmongering. I predict Obama will ignore him.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pmI really like this new twist from the Right in attempting to skew the Bush Administration’s legacy. “Yeah, we broke a lot of laws both Federal and international, cost the country untold heartache in the form of fallen soldiers and casually and defiantly oversaw the Nation’s financial ruin but hey, our lawyers said it was ok and anyway, we thought it was best for America”. Now they suggest that these policies should be continued because why? They worked so well? WTF?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pmI love you and your Lady back, Wayne…Thank you…
#24 Thank you for all those great quote’s and your post….Blessings all
December 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm[T]he prospect of anyone in the U.S. being inappropriately wiretapped, surveilled, or data-mined seems to stir the viscera of many Bush critics more than the prospect of thousands of people being murdered by terrorists
That would be “illegally and unconstitionally,” not “inappropriately.” And yes, apparently those of us who believe in the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution simply are “Bush-haters.” Regarding the thousands of people murdered by terrorists, more of our troops have died in both Iraq and Afghanistan than occurred on 9/11, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have died. As far as I’m concerned, the lead terrorists are the Bush administration.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pmWow! Thank’s DRxJ, now I’m blushing..Blessings
December 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI could take this punk out with one hand tied behind my back.
Fascists alway roam in groups. Individually they are weak cowards.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pmWell, I thought the first kick in the teeth on Nov. 4th would have brought the GOP delusions to a head. I suppose I was wrong and a second kick will be needed after Jan. 20th. The right is still circling the drain, claiming Obama will be their continuation of Bush. Maybe the drain is clogged. CLR, anyone?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThis despite the paucity of evidence that any innocent person anywhere has been seriously harmed in recent decades by governmental abuse of wiretapping, surveillance, or data mining.
Modification of the torture argument: no innocent (interesting, or disturbing, qualifier) person has been seriously harmed (another qualifier). We’ll be hearing more of this on this issue.
My questions to anyone who would care to defend this silly remark:
how do you determine WHAT the extent of these admitted abuses has actually been, particularly in light of applying “innocent” to those “not harmed”, and that the true extent may be untraceable?
What does innocent have to do with the matter of justice: is it not the very definition of justice that even the GUILTY AS HELL should receive the SAME treatment as the completely innocent?
Finally, the best: how do you determine what “seriously harmed” is? And how long before such ‘harm’ occurs is it relevant (for example, being on a hit list of some kind may not have an immediate effect…. but could become a problem for the person later on)?
This is a modification of the torture defense, which tries to claim that:
1) the ONLY people affected are dangerously criminal people.
and
2) As long as any effects are not “serious harm” (e.g. organ failure), then what is the big deal?
Supporters of this argument have no concept of justice, fairness, equality, or liberty. Supporters of this line of argument are psychologically dangerous people who should be tested to see if they ought to be under observation to keep them from hurting other people.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pmThat’s right.
Let’s continue to shred the American Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
There so “quaint” anyways.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pmIs it just me or do’s any one else think this guy look’s like bush’s pet walrus bolten..Humm, I wonder if they are related…..Blessings
December 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pmIf kicking people in the teeth is to become legal, can I please, please be first in line to kick Stuart Taylor in the teeth? My motives are pure and good, I can assure you….
Cheers,
December 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pmYou only eat your own when you fully come to realize they’re not one of your own, tom. I’ve learned that the hard way. Grammatical errors are easy to make and you normally realize them only after you post. No need to be condescending. Sorry, but Witch1 is no third grader in need of a lesson, she is a well spoken and polite commenter. Emphasizes the importance of dissent as outspoken commenters (Kay, etc.) are being cornered.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pmThere can be no doubt whatsoever that had Clinton or any other Democrat engaged any criminality such as the bush regime has (including if Obama does) for whatever the reason, the wingnut right would and will go ape-shit.
the wingnut right believes in nothing except an innate right limited to them, to dominate and oppress others. They will argue either side of any point, whichever suits their purpose.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pmThe right wing has gotten us to where we are. How has that been working our for us? Seems like all the illegal activity and the dismanteling of the constitution by this WH for the last eight years has not made us safer. Sorry, but there is no evidence to support any of the assertions by the lunatic element that has hijacked our beloved country.
This dweeb needs a thorough beating along with the rest of the neocons.
