Europeans really haven't been voting in American elections as much as you might expect. Go figure.

Yes, just what ARE they thinking. The far-leftists want to give foreign terrorists civil liberties and rights, while the far-right can't wait to take more of them away from the Citizens of America. What the hell is happening in my country? It's turning into the freaking Twilight Zone REAL quick!

" while the far-right can't wait to take more of them away from the Citizens of America"

1) Which rights? Please list.

2) When a terrorist blows up NYC and kills 3 million people, what will you say about the rights of those murdered?

Seriously, GTL. Enumerate the rights you've lost.

*crickets chirping*

ace,
While those crickets continue to chirp, let me just say that your update to this post just ripped folks like vonKreedon a gaping new asshole. Good show.

Ace... your logic is astounding sometimes. It's amazing to think that if the lefties would just sit down and LOOK at the 2 + 2 problem in front of the country, that, in time (more for some than others), they would come up with 4.

Uh, some people are devoid of the ability to digest logic.

Ace, this is a real keeper. I hope it gets linked a zillion times.

Another question perhaps worth asking: how have our enemies been treating the American and allied prisoners they've taken on the battlefield?

*chirp chirp*

Ya, that's what I thought.

I think somebody mentioned it here a few days ago, but I'll just reiterate:

After WWII, when we were cleaning up the German mess, we'd find German soldiers who didn't wear uniforms and tried to blend into the population. That made them "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva Convention. Guess what we did with them?

Lined 'em up against a wall; shot 'em in the head.

Taped the whole thing.

Showed it to the cheering crowds back home. Hell, showed it to the cheering *Germans*, who realized that the selfish acts of these army cowards was endangering them, the real civilians, as much as anybody else.

So if nothing else, the screeching moonbats can be assured that for the captured terrorists, it could be worse. Of course, if they weren't provided with "culturally sensitive meals" or flush toilets or air conditioning, that would be worse too, but you know what I mean.

Excellent post Ace!

Enumerate the rights you've lost.

*raising hand*

Ooo, pick me, pick me!

The Patriot Act! That, like, took away my right to keep strange men out of my underwear drawer while I'm on vacation should they believe I'm harboring terrorists in there. They don't even need a warrant, either.

It's AMAZING how the Right got so many Democrats to vote for it, too.

Later,
bbeck

Seriously Ace, you guys aren't going to try and tell me the USA Patriot Act and the RealID Act of 2005 aren't attacks on our civil rights, are you? What about the States' rights under the medical marijuana ruling by the SCOTUS? What about the FEC's assault upon our 1st Amendment? Have you heard about HR 1528?

There's a really creepy trend going on right now, under THIS, GOP-owned Government, sir, and it's not empowering the rights of individual American Citizens OR the States in which they reside.

And to whomever asked this one:

"When a terrorist blows up NYC and kills 3 million people, what will you say about the rights of those murdered?"

I would say it is better to live 30 years as a FREE American than it is to live 80 years under a tyranny. Is that plain enough?

Ace, you know how I feel about you.

That's right, I think you're kind of a jerk.
But this post makes me think I may be wrong.
Totally. Awesome.

Is that plain enough?

Yeah. You're fckn nuts. Check.

You know what chaps my hide the most about this whole prisoner abuse issue? In the Army, run by the Special Forces, we have what is called SERE school (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape). It's designed to train soldiers and pilots on what to do if caught behind enemy lines and possibly captured. In this school, students are subjected to the absolute worst treatment the military has to offer. They make it as close to being in a POW camp as possible. Deprived of food, sleep, shelter, sometimes beaten, many of these soldiers come to actually believe that they are POW's by the time the class is over.

Every soldier who has been through this course has been treated far worse than anything reported at GitMo. Yet, every soldier that comes out of this course says that it is by far some of the best training they have received in their military career.

My point is this: If we can do it to our own men for training purposes, why the hell can't we treat actual prisoners of war this way?

Thanks for the post, Ace. People desperately need to stop whining.

If the Patriot Act is an "assault" on civil liberties, then so is RICO.

You know, mostly I think it's the name "Patriot Act" that drives them batshit crazy. It's just so in your face.

Damn right Dave in texas. Most of the complaining about the Patriot Act is hyperbole and misconceptions. How many real complaints have there been about it? If something truly atrocious had happened, it owuld be all over the front page. Even the "libraries and bookstores" thing is misrepresented:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010747.php

As for Gitmo, how about we just toss the prisoners into the general population of a maximum-security prison. They'd last about five minutes. Seriously, these combatants are being treated probably better than any opposing force in history, for non-uniformed insurgents that freely attack civilians. People need some perspective. Good post.

Dave:

"If the Patriot Act is an "assault" on civil liberties, then so is RICO"

BINGO!!!

Anon:

"Is that plain enough?

Yeah. You're fckn nuts. Check."

It's alright. I've got your back while you abuse, and cheapen your own civil liberties and make a stupid comment to suggest you'd rather live 80 years under a tyranny than 30 years in freedom.

