Constitutional Rights are God given to ALL MANKIND

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

I'm late to the party, and so if this has been adequately retorted I apologize for the redundancy.

As far as the Patriot act goes, I think it should be strengthend not repealed. It only affects those that want to harm us. It does not infringe on ANY rights given to us under the Constitution.

One of the first uses of the Patriot Act was in Nevada. Were terrorists plotting to blow up a casino? No. Ashcroft went after pornographers with the new powers he got in the "Patriot" Act.

Remember: when a government gets power, it uses it. That's why the laws have to be written very explicitly so there aren't any unintended consequences. The "Patriot" Act was passed very quickly after 9/11. How was that possible? This legislation is supposed to prevent terrorism, right? So how could they write a piece of legislation so quickly to address this "new" problem (that the Bush administration ignored up until 11 Sept 2001)? Because they already had it written, they just needed an excuse to get it passed. They wanted these powers regardless of 9/11. 9/11 gave them the excuse.

The "Patriot" Act is for anything but patriots. It subverts what this country and the Constitution stand for.

Remember the words of your Leader, Inibig: "The Constitution is just a piece of paper."

what! it's used to go after porno?

[GaryC 7]

Quite simply, how are the 'enemy' (which is still remains shadowy and undefined) going to go about taking over the western world?

The whole situation is laughable - listening to some people talk you'd think we were at war with the Illuminati or something. These days I'm having a hard time imagining Bin Laden without a large persian cat on his knee

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

So in other words you would do nothing. You see no threat. 9/11 didn't happen. Fine plan.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They did it because the polls said it was what the people wanted.

The polls also showed that the majority of the people believed that Saddam has had involvement with the 9/11 attack on our country. Which, of course, he did not. But why did people think he did? Because that's what they were told day in and day out. All the while, the President was sitting on intelligence reports refuting the very testimony that he used to make the ficticious connection. It wasn't Congress withholding the facts, it was the President.

Oh really?

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

I got to go now. Time for bed. It's been fun.

Could you kindly point me to the quote where anyone suggested that we invade Iraq against international law, without international support and without an exit strategy? I must have missed that somehow.

Saddam was perceivced as a potential threat in the past. No doubt. But he was also contained. And none of the above quoted would have pulled the John Wayne on the world like GWB and his inept administration did getting us into the quagmire we're in.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Quite simply, how are the 'enemy' (which is still remains shadowy and undefined) going to go about taking over the western world?

The whole situation is laughable - listening to some people talk you'd think we were at war with the Illuminati or something. These days I'm having a hard time imagining Bin Laden without a large persian cat on his knee

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

So in other words you would do nothing. You see no threat. 9/11 didn't happen. Fine plan.

He won't actually admit to anything so it's pointless to debate him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

nice phrasing.....but i take it Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria don't count?

Sure - if you discount a lot of other contributing factors.

Austro-Hungaria wasn't a democracy though, at least not according to my understanding.

hence the comment on phrasing

the terrorist act did end that government though

It ended the monarchy sure - a monarchy (especially that one) being a form of tyranny and an inherently more unstable form of government than a modern liberal democracy. Apples and oranges really - divergent political systems are rather more than a 'turn of phrase'.

There are dozens of historical examples of various forms of tyranny collapsing into civil war as a result of political assassination - but next to none in which a modern democratic government has collapsed as the result of an external terrorist threat.

By themselves, foreign terrorists will never bring down the political system of a government like the United States, without that government first undermining itself and its founding values. Hence:

German Weimar Constitution prior to 1933

The above constitution was effectively destroyed by two pieces of legislation that were apparently deemed to be in the "national need".

Reichstag Fire Decree

Enabling Act

So in other words you would do nothing. You see no threat. 9/11 didn't happen. Fine plan.