The revolution will not be televised!
December 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pmMany Thank’s McWars, you are one of my Blessings in your post’s..P.B. & J
December 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-PATRICK HENRY
December 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pmThank you, patriotacting. Patrick Henry would mop the floor with this little pissant.
Stuart Taylor. What can I say.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pmThe WaPo has an article on Stuart you can find from 1998-1999 about how the whole time Taylor was knocking Clinton he was hoping to work for Ken Starr. He also appeared on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer at that time and discussed the upcoming impeachment and the irony of Clinton’s Senate impeachment being presided over by Rehnquist who himslef had been accused of perjury. Taylor’s defense of Rehnquist’s perjury was that when Rehnquist lied, he was probably doing it because he felt that his otherwise exemplary conservative career shouldn’t be judged on one little, tiny episode of minority voter suppression in the 1960s. So see, it wasn’t really perjury.
Where do we get such fine hacks?
Your very welcome, W1. Simply irks my nerves with everything going on. Many blessings to you.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm.
I guess Stuart Taylor thinks that Constitutional violations are as American as apple pie or baseball, NO?
.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pmSee, I made my own error (You’re, not Your) and didn’t see until after I posted.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pmmarlow Says:
“Thank you, patriotacting. Patrick Henry would mop the floor with this little pissant.”
I’d like to take a crack at Stu myself!
December 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pmOK. I’ll vote for illegal wiretaps. As long as this guy gets HIS phones tapped first.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:44 pm.
It’s kinda long, but well worth the read.
.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pmThis despite the paucity of evidence that any innocent person anywhere has been seriously harmed in recent decades by governmental abuse of wiretapping, surveillance, or data mining.
Umm, Stewie, if the entire program is secret, and your fourth amendment rights are being violated without your knowledge, let alone consent, how in the Fack would you expect evidence to be non-paucetic?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pmThis despite the paucity of evidence that any innocent person anywhere has been seriously harmed in recent decades by governmental abuse of wiretapping, surveillance, or data mining.
Or he can follow the advice of his more prudent advisers, recognize that Congress, the courts, and officials including Attorney General Michael Mukasey have already moved to end the worst Bush administration abuses
More discredited Rovian tactics. If Obama did decide to employ the same strategy, Bozo would be the first to scream about it.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm#49 McWars, not something I would of noticed or commented on. I can’t spell, puntuate or construct sentance’s, all I care about is intent, content and what’s in someone’s heart.You have high mark’s on all three of those item’s…Blessings
December 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pmSpeaking of teeth — does the right have any left after the curb stomping Obama and the Dems delivered to them this past Nov. 4th?
Just saying . . .
December 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm“kick the Constitution of the United States of America gently in the teeth”
December 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pmWe have plenty of teeth left. Please don’t forget that 53 million also voted for Mc Cain. I’m hoping Obama starts off the way Clinton did. The House and the Senate have been showing their incompetence. Reid and Pelosi are utter failures and the American people are about to wake up again. The bailouts are going to further harm the economy, and in two years when the taxpayers see the damage, it’s republicans back in charge of the House and Senate.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pmDo citizens of other countries qualify for the rights we are granted under our constitution? And when have you been affected, personally?
December 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pmFirst they came…
December 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pmTaylor must be a member of The Federalist Society, aka, American Nazi Party.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pmmemo to this dooshbag:
a) obama is a constitutional lawyer not a power hungry failed ceo
b) those who trade in their freedoms for security dezsrve neither.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pmYeah, the loony left so enamored of the Fourth Amendment, even though conservatives know that the founding fathers really only took the Second Amendment seriously.
NILAPSTICK, in case you don’t know, American citizens have had their rights trampled by the Bush administration. José Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi among others have found themselves in the shadow system created by the Bush administration to avoid trying suspected terrorists for their crimes.
This is not a theoretical debate. Although you may find the actions of these people to be criminal or even treasonous, they deserve the same rights afforded to Timothy McVeigh, Gary Ridgway, or Ted Kaczynski.
Yes, we need to stop those who would commit terrorism. For example, it would have been great if Bush would have stopped 9/11. He let his guard down and thousands of Americans were killed on his watch. Now, he tries to whitewash that failure by making American a police state.