L8r...

brak:

"Most of the complaining about the Patriot Act is hyperbole and misconceptions. How many real complaints have there been about it?"

Let me ask you something, brak. YOUR trusted, right-wing Government is in full control right now. Let's take a look at a common enemy of ours: the far-left, communist, hate-America FIRST loonies disguising themselves as "Democrats" these days.

Now ask yourself how good you'd feel about your precious Patriot Act and your precious RealID (*required national ID card with an RFID TRACKING DEVICE IN IT!).... in the hands of THOSE bastards! Still like those little "necessary tools"???

I didn't THINK so, sir.

I would still support the Patriot Act, and the Real Id act is the first real move I've seen lately to curb illegal immigartion. It is about regulating driver's licenses, not tracking devices. I don't buy into the black helicopter stuff.

Gun-Toting Liberal,

If the right wing government is supposedly in "full control" as you stated, then why do they have so many problems passing legislation? Why are they having a hard time with social security reform, if they have so much power?

I remember seeing a post Ace did a long, long time ago. Back around the election, I believe, when he still thought blogging was fun. The gist of it was that a fair number of people on the left treat the United States the way an abusive boyfriend treats his significant other: taking any kindnesses for granted, harshly critical of any and all mistakes, publicly humiliating the girl and acting like he’s ashamed to be seen with her. But not because he hates the girl. “It’s because I love you, honey. I love you so much, it drives me crazy when you waste your potential like this.”

Actually, of course, this guy would be just a selfish, infantile asshole. But the more I think about it, the more I thinkAce has resolved the mystery of the Left’s patriotism. Very, very few people on the left really hate the United States, and most of them sincerely believe they love their country. But their “love” is so screwed up that it simply isn’t worth the time or effort to debate the issue with them.

Of course, this raises the larger question of exactly what we’ve been doing for the last several decades to produce such a bumper crop of these twisted little wankers, but these mysteries can be solved one step at a time.

For Gun-Toting Liberal, I have a proposal that should make your head explode.

I propose a Constitutional amendment that abolishes the exlusionary rule of evidence. I'll even agree to scale back the Patriot Act a bit, in exchange for this new rule.

If the government conducts an illegal search, but that search produces incriminating evidence, the evidence should be admitted anyway. Society should not be forced to suffer the presence of criminals merely because the means of obtaining the evidence against him was somehow improper.

If the defendant is found guilty, then his complaint about the illegal search is forever barred. No guilty person should be heard to complain about the means by which the evidence proving that very guilt was obtained.

If the defendant is not found guilty (or is not charged, charges dropeed, etc.), then, as a free man, he may pursue a civil claim against the government for having endured the illegal search. Pay him the appropriate damages.

As it stands, the rule is exactly backwards -- in cases of illegal searches, the guilty get the benefit of excluded evidence and often go free when they should not, whereas the innocent get no remedy at all.

What do you say?

GTL: I don't need my back protected by some whackjob.

brak: "black helicopter stuff"???

Go here to learn more about the tracking devices in RealID (warning: it's actually the Government tattling on itself):

http://news.com.com/Federal+report+warns+of+RFID+misuses/2100-7342_3-5723535.html

How about SCREW RealID and plug our fucking borders and we support President Bush's guest worker program? Shall we give that a try before we torch the Constitution?

Soldier: because Conservatism is proving its disorganization and inability to sell itself, even when it is in the majority.

Phinn, I see your point, and yes, I do agree it's a travesty when criminals get off on technicalities such as those. However; I cannot agree, simply because I have very little trust of the Government. I would never put it past them to pull a "Mark Furman" just because they are "convinced" you MUST be a criminal.

Nope, sorry; can't do it. But i applaud you for discussing and debating the issue.

Gun-Toting Liberal "because Conservatism is proving its disorganization and inability to sell itself, even when it is in the majority."

You are contridicting yourself. Earlier you said that the right wing government is in total control, now you are saying they are too disorganized to be in control... Which is it?

Can we stop with the hyperventilating about the Patriot Act for 30 seconds, for chrissakes? People act as though it allows legions of black clad federal agents to sit outside people's windows with tape recorders. The primary purpose of the Patriot Act is to allow the same type of wire tapping and surveillance authority that was used against organized crime and espionage rings and apply it to terrorist groups. It does-in some instances-make obtaining search warrants easier, but it does not mean feds can go and grab search and seizure warrants from the branches of the office Gestapo tree. A search warrant of any type must be based on probable cause, which has to articulated in an affidavit. That document then must be submitted through a District or US Attorney, who must then bring it before a judge. It's not some cowboy operation so the government can arbitrarily search through your trash. Most cops are neck deep in REAL criminals and don't give a blue fuck if you checked out "The Anarchist's Cookbook" when you were stoned in college. Down a quick shot of perspective, people.

GTL:

The peities about "torching the Constitution" would be a lot less laughable if your ideological confreres hadn't pretty much reduced the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as significant parts of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, to dead letters.

Just sayin'.