"In other words' I'm questioning what this war is about, as it is increasingly unclear. If it is about preventing international terrorism (as opposed to simply islamic fundamentalism), why are we in Iraq when that country had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the elements behind it? In that context, I don't think "national security" is a reasonable excuse for old fashioned imperialist expansion.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

"In other words' I'm questioning what this war is about, as it is increasingly unclear. If it is about preventing international terrorism (as opposed to simply islamic fundamentalism), why are we in Iraq when that country had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the elements behind it? In that context, I don't think "national security" is a reasonable excuse for old fashioned imperialist expansion.

are we wanting to make iraq a colony? no? then "imperialist expansion" probably ain't the term you want here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"In other words' I'm questioning what this war is about, as it is increasingly unclear. If it is about preventing international terrorism (as opposed to simply islamic fundamentalism), why are we in Iraq when that country had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the elements behind it? In that context, I don't think "national security" is a reasonable excuse for old fashioned imperialist expansion.

are we wanting to make iraq a colony? no? then "imperialist expansion" probably ain't the term you want here.

Sure - semantically at least we should make the distinction that modern imperialism not the same as colonialism. The philosophy behind it is much the same however

Edited September 5, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

"In other words' I'm questioning what this war is about, as it is increasingly unclear. If it is about preventing international terrorism (as opposed to simply islamic fundamentalism), why are we in Iraq when that country had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the elements behind it? In that context, I don't think "national security" is a reasonable excuse for old fashioned imperialist expansion.

are we wanting to make iraq a colony? no? then "imperialist expansion" probably ain't the term you want here.

Sure - semantically at least we should make the distinction that modern imperialism not the same as colonialism. The philosophy behind it is much the same however

[Fuzzness 2]

[Henia 11]

"In other words' I'm questioning what this war is about, as it is increasingly unclear. If it is about preventing international terrorism (as opposed to simply islamic fundamentalism), why are we in Iraq when that country had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the elements behind it? In that context, I don't think "national security" is a reasonable excuse for old fashioned imperialist expansion.

are we wanting to make iraq a colony? no? then "imperialist expansion" probably ain't the term you want here.

ooo snaaaps

[clloyd 0]

I don't believe that the US Consitiution is God given, or that it applies to 'ALL MANKIND"

It is a document, written by men, which sets out the principles of governance, and is the supreme law of the United States. The part of the Constitution quoted is the first 10 amendments, collectively known as the "Bill of Rights." These were also written by men.

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

So what would you do? If you don't think the way things are being done now is right how would you do it differently? I am asking your own opinion here. How should we protect ourselves from an enemy that has publicly stated that they want to take over the western world? What would you do to fight an enemy that has declaired war on us? I really want to know.

I agree with Gary. We should definitely invade their country and kill them.....or a country that may harbor them....or a country that's spelled funny....or has resources we want....or a strategic location.

I seem to remember from history the story of someone who vowed to crush the USA. Stood there banging his shoe on a table to make his point. He's dead. His country is gone, dissolved into the republics it was before they became a union. To find out more click here.

We didn't invade. We didn't attack. We scurried around the edges. We used economic power, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy. And they fell.

Sure, we could have invaded Iraq and probably toppled the USSR a little earlier. Or it might not have made any sense at all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I agree with Gary. We should definitely invade their country and kill them.....or a country that may harbor them....or a country that's spelled funny....or has resources we want....or a strategic location.

I seem to remember from history the story of someone who vowed to crush the USA. Stood there banging his shoe on a table to make his point. He's dead. His country is gone, dissolved into the republics it was before they became a union. To find out more click here.

We didn't invade. We didn't attack. We scurried around the edges. We used economic power, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy. And they fell.

You don't say. But remember that Bush doesn't have a lot of faith in diplomatery or long term strategery.

[dani_christine 0]

The bill of rights is for Americans, not all of mankind. If other countries want to adopt it I would be all for that. As far as the Patriot act goes, I think it should be strengthend not repealed. It only affects those that want to harm us. It does not infringe on ANY rights given to us under the Constitution. I don't understand why people want to give rights to the terrorist. They don't deserve them because they are not Americans.

perfectly stated, my friend.

[clloyd 0]

The bill of rights is for Americans, not all of mankind. If other countries want to adopt it I would be all for that. As far as the Patriot act goes, I think it should be strengthend not repealed. It only affects those that want to harm us. It does not infringe on ANY rights given to us under the Constitution. I don't understand why people want to give rights to the terrorist. They don't deserve them because they are not Americans.

perfectly stated, my friend.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but I do not believe that statement is true. Those protections afforded under the Bill of Rights are not limited to only US citizens. What is being stated above is that I do not have any of those rights while in the US, and I do not beleive that is true.