That's a fine question, but I think these are somewhat separate issues. Whether or not the suspension is justified is a separate matter from whether or not it's being applied properly. Similarly, we can all agree that theft is wrong without necessarily thinking that the justice system is always going to prosecute the right person. So don't mistake my defense of the decision with the way it's applied. I'm sure it's been abused at times, and that is deeply troubling.

However, I think what you're saying actually undermines a lot of the arguments against the suspension. After all, there have been legal challenges, and detentions have been overturned. So legal recourse is not being totally abolished here, as some seem to think.

Lucky for you I'm a regular McFly, and always fall prey to goading. That said, there's always going to be something I didn't reply to unless I do this indefinitely, so if someone wants to think I was unable to answer their question and ran away as a result, well, I guess I'll have to live with them thinking that, eh?

If you think Clinton ignored the 1993 WTC bombing, then explain to me how most of the people who masterminded it are now in prison (and hey, he didn't have to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to do it!).

You can argue that Clinton didn't go far enough in responding to the embassy bombings in 1998 or the U.S. Cole bombing shortly before he left office. Of course, by then Clinton was facing impeachment and was accused of "wagging the dog" when he took any military action against terrorists.

Why should Clinton have let the demands of a demented band of Islamic radicals living in the caves of Afghanistan influence his foreign policy decisions? Isn't that the dictionary definition of letting the terrorists win?

How should the president respond to "fatwas" that say "Do this or we'll blow shit up"?

When people talk about Bush's policies creating more terrorists, they're referring to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has done wonders for terrorist recruitment efforts around the world. Nothing Clinton did or did not do in office has had anywhere close to the same level of impact.

Hey, genius, when is the end of the summer? What month? This is EXACTLY what I posted. Bush and his idiots waited TOO LONG. Get it?

No, it's not. It is only false when you attempt to twist around the reality of the situation. Everything posted by you here fits in perfectly with Bush not taking action until it was too late. You should be embarrassed for such a misleading post. Go sit in the corner for 5 minutes.

As far as the second thing you responded to - why did you attribute the quote to me when I had not written it in the first place? How is the spinning and lying going?

I try to stay away from hysterical nonsense about constitutional rape. I much prefer well reasoned concern about constitutional rape.

Make no mistake, our rights are not meant to be measured out in degree. Any infringement is a violation.

Some rights must be dealt with in absolutes. There is no degree to which we can compromise ourselves in this regard. You argue that war has fundamentally changed. And that in this altered state, we have to make certain concessions regarding our basic rights. But, as other people have mentioned, with this fundamental change in combat, occupation, and deployment has arisen the ability of a war to go on and on without end. So the compromises to our rights are no longer momentary as envisioned by the founders, but become a permanent feature. This is no acceptable, even to the slightest degree.


There's something which always warms me when I think about the degradation of rights in the country. It's something a professor told me in college. She said that the constitution, the bill of rights, grant no rights to the citizenry whatsoever. None. The rights belong to each of us from birth, and cannot be granted or removed by a document. All the bill of rights serves to do is to stop the powers that be from making laws against the exercise of the rights we will always have.

Wookie2 has presented his point of view politely and effectively. If you are incapable of doing the same, try to remember that you are not helping promote your points by being an ass. With that said:

It's naive to think that taking away their due process would end the conflict. It's about a lot more than that.

What I got from this thread is that:

1. Bush is similar (not equal) but similar to Abraham Lincoln.

2. The definition of war has changed so now we can apply those wartime laws to the new definition of war. Which, from the sounds of it, means as long as there is "an organization" on this planet who claims "terrorist" intentions against the US, or at best has to have killed an American first, we are at war.

Welcome to the new reality. This war will end after you have died of old age. You know that, right?

Did you even read what you posted? Because it doesn't contradict what I said at all, about the problem being a multiple-administration failing. It also specifically says that no one knew the time or method of the attacks, which is also at odds with some of the claims being made here.

You should be embarrassed that you're arguing with a position you clearly don't understand. Where did I dispute the idea that Bush's actions were too late? Show me. I'll wait. Nevermind, I'll save you the time: I didn't say anything of the sort.

What I did say, was that no one administration bears the blame; that the threat was ignored for a very long time, and provoked for a very long time. That's what I said, and you contradicted it with...well, something that doesn't contradict it at all.

You're right; there's no way I mixed up the usernames while replying to eight things at once. No, it's far more likely that I tried to attribute something to you for no reason, and then hoped no one would notice. Yeah.

Could you be any more paranoid?

their day is coming

Dunno if this has died a natural death, or what, but that's it for me. I can't reply to everything without quitting my job and hooking up a Diet Pepsi IV.

Thanks to the people who actually responded like people. To everyone else: best of luck with that whole learning-how-polite-people-converse thing.

wait, i have a plan to solve all of this.

lets argue with each other on a message board!!

oh...oh, wait. nevermind. continue.

George Bush's Congress does not care about black people..........

This is a bit silly. You can't blame Clinton's innaction on the pressure he was receiving from accusations of "wagging the dog" and in the same breath defend his innaction in response to pressure from terrorists. You honestly believe that the whole "wag the dog" bullshit did, or should have had, any affect on Clinton's policies?
The idea behind responding to fatwa was obviously to take preventative military measures, not to cave to demands.

Yes, Congress did and should have an effect on a President's policies.

I'm also trying to point out that Clinton's response to the growing threat of Islamic terrorism wasn't "inaction", especially since the original example given was the first WTC bombing.

What "preventative military measures" should the United States take in response to terrorist press releases?

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Obviously.

It's like you haven't even been listening.

The salient issue here, polite conversation or not, is IMO not whether or not we're at war but what it means to win or lose that war. While I would strongly disagree that we are at war by the definition of either a formal declaration or an 'nontraditional' war, let's for the moment say that we are.

It is dangerous and shortsighted for us to define the terms of war so narrowly that to 'lose' means strictly to suffer human casualties at the hands of terrorists. Obviously, any assault on Americans is a tragedy, but these are attacks on American lives; to attack America itself is to attack its institutions, its foundations, its basic principles. A terrorist attack can never threaten our basic American principles unless we let it, and we have done a regrettably proficient job of that so far.

It's not to say that there are not certain compromises and adjustments we have to make to our way of life in wartime. But certain bedrocks, like the right to petition against arbitrary state action, like the right to due process, like protection against legal limbo, are so fundamental to our constitutional Republic that to assail these rights is to assail the Republic. The war against outside enemies is effectively lost when our basic ideals are abandoned for the idea that combating our enemies makes those ideals expendable.