GTL

tyr·an·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).

4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Tell me again about death vs. Tyranny. Have more faith in your fellow Americans, what we are enduring now is along the lines of what our forebearers lived underduring the administrations of FDR and Lincoln. In fact, the civil rights loss is less and the personal sacrifice is far lower.

US Soldier: petty semantics, that's all. If they're such great ideas, and since you OWN the Presidency, the House, The Senate, and the majority of Governorships, then they'd be passed, wouldn't they? You hang yourself up on semantics, and I'll stick with common sense.

UGA:

"The primary purpose of the Patriot Act is to allow the same type of wire tapping and surveillance authority that was used against organized crime and espionage rings and apply it to terrorist groups."

If that were so, I'd be aigh't with it. If that is the PRIMARY purpose of the P/A, then let's burn the USA P/A and then submit a common sense wire-tapping law. You're right. We'd ALL jump on board with that one. I'd be the FIRST to call my Republican Senator and urge him to sign it.

"That document then must be submitted through a District or US Attorney, who must then bring it before a judge."

You forgot to add, a "judge in a SECRET court", or tribunal, whatever you want to call it, with ZERO legal representation for yourself. But do NOT forget that all-important word, "secret". It IS a part of the Act.

Brett: You bring up great points, and I agree. Problem is, that doesn't excuse YOUR party for trashing the few civil liberties we have left, and y'all ARE on quite a roll these days. Why do you guys want to stop there? Why don't you all just go ahead and jump on the FEC bandwagon and while you're at it, join the far-left in their effort to steal our handguns?

Defense Guy:

Yes, I *do* know the definition of "tryanny". If you think it's so far-fetched, then you don't know a THING about THIS, do you:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

It's a proposal to repeal the 22nd Amendment (term limits on the Presidency), just in case you didn't know about it. HJ RES 24. Oh, and yannow what? It's expected to PASS by many experts. If y'all don't like the idea of saying "King Bush", or "King Clinton", then you'd better wake the fuck UP before it's too fucking LATE..

Ya know, all these left-wing fear-mongers still haven't answered the most basic question of "what liberties have you personally lost", because none of them have, or will. Even President Chimphitler's executive branch of the gov't (the branch that is responsible for enforcing the laws) finds the moonbats too stupid to be a threat. I'm beginning to think that every time they see a black Suburban with smoked windows, they wet themselves right before eating thier stash (Unless they are in L.A., where they check for spinners first). I don't remember reading about any ELF organizer being sent to prison due to the Patriot Act. But if they ever do, then maybe they can share a cell with the next generation of Posse Comatatus or some of the fine folks from the Aryan Nation. Or perhaps they'd feel safer in Gitmo?

brak, agreed. Leaving the border issues unaddressed, and putting the same damn security screeners we had before working for airlines in nice white and blue TSA uniforms is not serious.

GTL, not trying to pour kerosene on a fire, except to point out that I haven't heard this volume of angst directed at RICO so I'm sure you'll understand my skepticism from others who criticize the act...

I've read it.. I don't remember "secret" judges. Can you point me to that please?

GTL:

Classic diversion. I accuse you of contridicting yourself and your reply is "petty semantics".

That doesn't change the fact that you are claiming one thing and giving evidence for another.

As others have stated, exactly what liberties have been taken from you?

Dave, I've been bitching about RICO since it was but a pimple on a Fed's ass.

US Soldier, Ace, and others who've asked for specifics on civil liberties up for potential violation under the USA Patriot Act:

THIS Government reserves the "right" to monitor my reading habits at libraries - a CLEAR violation to my right to privacy.

THIS Government reserves the "right" to toss my checks and balances into the garbage.

THIS Government reserves the "right" to access my medical records without a warrant, without my consent, without being actually accused of a crime.

THIS Government reserves the "right" to break into MY home and conduct secret searches without telling me about it, without my consent, and without actually being accused of a crime.

Frankly, I'm tired of typing, and the fact that THIS Government has not yet (as far as we know) abused those "rights" under the P/A, that's not GOOD enough. I *loosely* trust President Bush NOT to allow this to happen. But while you all are having such a love-fest with the President, you are also looking the other way and trusting your "pure capitilism" and "pure conservatism" will endure.

Well GUESS WHAT - you have your heads in the sand if you truly believe you now have a monopoly on controlling the Patriot Act, RealID, and all these other bastardous infringements upon our American way of life. The American People are seeing first hand what happens when you let the fundies control just about every aspect of the Government, and you are demonstrating it first hand, right here, right now.

Dave: What? You don't know about the "secret judges"? Where the hell are YOU when they've got your number and the judge is hearing the Feds levelling accusations against you while you have absolutely NO representation? You might not even be in freaking TOWN. If that doesn't meet your definition of "secret", what will?

Excellent post. Thank you for reminding me of the fundamental rules of war. I agree, now that we've gotten most of whatever intelligence we can get out of the Gitmo detainees, let's grant them official POW status (even though they fail every Geneva qualification). Why? So, as you say, they can be held WITHOUT TRIAL until the end of hostilities.