Here’s a hint. If they arrest you, an American citizen, and send you off to Guantanamo Bay without access to lawyers or your family for years, you don’t get to keep your guns.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pmHow many AMERICANS are Guantanamo? That you know of?
December 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pmSee the thing is NILAPSTICK you can’t really preach that shining city upon a hill bullshit unless you really believe in it. Otherwise it is just words…
December 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pmI’ll ask again: How many AMERICANS are jailed at Guantanamo?
December 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pmwould it be appropriate for a foreign nation to round up Americans and incarcerate them without due-process solely because they felt threatened by them?
December 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pmNILAPSTICK Says:
I’ll ask again: How many AMERICANS are jailed at Guantanamo?
You are a coward and a traitor to the U.S. Constitution. Just go away.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pmYou cannot honestly claim this.
The electronic voting machines visibly flip votes. Everybody knows this but Republicans and media news reporters.
We’ll never know how many people tried to vote for Obama but got flipped to McCain.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pmIf they were a threat to their national security? Yes! But they behead our citizens. We stick them in prison and give them three meals a day.
What should we do with them db? Send them home. We’ve done that. And some of them have gone back to the battlefield only to kill more of our soldiers and citizens. You don’t want Guantanamo but you don’t have any real ideas of what to do with them. Obama seems to leaning toward this as well. It doesn’t sound like he is going to do much different. He might close Guantanamo to appease you. But he will have to insure that these enemy combatants don’t go back to the battlefield. And when he does that, I want to hear the outcry from you as to why it’s ok to now.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
——————————————————————————–
NILAPSTICK Says:
I’ll ask again: How many AMERICANS are jailed at Guantanamo?
You are a coward and a traitor to the U.S. Constitution. Just go away.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I’ll ask once again: How many AMERICANS are jailed at Guantanamo? I’m only asking for a number.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pmplease insert “partner” after the word “discussion”
December 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pmThere are so many problems with this response. First. Never assume you know what you discussion know, doesn’t know or thinks. Second never make statements as if you do. Third, because some fraction of released prisoners commit new crimes hardly has ever been suggested as the basis for not releasing prisioners and those are ones that have actually had their day in court. I think you have created an image in your mind which makes it difficult for you to consider issues form varied viewpoints.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pmnow invert 73 and 72 and place a “s” at the end of the second “know”
December 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm“If they were a threat to their national security? Yes! But they behead our citizens. We stick them in prison and give them three meals a day.”
While we are playing the Sesame Street Count game…
How many AMERICAN head chop off-ers are jailed at Guantanamo?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:14 pm“It is part of the basis as to why we should not let them go.” Are you serious? Where do you get your news? If they don’t go back to the battlefield, they become heroes when they return home and raise money for the cause. And if they are in fact Jihadist, they will keep fighting. On or off the battlefield.
What did we do during WW2 with P.O.W.’s? We put them in P.O.W. prisons. Why did we do that? So they wouldn’t go back to the battlefield. We held or exchanged soldiers throughout the war. Both sides did this. And at the end of the war, all sides sent the P.O.W.’s home.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pmYou still haven’t answered my question: How many AMERICANS are prisoners at Guantanamo? I’ll answer for you.
NONE!!!
December 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pmWell than I guess it is time to tell us how many head choppers there are? Actually in the interest of leaving no child behind, why not convert that number into a percentage of the total number held there?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm“And if they are in fact Jihadist”
—-
December 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pmand if they are just regular folk that got caught up in the whole stupid shit? I am guessing they are thoroughly pissed off and ready to become Jihadists. Your very phrasing indicates that you acknowledge that they may not be what you claim them to be. Words are weird that way…
Do we have any access to to the names of all those imprisoned at Gitmo? Why stop with Gitmo? There are other places we’re holding prisoners in the world.
Frankly, it doesn’t even matter. Once we held Jose Padilla — an American citizen — for so many years, violating his Constitutional rights and driving him insane, we went against everything the United States might ever have stood for.
