“Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.” – Ethan Allen

I think the Democrats/liberals should be forced to EAT those words.

And that’s all I have to say on the matter.

Of course, you’ve not really answered any of my questions – even when you’ve acknowledged any of them at all, you’ve just said things like “I hereby declare it is ‘unfair’ for you to require proof.” Again, If you can find an example of me arguing like that, do so. Otherwise, I’ll just have to assume you don’t really have any reason to hold the positions you claim to – you’ve certainly shown no interest in providing any backup for them.

You also totally misunderstand the legal framework here. There are two different legal codes, true – but the current administration hasn’t been following either of them. The Geneva Convention covers wartime activities, and as I’ve said many many many many many many times before, terrorists don’t get protection from the GC. But, first they get a hearing to determine if they are terrorists, and even the administration admits that hasn’t been done. Then there’s the code that applies to citizens of the United States, and they have rights under the Constitution that can’t be abrogated. You can convict a citizen, lawfully, but you can’t just ignore their rights.

Jose Padilla was doubtless a schmuck, and probably did have some terrorist intentions. But the way the case was handled was almost unbelievably incompetent and illegal. It’s fascinating how different the charges he was actually convicted of (eventually) were from what was initially, hysterically claimed. He’s a schmuck, but he’s also a citizen of the United States, and I take those rights very seriously. We were once willing to go nuclear to avoid secret prisons, torture, and indefinite detention. What happened?

Let me leave you with a final quote (since apparently you’re not going to actually try to discuss the issues here): “Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.” – Ethan Allen

The kind of thing this sparks: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html

High school history teacher said, “Governments exist to guarantee certain rights for its citizens, ‘citizens’ being the key word.” The US Constitution does not, and was not intended to, protect the rights of everyone all over the whole world.

That aside, perhaps you missed my post last year: I have followed Dr. Jackson’s example http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8 and also became a liberal Democrat: “…by changing my party affiliation I am now unfettered by the need to actually know what I’m talking about before I make a categorical statement. ‘Fairness’ (that is, what I define as ‘fair’), now guides my actions, rather than some archaic, abstract notion of the law, ethics, or morality. People who oppose me or call my motives into question are evil. The end justifies the means if the end is good and just, as I define those terms. What I say in this [post] is valid only insofar as it supports my present arguments; if I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it’s unfair (again, what I define as ‘unfair’) to bring up my past position, because that is no longer relevant.” … For me, perception and feeling are reality; what is true for you might not be true for me. Therefore, I feel that Kennedy, et al, are in cahoots with al-Qaeda because Democrats and liberals (a redundant term) have never been for defending this country. I can understand someone being reasonably critical of some policies some of the time, but ALL the policies EVERY time? There’s something going on that doesn’t meet the eye.

“How do you know that these are al-Qaeda conversations? What data do you have to indicate that these are al-Qaeda conversations?”

I sorta know it like Congressman Murtha “knows” all US soldiers in Iraq are rapists, murderers, and baby killers. I hereby declare it is “unfair” for you to require proof.

“This country is explicitly built on the notion that you’re not guilty just because you’re a suspect.”

That might be partially correct, but the notion, “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man” has since mutated into “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single one of them.” And this is where YOU betray the key misunderstanding in all this. Here we are, over six years into this war, and you are STILL trying to paint this struggle as a law enforcement issue. This is not (repeat, NOT) a law enforcement issue. As I indicated above it is a WAR, and running a WAR like you enforce civil law is a formula for defeat, which is what the Democrats have wanted all along.

Not to digress, but the only legal issue I see here is international law known as the Geneva Convention which allows the US actually to listen in on enemy communications without a warrant and use any information it gets for whatever it wants; it allows the US actually to shoot at whoever it perceives as enemy combatants, whether they are hiding behind non-combatants or in the open. Any non-combatant casualties caused by such action are deemed war crimes committed by the ones hiding behind non-combatants. It allows the US actually to take and hold whoever it perceives as enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, however long they might be. It allows the US actually to try in military court whoever it perceives as having committed a war crime (note: fighting out of uniform is a war crime). It also allows the US actually to require those captives convicted of war crimes to serve their sentences in addition to time spent incarcerated as enemy combatants. These are just some things all the would-be Muslim jihadists should consider before joining the fight.

The above notwithstanding, a little practical reasoning is in order. The CIA, DIA, etc., cannot possibly listen in on every phone call that transpires every day between the US and overseas, much less every phone call in the world. They have to put their relatively limited resources into areas that are likely to pay off against the WAR on Islamic terrorists, as opposed to persecuting little old Lutheran lady librarians in Wisconsin.

“My country, right or wrong, is still my COUNTRY” after all.

And those are MY truths.

This country is explicitly built on the notion that you’re not guilty just because you’re a suspect. It’s not the guilty who need the protection from unlawful searches, it’s the innocent. Maybe people really do think things are dangerous enough that we need to chuck the entire basis of our legal system. To quote H. L. Mencken, “But if that is their mood, then they had better proceed toward their aim by changing the Constitution and not by forgetting it.”

How about a compromize? Y’all can do this kind of searching, but data gathered from such searches cannot be used in any kind of prosecution, or to justify a warrant; it can only be used to stop imminent threats. If you’re planning on prosecuting anyone, you have to jump through all the usual hoops. Even that’s open to abuse, but it’s better than the current regime of “we’ll do whatever we want whenever we want.”

Just applying a little deductive reasoning. Why else would any American care about the government listening in on al-Qaeda conversations, overseas or hear for that matter?

Sedonaman, wouldn’t it be nice if you offered some actual evidence next time rather than just making unsupportable defamatory remarks about those you disagree with?

It might be part of a strategy: propose the “package” that includes something secondary to give the Democrats something to take out so they can claim a victory also. If Bush proposed only the “vital” part, Democrats would gut the main provisions of the bill.