And when leftist wackos whine that hostilities will never end, offer to hold peace talks in Paris with representatives of the enemy, whenever they are ready to negotiate.

If I may comment on the original post, I think a large part of the left's problem with the way prisoners in the WOT are being treated comes from an obsolete definition of "soldier."

I think the whole point of POW rules actually comes from a liberal, humane idea - that the foot soldiers of an army are conscripts or innocent dupes, innocent of the crimes of the warmakers. Therefore, when they are captured, it is both humane and safe to warehouse them until the end of hostilities, when they will gladly return to their farms/factories/artists' colonies and make war no more. The base idea is that only the politicians and generals have a beef with each other - everyone else is being taken along for a ride.

This is mainifestly not the case in the WOT. Not only is there no conscription on either side - there are barely enemy politicians or generals. Enemy soldiers must seek out and pay their own way to the battlefield, and if released most have no desire to return peacefully to their homes.

Eric J,

An excellent point, and thanks for bringing it back to the original topic.

This kind of goes along with a major beef that I have with the left: They treat us (military) as if we had no say in the matter, like we are pawns that were forced into service and are too ignorant to think for ourselves. This is obviously not true, and (a point made clearly by you) neither is it true for the enemy. The members of al Qaeda are not "forced" into service. They are there on their own accord, and because of their own beliefs. They should be treated as such.

Chuckle chuckle... all the rightist tripe I see here. Commenting would be a fun but utterly a waste. I doubt it would even hit a brain cell in here no matter how logical the argument. Still, better safe than sorry.

TO ALL RIGHT WINGERS: Have you ever heard of a little thing called BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY? Why should we allow a law like the Patriot Act to put us at risk of losing civil liberties simply to fight terrorists? First of all, if we even remotely give up our rights, then the bloody terrorists have accomplished their mission in the first place. Second of all, if we allow the law to stay simply because American rights have not YET been abused, what's to stop someone from doing it in future? Pay heed. Most Western dictators come to power through Democratic means. HITLER, STALIN, MUSSOLINI, ARIEL SHARON... need I name more? Because you don't KNOW what the future holds, how can you decide that we are safe if we risk a few rights to ensure that terrorists don't get us now?

Go ahead guys... unleash your right-winger tripe responses. I am certain nothing I said will even ring a little bell anywhere in this crowd but always remember that truth is reality even if you don't let yourself be open to it.

Nice post, ACE.

I did find it original - how exactly does what the Left and the black helicopter libertarians proposes treat unlawful combatants BETTER than lawful uniformed combatants caught in uniform?

1. The idea we must let them go soon because an undeclared war fought assymetrically will last longer than a war fought with combatants in uniform facing each other in defined territory with defined lines of battle..

2. The idea that unlike lawful POWs, unlawful combatants deserve criminal civilian trials with discovery phases, divorced from the military sphere they are held in to determine guilt or innocence.

3. The unlawful combatants, unlike POWs whose care is entirely prescribed by Geneva Rules, also get Geneva, but their rights should be even greater and unlike POWs, be given full protection of the US Constitution and all precious civil liberties unless criminally convicted in a civilian court.

4. Geneva says POWs are to be treated as well as soldiers in the other sides army in terms of living conditions, food rations. With the unlawful combatants, liberals have said that food far better than what our soldiers get, living conditions better than the average soldier in the field gets ----still is not "good enough".

5. Lefties and civil libertarians refuse to say what is to be done about the further danger unlawful combatants place civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq in....other than the US soldier must be very, very careful not to shoot "an innocent man".

I take the long view. In another post I said what the Left and Constitution-obsessed libertarian Right is doing is going way out on a limb with this, and I welcome it. Because I believe the Islamoids will do massive bloodshed here again or will set off a nuke or biowar against infidels here or abroad one day. When that happens, the limb gets sawed off by the public and those way out there meet their fate..

I do blame Bush for doing his utmost to convince Americans that we are really not in a major war, that no sacrifice is expected at all of the average American. If he had said after 9/11 that we were in a war that threatened millions, that we needed to divert some tax cuts into defense, rapidly go to an energy independence policy, control the Borders, and was looking for volunteers to do certain jobs to bolster Homeland Security - he would have got people to believe there was a serious ongoing threat.

Instead, he said "Travel, shop, enjoy your tax cuts, do something nice for a neighbor". How Churchillian!

As the years have gone by without another attack, many Americans can't be blamed for thinking they are so safe under Maximum Protector Bush that the only remaining matters are to find the people who committed the Last Terror Attack Ever on America and give them due process in criminal court, and secondly, to focus on precious civil liberties of unlawful combatants and radical Islamists as being more important than national security..

US Soldier, I'd be buying your beers for you and accolading you for your "service", honestly, I would. Only thing standing in the way is the fact that I am ALSO a member of the US Military and I'm liberal as FUCK, and it's too close to payday..

And you KNOW there are plenty of us "libs" in the military as well. We are just underreprestented in the bloggosphere, and for GOOD REASON, I might add, with out limited 1st Amendment rights under the UCMJ.

I'm just trying to set the record straight here. Again, as YOU WELL KNOW, there are plenty of Liberals in the Military, and we're pretty quick on the trigger against this Nation's enemies. PLEASE rise above the fray and admit that. Don't toss your Liberal brothers and sisters under the tracks of the enemy tanks simply because we have a different theory on the distribution of this nation's wealth. I KNOW you're much better than that.

You fucking know FIRST HAND that the Military is a melting pot; a cross-section of America. And you also know full well that the liberals in the Military widely hold the same ideals I do. We're here, shoulder to shoulder with you, in Gitmo, Iraq, and wherever else; left, right, it don't matter. Americans FIRST.

Back to our regularly programmed scheduling....

Joseph, high five bro. I've gotta get back to work (14 hr days). I needed somebody to take care of the light work. Passing the torch to ya, my brother....

Well, actually, I meant the relevant part of the Act that allows for that.

I don't understand the difference you are making between judges authorizing the wiretaps and stuff whether or not I am present or represented. They don't call for legal counsel for the person under investigation for a wiretap outside of RICO or PA... why is it an issue with RICO or PA? Put differently, under standard investigative procedure (not RICO, not PA) evidence is presented to a a judge that I should be tapped. Judge does not say "go get him a lawyer", he says "ok" or "no".

Now you all know that I don't usually entertain trolls.
BUT:

"Most Western dictators come to power through Democratic means. HITLER, ..."

DISCREDITED
Right there.
Your commie college professor didn't do you any favors. Go read a history book, you ignoramus.

USSoldier
"...Deprived of food, sleep, shelter, sometimes beaten, many of these soldiers come to actually believe that they are POW's by the time the class is over...."

Amen to that. My experience in this training (25 years ago) was to ask myself: "Just who the fuck are these guys?" I mean they were obviously Americans, and it was said that some came from some alphabet non-military government agency, but they could sure do a mean imitation of what I'd expect out of the Soviets (the threat when I was in).

The treatment our prisoners in Gitmo are receiving is more than fair. As suggested above, we are well within the Geneva Accords to shoot any one of the bastards. We'll release them when we win. We'll win when we say we've won. And once we've won, they'll like us.

I confess I don't know why this is such a mystery.

Yeah, lauraw. It's also funny that this jagoff thinks that Stalin came to power through "Democratic means." As they used to say, "It is to laff."

Also, lumping Ariel Sharon in with dictators like Hitler and Stalin? Mmmmmmm! Just taste that 100% pure moonbattery!

Oh, and GTL, people might take you a little more seriously if you weren't dishing out high fives to douchebags like Joseph, even if he is your "bro."

Mmmmmmm! Just taste that 100% pure moonbattery

You can spread it on waffles, but it tastes like shit.

GTL, you write:

Problem is, that doesn't excuse YOUR party for trashing the few civil liberties we have left, and y'all ARE on quite a roll these days.

Obviously you have mistaken me for a Republican. I'm not. I'm simply suggesting that you try removing the beam from your own eye before you go all monkeyshit here.

Brett, glad you're not drinking the kool-aid. Didn't come in here just to start shit; as you know, this attitude got started in another, earlier thread. But I just can't relate to people who think our civil liberties are to be doled out at the Government's discretion in times of war, and as you can see, it really pisses me off.

When are we NOT at war, with their war on drugs, war on terror, war on porn, (FEC) war on bloggers? This Government will find a way to make certain we're always conducting "war" on some evil "adversary", normally picked by some oh-so-very "moral" person.

To lauraw:

YOU need to go read a history book. Hitler and his party followed Germany's democratically elected governmental system to rise to power. They competed in elections with other parties for years. It was not until through the use of propaganda and taking advantage of events by politicizing them (can anyone say Schiavo) that they gained enough votes to become powerful. When they became the controlling party they began forcing legislation through that suited their agenda. Then, when they thought the time had come, they made Hitler Chancellor for life more or less. That is how he came to power, through Democratic and legitimate means and with the people's support. YOU should try reading history books sometime. Dictator's don't have to goose step and wear military uniforms guys. They can appear on national television on the weekend bashing their political opponents in tv specials. They can appear in town hall meetings where nobody but hand-picked supporters are allowed. They can come in any guise.

To Sean M: Stalin DID come to power through Democratic means. Communism is a mockery, a shadow copy of Democracy. There are mock elections and everything but it all happens with the consent of the people. The people of Russia CONSENTED for the revolution to happen. They CONSENTED to vote for the Communist Party and thus the Communist Party, of which Stalin was a key player from day one, picked Stalin. The Communists, like the Fascists, played the politics game with people's minds and tricked them into supporting them by making them afraid of everyone else and telling them that the only way to be safe was to do what they were told. Sounds like a certain party in America today represented by an elephant doesn't it? Stalin DID come to power through democratic means guys, even though you are tryign to ignore that fact. Do you guys EVER read history books or is it Rove Rove Spin Spin all the time?

Stalin DID come to power through Democratic means.

This after telling someone else to read a history book.

You're a complete buffoon.

Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't library records be public?

I can go to the county tax office and find out who owns a piece of property and whether the taxes have been paid on it, why shouldn't I be able to go into the library and find out who has been checking out a particular book? After all, my tax dollars pay for the books, the library building, the librarian, and the record keeping system--don't I have a right to know by whom and how that money is being used?

Why haven't we executed the terrorists we have finished interrogating? Could be Bush doesn't think that's morally appropriate, but it's also possible we're being tactical. If the jihadis know we execute captives, they have less incentive to surrender. And from what I hear of the Arab way of war, surrendering or switching sides when you're clearly outmatched is considered normal. Al Qada must have to work hard against that tendency; no point in helping them.

I will not toast idly by and have my good name treated like some stinking copy of the Koran--especially by someone else named Joseph.

It's true to some it may seem like I came to power through democratic means, but that's because they don't know about those punch card ballots in Vladivostok and Diebold counting machines in Kharkov.

The important thing to note is Joseph says "Democratic means" with a capital "D." He's not talking about democracy (little "d"). He's talking about the Democratic way his party does things in Chicago, Philly, places like that.

It's a pretty broad definition of "Democratic means." It even encompasses homilies like my "no person, no problem."

Regrets? Yes, but not about the killings. Only that I didn't get laid more often. Both me and Adolf--played eye-socket golf with him the other day and I drove his remaining testicle 157 yards from the tee--were just talking how these crazy young kids have finally put the dick in dictator. In my day you had to worry too much about poisoning in the night or catch a mind-savaging case of the clap.

These modern punks like Kim's little rug rat have no idea what being a power-mad despot used to entail.

Oops, borscht is on, gotta go.

Kristallnacht

Democracy in Action

Wow, this comment thread went batshit crazy. We got some trolls coming in passing out the tinfoil hats. These are the same folks that were screaming 4 years ago about Ashcroft and his concentration camps. Look out for those storm troopers, they'll take you off to their secret compound under a mountain outside DC.

Some real info on the REAL ID act:

http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html

Relax

The only person in any recent administration that had a habit of wearing Jack boots was Janet Reno. And that was just only because she looked so damn hot in them.

TO ALL RIGHT WINGERS: Have you ever heard of a little thing called BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY? Why should we allow a law like the Patriot Act to put us at risk of losing civil liberties simply to fight terrorists?

Because terrorists blow shit up and kill innocent people, as opposed to some supposed loss of liberties causing paranoid people to gnash their teeth. Better safe than sorry.

Ace... your logic is astounding sometimes. It's amazing to think that if the lefties would just sit down and LOOK at the 2 + 2 problem in front of the country, that, in time (more for some than others), they would come up with 4.

Well today in the public school system whick is control my bleeding heart Libs, 2+2 does not equal 4 because some child might miss that question and it would hurt their self-esteem. To the people who compare President Bush to Hilter and the US military to nazi are the same people do not have the guts or balls to stand for or fight for the ideas or rights that our founding father give us. Military person does not want to died but will pay that price if asked by is country. There is a quote that say " From time to time the flag of our country as to be renew in blood of her fallen brave." I like to see any Libs willing to do that.

GTL, being in the service you must be pissed that the party your positions seem to support is really the one who has conspired to suppress your rights. Of course I am talking about absentee ballots. Good luck with that cognitive disonnance.

GTL

Some time has passed, so I don't know if you will see this, but regarding your worry over the repeal of the 22nd. I only have a half-hearted problem with it. While I understand the dangers inherent in longer terms of power, I wonder why the American people can't be trusted to choose the leaders they want. The 22nd is actually an abridgment of your rights, in that it simply removes from you the right to choose the leader you wish, if he has already been the leader for 8 years.

You know, this is pretty embarrassing. We have more important things to do than sit here and bicker about who's right. In your own ways, you're all right. The Liberals are correct when they say we haven't won because we haven't. The fact of the matter is, we ARE WINNING. Present tense: Are Winning. It's not in the past, so no one has one. And in that way, we Conservatives are correct.

What we don't understand here is Liberals and Conservatives have different views concerning morals and ethics and where some people believe we should be at war, others believe we shouldn't. Where conservatives see a serviceman die honorable for freedom and democracy, liberals see another serviceman senselessly killed. Our views will never meet directly in the middle, but in our own ways, we're all correct. The last thing we need, as a Nation, is a public pissing match. We're all fighting for the better of the country and we can't sit here and rip each other apart for differing opinions. That's what makes this America. No one's the same.

I served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I served with 5 guys who weren't able to make it back. I've seen sacrifice and I know sacrifice and the people who've died for freedom and democracy would not want our pissing match to be the outcome of their sacrifice. We need to find a political medium and I'm creating a blog for that purpose. It'll be up shortly and I want to invite whoever would like to contribute from any political party to email me at RepublicanVet@cox.net

COme on, guys. We gotta get together before we can get straight.

What next, Repub Vet? Shall we all join hands and sing Kumbaya? Do you think Durbin's comments are "fighting for the better of this country"? Get real.

See, that's the idiotic sarcasm that gets us nowhere. I was responded to by an anonymous troll? You say to get real? Finding a medium is getting real. Sitting here and believing your own beliefs are what's right is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard of. Durbin talks way too much and if you think he's the way to go, I'm laughing at you.

Let me guess, you don't care, you're gonna have some kind of third grade comment to rebut me with and everyone's supposed to laugh with you and laugh at me. Same story since elementary school. Grow up and get real. Sing kumbaya to yourself, fool.

**crickets chirping**

I'm embarrassed to be a Conservative when I read on this site, so what I'll do is give the anonymous troll the last word because I can see more LIberals make more sense on this site than the wannabe Conservatives. You fools act like neo extremists and give the GOP a bad name.

I won't give you the satisfaction of contributing to your page, so you have the last word. Now that you know I will not be returning, make sure you go ahead and talk all kinds of trash about me. That's really immature, but I can expect it from the likes of the supporters of this page.

Well, he's got a point, as does our gun-toting liberal IMO.

What grabs me here is that the Left speaks out about the infringements on our freedom without examples, yet I doubt they really want to see the USA Patriot Act repealed. I think they want it's protections but they want to stand on the high moral ground and bitch about it.

You know why I think this? Because they didn't say one word about the same tactics being used against drug dealers when Janet Reno used them. Part of it's political, but part of it's posturing.

Of course, personally I'd repeal the Act as well as RICO and I'd never make the exclusionary trade suggested above. But I don't believe the government can protect us against domestic terror by any other means than taking the fight to them.

Brilliant screed, Ace. Thank you.

Hey sponge, you have a valid point. Most Liberals do want the protection and they'd rather reap the benefits and complain about it than come up with a solution (just like Social Security) but the concerns the Liberals have with the patriot act are valid concerns. The concerns don't require so much complaint and that's where the Liberals hack me off, but some of the concerns, I share with them.

But, for the record, I'm all for the Patriot Act because I think it will produce more good than bad, if we use it correctly.

RV said "Now that you know I will not be returning" -- That promise didn't last long.

" infringements on our freedom without examples," ....-- Sponge's "valid point"

"but some of the concerns, I share with them" - but still no examples.

Joseph(OK Democrat)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...GASP...HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! {weeping on the ground} Stalin= democrat, Sharon=dictator
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ladies and gentlemen you need help to be that stupid.

I don't know Iblis, it could be that he's taken some natural ability and honed and refined it into something really special.

Like the old joke goes, there is no news in Izvestia and there is no truth in Pravda.

LOL! Who is this anonymous troll who is so obsessed with me that they have to track my every move? I came back to this site because I was asked to, and I never promised I wouldn't, so your trollish comments are invalid.

"What grabs me here is that the Left speaks out about the infringements on our freedom without examples, yet I doubt they really want to see the USA Patriot Act repealed."

That was Sponge's valid point, jackass. Can you not read? Are you that ignorant that you have to find something to cry about but fail to validate it? Come on, lol.

As far as the concerns I share with them, using the patriot act correctly is one concern I share with them. You're still too ignorant and uneducated to realize a statement which says I share concerns with some Liberals has yet to call for examples. What's your deal with examples? I made a general statement. Do you not realize which statements deserve answers and which statements are a generality? It's called 7th grade English class. Try it on for size and then come back when you don't want to be so anonymous.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's people like this anonymous troll who make the blogging world suck for everyone. If they're not relevant enough to post a name, they're not relevant enough to find credible.

That's really immature, but I can expect it from the likes of the supporters of this page.

Dude.
You must be new here.

Yeah, I shoulda known that a long time ago, huh?

What a comment. I'll bet you thought of that one on your own, right?

God, I'm such a bore.

This site is immature, irrelevant, and lacks all credibility. You people make the blog world suck for everyone.
I don't even know why I keep coming here, over and over.

RV, yes you are.

I thought about that Dave, but I just don't see a lib putting in that kind of effort. It smacks of initiative.

Wow, all of the sudden you guys are altering comments? You were right, this site does lack all credibility, it's very immature and even though I was asked to come back, I guess you're right, I don't have any idea why.

I guess you think comment altering bothers people? It makes you guys look like 3rd graders. Now I know why there are so many anonymous comments. You don't have anyone come here so a couple of you don't type your names in to make it look like there's more of you. What a load of crap.

"That's really immature, but I can expect it from the likes of the supporters of this page."
Dude.
You must be new here.

Remember the above comment? That is what we call self-deprecating humor. Making fun of oneself. It is a technique designed to appeal to another's sense of humor, and deflate conflict.

But it doesn't work on humorless bores.

b' bye

But, but, laura, he's republicanvetman. Only republicanvetman knows what's good for this country. We must kneel at his feet and learn from him.

I think conservatives and liberals can get along fine as long as both have self-deprecating styles of humor.

A little bit of self-deprecation goes an awfully long way to smoothing over disagreements.

But then, you need to actually have a sense of humor.

ace -- the king of self-depreciating humor (has a strong streak of diplomacy, too).

I seem to remember a long time ago Ace (?) saying that when a lib asks him why he's a conservative, he'd say something like, 'Why, to keep the black man down, of course.'

Personally, I'm in it for the street urchins. There aren't as many as there used to be and my kicking leg is getting weak.

I thought of that all by myself.

I tell them straight out, "It's because I'm a fascist." Then I start singing La Giovinezza. That scares them good.

It doesn't matter what kind of humor you fools want. Altering comments and posting under someone else's name doesn't smooth over conflicts. What are you retarded?

You idiots act like a bunch of third graders and the anonymous troll can say we should bow at my feet because he's obviously a little too jealous that I shut him down. What a wonderful blog where your 1st amendment rights are altered.

Way to go, neocons.

Don't have enough time to jump in here and play "war", but I'd like to take my hat off to Joseph, the Republican Vet, and Ace, for keeping an open mind, and especially to Ace and RV, who've both crossed the party lines far enough to point out that we Libs aren't enemies of the Flag just because we disagree sometimes. Kudos to you.

"Don't have enough time to jump in here and play "war"..."

Well, guess I'm going to have to use the sleeping pills after all!

I'm mad about the treatment the prisoners at Gitmo are receiving too!!! I think they ought to chain two of them down naked, and dump a bunch of fire ants on them. Let the other prisoners watch and let them know they will be next, two at a time. They will talk. And that will cause no permament damage. And the info gleaned quickly will save American GI's lifes. I have a son in the Air Force, Para-Rescue unit. Maybe he will not have to rescue so many wounded soldiers.

What a wonderful blog where your 1st amendment rights are altered.

You still here? I thought I told you to go fuck your mother!
(Saw Goodfellas again the other night)

Tell me how they were 'altered' or infringed upon in any way. Damn, you weren't even banned from this blog, and THAT isn't even an affront to the 1st Amendment.
Moron. Only the government can violate that right. Nincompoop. Knave. Fool. Ignorant douche.

BTW, I'm in the FOURTH grade.

Where ever did I get the idiotic idea that I have a 1rst Amendment right on someone elses blog?

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You have no fucking first amendment rights in this blog.
Your freedom of speech has not been abridged by THE GOVERNMENT (you twit).
Ace has the right to delete or alter your statements at will.
Ace's posters have the ability, as long as Ace tolerates it on his private site, to mock and insult you at will, and vicey-versey.

I'm sorry you were too quick to anger, or too dim, to recognize humor when I was trying to gore our own ox for your amusement, and to temper the mood.

But it is what it is now, and go fuck yourself.

"Where ever did I get the idiotic idea that I have a 1rst Amendment right on someone elses blog"?

I'm like, way out on a limb here, but my guess is it's because you don't have a fucking clue what the 1st Amendment is.

I don't do this for a living.

I'm guessing that Republican Vet is neither a Republican nor a Vet. I'm guessing she's in the 4th grade and has two mommies.

Gotta comment on Unlawful Enemy Combatants.

Of course, the term refers to the Geneva Convention. It was utilized in this country during WWII when four German Saboteurs entered our country (by U-Boat no less), blended in as civilians and meant to do us harm. These are unlawful enemy combatants. They did not openly carry arms, or wear insignia or uniforms etc. At the same time, as our troops marched across Europe, the occasional Civilian might attempt to protect his home. He is not an enemy combatant is he?

Isn't there a distinction between soldiers who disguise themselves and civilians and enter our country with an intent to do us harm and non-soldiers who were never in a regular army and who happened to be defending the place that we were attacking?

I am not trying to start a flame war here but consider:

Suppose we are at war with China. We send some Chinese-American spec. ops guys over there to stir things up. Unlawful combatants? You bet. Torture away China.

But now suppose China is marching across the Mexican Border. Small bands of Texans gather up their rifles and protect the homeland. Unlawful enemy combatants? Really.

That is the distinction. We attacked Afghanistan. Thus we cannot blame them for not having a regular army waiting for us.

And the purpose of trials is to make sure they are "Terrorists." We know that they have captured innocent people. We know that many were simply handed over from the Northern Alliance and such. Why not have some sembalnce of a hearing to prove to the world (friend and enemy alike) that we made sure we had the right guys?

The point has been made about prisoners of War. The problem is we aren't actually at war. Terror is not a country. Prisoners of war are released once the war is over. This war will never be over. It is like holding a prisoner in the drug war. Terror won't surrender. Neither will drugs. This is an international criminal operation. Not a war. The governments we went to war against are already gone.

I am not saying let killers walk free. I am saying, demonstrate to the world that we are not locking up random cab drivers for no reason. (which true or not, many believe). How can anyone be opposed to that?