I guess that’s OK with un-American bedwetters like NILAPSTICK.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pmI think I heard a hint of a southern accent above.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
There are so many problems with this response. First. Never assume you know what you discussion know, doesn’t know or thinks. Second never make statements as if you do. Third, because some fraction of released prisoners commit new crimes hardly has ever been suggested as the basis for not releasing prisioners and those are ones that have actually had their day in court. I think you have created an image in your mind which makes it difficult for you to consider issues form varied viewpoints.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The more I read this, the more I am amazed. Did Nazi soldiers detained in American P.O.W. Camps get their day in court? No! They were held until the war was over. Kind of like what we are doing now. Except people like you don’t see this as a war. You look at it like Law & Order. Only Americans are afforded the liberties of the US Constitution. I do believe it’s ours.
The fact that you care more about their rights, which do not fall under our constitution, and not about our own soldiers speaks volumes. If a “fraction” of the Guantanamo prisoners go back and kills even one of our soldiers, it’s worth denying a few hundred get to go back home. When the war is over, they can all go home.
And one more thing about Guantanamo: They are treated better than prisoners throughout the U.S.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
I think I heard a hint of a southern accent above.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Damn your good.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:42 pmZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
Do we have any access to to the names of all those imprisoned at Gitmo? Why stop with Gitmo? There are other places we’re holding prisoners in the world.
———–
I’m sure your Senators on certain commitees do. And they have yet to close down Guantanamo. Two years and counting.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pmWow 82 and 83 are worse responses than 70. Here’s why.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm82 continues to suggest that the writer somehow knows what I think or feel and makes definitive statements as to my thoughts and opinions thus immediately nulifying anything the writer says as the writer is not I. 83 though is much funnier as the writer appears to think they are the one being spoken to which in this case is so not the case.
So how many head choppers? Actually since I think you don’t really want to answer that as you know why I asked. Let’s try a dfferent approach. How many heads have actually been chopped off of American citizens and how does this number compare to the number of wrongfully incarcerated without due process? Is this moral for a shining city on a hill?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pmNILAPSTICK Says:
I’m sure your Senators on certain commitees do. And they have yet to close down Guantanamo. Two years and counting.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Well, that doesn’t surprise me, since my Senators are Republican morons.
I guess the fact that none of us — not even you — has any information on whether or not there are Americans imprisoned at Gitmo makes your little “I’ll ask once again: How many AMERICANS are jailed at Guantanamo?” routine rather pathetic.
Dismissed.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:52 pmSo you can’t even name one US citizen detained at Guantanamo? But you claim there are. When you make an argument, I do believe facts need to be used to back them up. There are no US citizens imprioned at Guantanamo. It’s that easy. You just want to believe we are holding US citizens to strgnthen your argument that America should be hated by all.
Is there a cab driver from Cairo that has a brother that was involved in Jihad and got mixed up somehow because they share the same name? Maybe. But why take chances. If it takes us a year to find out if he is, I can live with that. Even make him a citizen if he’s a good man.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pmWho are you talking to?
Why take chances? Well because that is what shining cities that are about individuals and freedoms do?
December 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pmNILAPSTICK Says:
So you can’t even name one US citizen detained at Guantanamo? But you claim there are. When you make an argument, I do believe facts need to be used to back them up.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Now you’re just being tragically stupid.
YOU can’t name any of the Gitmo detainees, but you claim there are no Americans being held.
When you make an argument, do try to make it consistent.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:57 pmdbadass Says:
——————————————————————————–
Wow 82 and 83 are worse responses than 70. Here’s why.
82 continues to suggest that the writer somehow knows what I think or feel and makes definitive statements as to my thoughts and opinions thus immediately nulifying anything the writer says as the writer is not I. 83 though is much funnier as the writer appears to think they are the one being spoken to which in this case is so not the case.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I have been coming to this site for over a year now. You and I have actually debated about this before. I have been to busy to come on here in the afternoon. I do however read the post some nights. You use the same old arguments you used months ago.
It’s good to be back. I learn a lot from people who believe the way you do. Thanks! It’s time for Happy Hour.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pmPlease show evidence of our earlier debates on this topic. I will be back in about 8 hours. I am sure I have never made any claims whatsoever as to American nationals at Guantanamo so I am assume those comments were directed at someone else.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:26 pmcheers-
Is there a cab driver from Cairo that has a brother that was involved in Jihad and got mixed up somehow because they share the same name? Maybe. But why take chances. If it takes us a year to find out if he is, I can live with that. Even make him a citizen if he’s a good man.
