|
BURNINGBIRD
|
|
a node at the edge
|
|
August 14, 2002
 We are not at war
This is one that all bloggers, be they peace, war, anti-war, green, blue, techno, porno, whatever, should get angry about. First up: Camps for Citizens. Ashcroft wants to create camps for US citizens that are determined to be "enemy combatants". There, people will be held indefinitely, as 'guests' of the US government without any recourse to their constitutional rights. As the LA Times writes: We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty. Who would be detained? People like Jose Padilla, who has now been determined not to be associated with al Qaeda. Lately, information is leaking out that Padilla wasn't associated with any plot to create a dirty bomb, either. However, he's still being held as an enemy combatant, without access to the rights supposedly guaranteed to all Americans. (Can't let him go--that would be admitting we made a mistake, wouldn't it?) Why all of this? It's the War, you know. What war? Why, the war on terror. News for you folks -- no war has ever been declared. There is no war. The president did not go to Congress and inform Congress that we're now in a state of war. What we have here is two stupid, paranoid, out of control men in office: one President, the other Attorney General. Hey warbloggers: these are the men you trust to lead an invasion of Iraq? Time to return to discussions about the Dishmatique and soap--I suddenly feel dirty. (Thanks to b!x for pointing out both of these pieces of Americana crap.)
Posted by Bb at August 14, 2002 09:18 PM Comments
Now this post I react completely opposite Bb. :-) Despite usually coming from different sides of the spectrum, I completely agree with you. This is totally against everything this country is. It's outrageous. But... unlike the last post where you spoke with a measure of fairness and respect for opposing points of view from your's - no easy feat when you feel as passionately as you obviously do - this post you resorted to name calling. Please, despite your understandable anger, try to refrain from calling the president 'stupid'. We'll never find that elusive agreeable middle ground so long as any side - including yours - stoops to attacking the character of the parties involved. I may think it's appropriate to go to war against Saddam and take him out of power (or again, I may not) but I always try to keep in mind that he - or at the very least those around him - have justifiable items in their own agendas. I may disagree with those items or may disagree with how they act to implement them, but (like you have said on more than one occasion) I should strive to understand why they do the things they do, to walk a mile in their shoes. Ashcroft may be one thing, but at least with Bush give the man some credit for trying to implement national security goals that most citizens agree with. Maybe his means do not justify the ends, but that doesn't make the man 'stupid'. Posted by: DD on August 14, 2002 10:46 PMWow, just replying to your last comment when I got this one. Surprising as this will be for my regular readers, I agree with you. Calling Bush 'stupid', actually reduces the credibility of my argument. I'll leave it--not edit it-- as a lesson to myself that taking down another can sometimes result in taking oneself down, instead. I don't care for President Bush and will work hard to make sure he's not re-elected, but calling him 'stupid' only reflects badly on myself. Ashcroft, on the other hand--that man scares me. Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 14, 2002 10:50 PMI agree on all counts. :-) Ashcroft scares me s***less, and you only hurt your arguments when you start to throw slams around. Thanks! Posted by: DD on August 15, 2002 06:18 AMWhen Ashcroft was governor of Missouri, no businesses were open on Sunday, due to his personal, fervent religious beliefs. Simply being that zealous is dangerous on any viewpoint, be it religion or politics. I was concerned when Ashcroft lost his bid for Missouri Senator and was consequently appointed Attorney General. Clearly, the Republican Party owed him a favor. It disturbs me that what the good people of Missouri could see the party overlooked. On another note, in class the other night, we were discussing how Congress really doesn't approve war anymore. The political situation in this country has changed in that the power to go to war pretty much rests solely with the Chief Executive. Constitutionally, nothing has changed, yet military actions such as the Persian Gulf War, Vietnam, Somalia, etc., demonstrate the power the Executive branch of our government now wields. Most military actions in the later half of the twentieth century have been started by the Commander-in-Chief dispatching troops, and later going to Congress for approval. War has not been declared since World War II. Congress "authorized the use of force" for Vietnam, Korea, other various operations. Yet, technically, we have not been at war since World War II. Why? Many factors, including it proving the inefficacy of the UN for some, the increase in power to the executive (which makes many politicians very happy), and most importantly in my opinion, public acceptance. We have blatantly accepted all of these measures with only a minor eye twitch. Every measure has received public support. Columnists have been fired for criticizing Bush in the wake of Sept. 11th. The mood in this country is vengence, pure and simple. Because of this, I try to read as much international media coverage as possible on current events. This is also an interesting read, giving insight into where modern presidents are finding loopholes: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm Post a comment
|