If there’s anything left of his sanity, that is. If he’s still sane after the forced-stress positions, waterboarding, hypothermia, and isolation, let’s send him to Florida. It’s close-by, and he’ll blend right in with the mostly-Cuban-American residents, like a red ant in a black ant colony. Set him up with a job, apartment, and a monthly stipend, until he’s employable and ready to go out on his own.
No airline jobs, though.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm1) The Pentagon refused to release the names of the detainees in Gitmo until 2006, so nobody can argue with certainty about who was there and who wasn’t, especially since many were releaed without trial and with as little publicity as possible.
2) Jose Padilla was not kept in Guantanamo–but in a military brig, in solitary confinement, under all manner of deprivations. His civil rights were denied him even though he was an American citizen, picked up on American soil, and held on American soil. The Dirty Bomb charges that made screaming headlines were dropped after they had done their purpose.
3) There are no Americans listed, but there are Canadians, Australians, Belgians, and Danes in Gitmo.
4) The outrage is that the Bush Administration denied the detainees the protections awarded Prisoners of War AND criminals. If they’r POW’s, fine, you don’t have to try them, but they then have the rights of POW’s, which include visits by the Red Cross and communication with the outside–and absence of torture. If they’re spies and criminals, you can keep them locked up, but you have to charge them with a crime. There are NO other options under the Geneva Conventions, which, according to the Constitution, is the law of the land.
5) The Bushies have moved on all fronts, since they got into office, in one direction: NO ACCOUNTABILITY. Over and over again, they’ve been laying it out: immunity from prosecution for companies in Iraq. Contractors not answerable to the UCMJ. Immunity for the telecoms.
Why is it necessary for our heroic patriots to be given immunity from prosecution if they are doing such noble work? It’s kind of puzzling–unless you begin to see this as a bunch of criminals laying out an escape route after they rob the country blind and give our troops water contaminated by fecal matter.
If this is a time of war, then so be it. In time of war, there are POW camps. But in time of war war profiteers are hung from lampposts. And generals who screw up their battles get their heads put on spikes. And commanders who spend six years farting around without capturing the enemy are given swords and are expected to fall on them.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:42 pmBut of course the Republican have to be given all of the power and none of the responsibility. That’s their due.
Like H*ll it is.
NILAPSTICK, according to the current administration the countries of origin of, names of, and number of detainees at Gitmo is information that is classified, as it essential to national security. I’m sure you agree with them as you do on every other issue. Since you can state with absolute certainty that there are NO Americans being held there, you must have access to that classified information, and by so stating there are no Americans there, you have divulged classified information that is essential to national security in a public forum. As an act of treason, you therefore meet the criteria of a possible enemy combattant, and agreeing with the administration’s policies, should have no problem with being held indefinately without legal representation. Enjoy your stay and let us know how you like it. OH, that’s right, you won’t be allowed any outside correspondence. Sorry!
December 6th, 2008 at 4:35 amWhy don’t they simply advocate putting AV devices in all of our homes? Wouldn’t that really kick “the Left” in the teeth and protect us from the scurry terrorists?
December 6th, 2008 at 10:47 amDeport this cowardous idiot! Make room on the ship for those who want to agree with him. Somewhere in Russia, Somalia, or Iran will do. Obviously he feels safer with a strict authoritarian regime in charge to keep him “safe”. For the human beings of this world who want freedom protected under a constitution that was fought for by the brave men of this world, there is -and will be- the Land of the Free, America!
For those who cower along with Mr. Taylor, you have the choice; love it, or leave it! But attempt to destroy this Constitution and you face the wrath of God, and the American People. God bless the brave men and women who fight to keep this country free, and God Damn Mr. Taylor and his cowardous followers!!!
December 6th, 2008 at 10:49 amI believe that we should have a program that allows Americans to volunteer for wiretapping, surveillance, or data mining without a court warrent. Additional options would allow opting out of constitutional guarantees of habeus corpus, unreasonable search and seiszure (we could take their guns!) and, for the really stupid, torture. Then when someone like Stuart Taylor wrote something really stupid like this, we could see which constitutional and legal protections that they chose to personally give up.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:41 amI seriously doubt that this tough sounding partisan hack has the balls to empty a mousetrap. I wish my dear sweet grandmother were alive today so she could bat this Bozo around.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm