Anyone who thinks the greatest nation in the history of this planet, with the greatest military ever, and the greatest resources, is in any REAL way threatened by so-called "Islamo-fascism" -- the fragmented, fringe elements of a 1,400 year-old religion -- is the epitome of a true coward.

Is terrorism serious? Of course.

But if you think we've got to deal with it by violating our own constitution, demonizing war critics, dissolution of the Geneva Convention, legalizing war crimes, and employing fabricated arguments for war, than you are one sick, sorry, cowardly bunch.

As for Murtha - it would be nearly impossible for any informed, honest, patriotic politician to do a WORSE job prosecuting the war in Iraq than "Mission Accomplished" George and "Six Days" Rummy.

But if you think we've got to deal with it by violating our own constitution...than you are one sick, sorry, cowardly bunch.

Would it surprise you to know that there's actual legal precedent for warrantless searches? Here's a brief history of these rulings:

United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] he President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."

Another relevant case is United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances...were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.'"

Then there's United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, which it summarized as follows:
In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

If you're going to make accusations about breaking the law, make sure you aren't talking about things that courts have ruled constitutional.

good ole "Lincoln's Ghost" is deficating on this thread as well, eh?

ok, since it's a slow Saturday morning I'll dissect his (its?) defication:

"Anyone who thinks the greatest nation in the history of this planet, with the greatest military ever, and the greatest resources, is in any REAL way threatened by so-called "Islamo-fascism" -- the fragmented, fringe elements of a 1,400 year-old religion -- is the epitome of a true coward."

Anyone who denies we are threatened in extremely REAL ways is a complete MORON! No, dipshit, there may never be a pitched battle like Kursk, Normandy or el Alamein with this crowd. But they don't need massed tanks and waves of aircraft to kill and/or enslave millions of people. Europe has already shown how easily it can be cowed, and would, ala Spain, quickly stick its collective head back in the sand rather than confront the IslamoFascists. Remember 9/11? alQueda spent a few thousand bucks in airline tickets, box-cutters and flight-school to cause tens of BILLIONS of damage, and kill 3,000 Americans!

"Is terrorism serious? Of course."

Gee...thanks for that! Ah, but HOW serious???

"But if you think we've got to deal with it by violating our own constitution when...EXACTLY?

demonizing war critics

always a favorite of mine! The Left, which epitomizes DEMONIZATION, and has the KING of Demonization heading the DNC (Howling Howie Dean), just LOVES to cry "Victim"!

"dissolution of the Geneva Convention"

Oops...did I miss the "dissolution"? Not that I would MIND it being dissolved...since we are pretty much the ONLY ones who EVER abide by it! But nope, it's in FULL force. FULL force means that only those ABIDING by it can claim its protection! Which leaves "ILLEGAL COMBATANTS", like alQueda, out of luck!!

"legalizing war crimes, and employing fabricated arguments for war"

I left these lumped 'cause it's tiring to deal with crap like this. What, uh "War Crimes" have been "legalized"?? Or even committed for that matter? Except in the mind of the Left, of course. Or the THOUSANDS of war crimes committed by our enemies over the past decade! Those war crimes? Which, btw, provide AMPLE justification for war!

Ah...the "best for last!!

"As for Murtha - it would be nearly impossible for any informed, honest, patriotic politician to do a WORSE job prosecuting the war in Iraq"

We just saw, in the Israel / Hezbullah conflict, how BADLY a Murtha-type politician can bungle a conflict!! Olmert tried the kinder-gentler conflict and left Israel more endangered than ever. We saw, with 8 years of Clinton, how running away and lobbing a cruise missile or two, leaves our enemies totally UNDETERRED!!

Justrand,

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Actual semi-substantive argument!

1) On the reality of Islamo-fascism. I get it. You're scared, I'm not. Sorry, I wish I could be as scared as you are, but I'm not.

2) I.F. will "Enslave millions of people". I can't tell if you mean "enslave" literally or figuratively. If figuratively, well, people are enslaved by all kinds of bad ideas. If you mean it literally, than I think you're a little loony. I mean, to enslave millions... they're at how many now?

3) Al Qaeda killed 3,000. True. And last year, heart disease killed over 900,000. That makes cardio-fascism about 300 times more dangerous. Sorry, still not as scared as you are.

4) When are we "violating the constitution"? Did you read any newspapers this week? Neither did I. But I heard it on the radio. court rules warantless wiretaps violates 4th amendment and FISA act.

5.) Dissolution of the Geneva Convention. Oops, you're right, it's not dissolved. I should have said disregard of the Geneva Convention - for Gitmo prisoners. By the way, court ruled that's against the law too. Technically, I think it's a violation of the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (and Gen Conven). So, I guess you're in FAVOR of violating the U.S. war crimes act?

6.) Legalizing war crimes. Don't you remember? That's what Dickey Cheney lobbied congress for in opposition to John McCain. (Of course, he didn't want to legalize ALL war crimes. Just some of them). On this issue, I side with the American who actually was a war prisoner. Rather than the one who just likes starting wars, but gets out of them through several deferments.

8.) Fabricating arguments for war... See G.W.'s 2003 State of the Union address. I'm not saying he lied. I'm just saying none of his arguments were true.

9.) Murtha & Iraq. You're right, Bush and Rummy are doing a great job and the books "Fiasco" and "Cobra II" along with a growing chorus of retired generals support you.

Lincoln's Ghost is simply voicing the line of the retreat and defeat democrats. Nothing but defeat and the death of millions of people (ck result of retreat from VN) will satisfy them. They are respondible for the death of 3 to 5 million in southeast Asia but none ever had the balls to stand up and take the credit.
As I posted before, putting this crop of defeatest in office is the same as infecting everyone in the U.S. with AIDS with the hope an instant cure will be available tomorrow. Only massive death and destruction will ever results from their policies.
Weak to non existant defense policies during the 90's emboldened the IslamicFacist regimes to launch dozens of attacks that ended up with the destruction of the WTC, damage to the Pentagon and 3,000 people dead in this country. Great policies them democrats have. Want to die or want your family to die, vote democratic. That is a proven fact.

"Lincoln's Ghost" is performing a valuable public service by reminding everyone why the Democrats cannot be trusted with national security again until such time as they have cleansed their ranks of the anti-American left.

Come on Scrapiron & Jim!

At least Gary & Justrand put together some facts. Gary put together some great ones. Actual legal citations!

But the best Scrap & Jim can come up with is... duh... me.. no... like...they Anit-American... duh...

Please present an argument, or I will have no choice but to conclude that you are, in fact, a couple of retards.

Well at least you don't claim to be Lincoln's brain....

Your skills of oratory are truly departed.

Lincoln's Ghost (more like "Lincoln's Nightmare", but hey)

1) On the reality of Islamo-fascism. I get it. You're scared, I'm not. Sorry, I wish I could be as scared as you are, but I'm not.

The tidal wave that IS Islamo-fascism, as laid out very plainly by Osama in his "Letter to the World" has been gaining force for nearly twenty years! The coincidence of these murderous morons sitting on vast amounts of wealth makes them more like the perfect storm! Not scared? Then you're asleep or stooopid. No other choices.

2) I.F. will "Enslave millions of people". I can't tell if you mean "enslave" literally or figuratively. If figuratively, well, people are enslaved by all kinds of bad ideas. If you mean it literally, than I think you're a little loony. I mean, to enslave millions... they're at how many now?

EVERY Islamic-based state is already at one degree or another of enslavement or another. Afghanistan WAS the worst...we stopped it. But if we were retire from the field then EVERY one would succumb in short order...and spread.

3) Al Qaeda killed 3,000. True. And last year, heart disease killed over 900,000. That makes cardio-fascism about 300 times more dangerous. Sorry, still not as scared as you are.

I truly appreciate your honesty. Is "heart disease" the guage for action? When they kill more than heart disease in any give year then we fight back? p.s. ONE atomic bomb in any major city will OVER MILLION!

4) When are we "violating the constitution"? Did you read any newspapers this week? Neither did I. But I heard it on the radio. court rules warantless wiretaps violates 4th amendment and FISA act.

Sorry...that was one moonbat judge...and it was a couple weeks ago. The reality is that the means and methods they are using are not un-Constitutional.

and so on...

look, you believe we are in no danger, and thus should be Mirandizing the Islamo-fascists (when and if they kill over 900,000 of us). Your beliefs will get us killed!

and citing "The courts", unless it is the Supreme Court has no value. The ACLU is very adept as Judge-Shopping...and there're lots of Jimmy Carter morons stilling sitting on the bench...SADLY!

Rory, take a lesson from your colleagues and try not to be an full moron.

Justrand -

The coincidence of these murderous morons sitting on vast amounts of wealth makes them more like the perfect storm!

True. Good point. Money sharply hightens the threat. And yet, still not frightened. Sorry.

EVERY Islamic-based state is already at one degree or another of enslavement or another.

If you're going to go with "one degree or another", than I've got to say the whole world is enslaved. Let's bring this solidly back to reality.

Yes, SOME Islamic states have serious human rights abuses. So do many latin american nations. Yet, why do I think you probably don't give a shit about those?

But if we were retire from the field then EVERY one would succumb in short order...and spread.

That's just loony. Islam's been around for over 1,300 years. EVERYONE WOULD SUCCUMB IN SHORT ORDER!!! RUN!!! EVERYONE BEFORE WE SUCCUMB!!!

When they kill more than heart disease in any given year then we fight back?

No, we should fight them now. We just don't have to run around like a bunch of retarded cowards at war with the world. And we don't have to lump "them" with Islam. And we don't need to continue to concentrate more power in the executive branch. And we certainly don't have to sacrifice our judicial principles.

Hello! Warrant! What the fuck is so hard about the warrant!

Sorry...that was one moonbat judge...

Oh, right, you decide these things.

Your beliefs will get us killed!

I'm sorry, but, respectfully, I truly believe that your beliefs will get us killed first.

Of course, this is subjective. But, I just happen to believe that, deep down, anyone who uses the term "Islamofascism" as a rallying cry is acting on a deep desire foment conflict beyond what actually exists. To aggrandize enemies. Not that some threats aren't real. But the threat is much, much more subtle and complicated than, say, Rick Santorum, would have you believe.

Islamo-hype-ists, e.g. you, want to take what is probably the single most dangous course for humanity - to declare war on Islam. Why? Because you hate Muslims. You hate them, you're scared of them, you resent them, you don't understand them and you're a coward.

I'm part of the much, much larger portion of humanity that recognizes that individual Christians and individual Muslims have essentially no more conflict between each other than any other 2 sub-groups.

But what you're trying to do is delineate a supreme rift, where there is only marginal (though very serious) fragmented terrorist dissatisfaction. Much of which has more to do with oil influence, Israel and Muslim perception that we are a threat to them, than any bullshit like "They hate freedom".

Yes, the nut-jobs with a bomb is a supreme human threat. But so are the nut jobs, like many of the people I've read on this website, that are so frightened of the world that, through their fear, they begin aggrandizing and instigating, i.e. creating, enemies.

So, what's the better option? Vast infiltration of Muslic communities, intelligence, diversified trade, interdependence, limited pre-emptive ops, shared wealth and economic opportunity, respect for boarders, minimize war based on fabricated arguments, and refraining from the rediculously ignorant defining of your enemy as "Islam".

Not cowardly and frantic (Bush). Not soft and appeasing (Chamberlain). But strong and smart.

LC - you are deliberately ignoring a menace that WAS spreading like wildfire, right up until 9/11.

Before we started fighting back, and toppled the Taliban. And although Iraq was using pure Islam to fuel its war machine, it was allied with those who were. After Iraq fell then Libya threw in the towel all on its own.

Right now we ARE stemming the tide...at least somewhat. But if we took your stance of: "Hey, we should fear heart disease more than IslamoFascism", then the tide WILL overwhelm us.

The morons were fighting do NOT use the term "IslamoFascism"...but it describes them perfectly. They are Jihadists, under a hundred monikers...but in the end Fascists in the name of a Religion they have highjacked.

Using terror as a TACTIC they have either won over or intimidated a vast number of the 1.1 BILLION Muslims worldwide.

The actual membership in the Nazi Party in Germany when Hitler seized power was LESS THAN 3% of the German population. At its HEIGHT the total mambership was less than 10%.

It is currently estimated that 10% of Muslims worldwide support the aims and methods of alQueda and their ilk. That would represent 100 MILLION people. Let's say that estimate is off by a full order of magnitude...that means 10 MILLION people worldwide would be actively seeking to commit mayhem, terror and every unspeakable horror conceiveable to achieve worldwide domination!!

THAT is what we're facing. An ideaology of pure hatred spread across the globe, fueled by OIL.

Can Lincoln's Ghost possibly invent more strawmen than he did in his comments?

1) On the reality of Islamo-fascism. I get it. You're scared, I'm not. Sorry, I wish I could be as scared as you are, but I'm not.

Most people weren't "scared" of Hitler, either.

Most lefties were never scared of Stalin. Or Mao. Or the Viet Minh. Or the Khmer Rouge.

...or Islamic fascists.

2) I.F. will "Enslave millions of people". I can't tell if you mean "enslave" literally or figuratively. If figuratively, well, people are enslaved by all kinds of bad ideas. If you mean it literally, than I think you're a little loony. I mean, to enslave millions... they're at how many now?

Hmm, they have Arabia. Syria. Iran. Egypt. Lebanon.

Trying to get India. A nice chunk of the former Soviet Republics. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Iraq.

Nope, no need to worry about them.

As for literal slavery --- only western civilization has ever had a problem with it. The rest of the world doesn't practice it widely because the West made them stop years ago.

3) Al Qaeda killed 3,000. True. And last year, heart disease killed over 900,000. That makes cardio-fascism about 300 times more dangerous. Sorry, still not as scared as you are.

So, we now have the death toll needed before you care about something. Got it.

Pretty humane of you there.

Hey, the Rwandan genocide only killed 800,000 in a year (well, more precisely, 100 days). I guess it wasn't a big deal, either.

4) When are we "violating the constitution"? Did you read any newspapers this week? Neither did I. But I heard it on the radio. court rules warantless wiretaps violates 4th amendment and FISA act.

The Court ruling will be overturned. Apparently, you haven't actually READ the decision because it was more than a little laughable.

5.) Dissolution of the Geneva Convention. Oops, you're right, it's not dissolved. I should have said disregard of the Geneva Convention - for Gitmo prisoners. By the way, court ruled that's against the law too. Technically, I think it's a violation of the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (and Gen Conven). So, I guess you're in FAVOR of violating the U.S. war crimes act?

Actually, if you read the Conventions, they specifically deny protection to the terrorists (no identifying uniforms. No attempt to avoid fighting amongst civilians. No structure of leadership).

And the court, to be generous, has absolutely no say in this matter. The Constitution did not give the Court one iota of influence over the prosecution of a war.

6.) Legalizing war crimes. Don't you remember? That's what Dickey Cheney lobbied congress for in opposition to John McCain. (Of course, he didn't want to legalize ALL war crimes. Just some of them). On this issue, I side with the American who actually was a war prisoner. Rather than the one who just likes starting wars, but gets out of them through several deferments.

Yes, no problems at all with banning "torture" without defining what torture is.

How can that POSSIBLY cause problems?

8.) Fabricating arguments for war... See G.W.'s 2003 State of the Union address. I'm not saying he lied. I'm just saying none of his arguments were true.

...except British Intel did --- and still does --- say that Saddam tried to procure yellowcake from Africa, of course, right?

9.) Murtha & Iraq. You're right, Bush and Rummy are doing a great job and the books "Fiasco" and "Cobra II" along with a growing chorus of retired generals support you.

Your side hasn't produced a plan outside of "Well, let's leave", which will only produce results that make the Iranian state (thanks Dems, for that one) seem nice and happy.

Yes, SOME Islamic states have serious human rights abuses. So do many latin american nations. Yet, why do I think you probably don't give a shit about those?

Shouldn't make assumptions. The right has SERIOUS concerns about Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

That's just loony. Islam's been around for over 1,300 years. EVERYONE WOULD SUCCUMB IN SHORT ORDER!!! RUN!!! EVERYONE BEFORE WE SUCCUMB!!!

Read up on Islamic history. They pursue nothing but imperial domination.

No, we should fight them now. We just don't have to run around like a bunch of retarded cowards at war with the world.

So, running to OKINAWA is a better plan (which, again, is Murtha's stated plan --- because Okinawa is SO close to Iraq)? Intriguing.

And we don't have to lump "them" with Islam.

Feel free to believe in the myth of the moderate Muslim who only wants peace.

I used to believe in Santa Claus, too, and he's about as real.

Because you hate Muslims. You hate them, you're scared of them, you resent them, you don't understand them and you're a coward.

Actually, I don't care one way or the other about them. However, their tendency to just routinely slaughter innocents does get old.

I'm part of the much, much larger portion of humanity that recognizes that individual Christians and individual Muslims have essentially no more conflict between each other than any other 2 sub-groups.

That portion of humanity, apparently, being the uneducated.

Much of which has more to do with oil influence, Israel and Muslim perception that we are a threat to them, than any bullshit like "They hate freedom".

Yeah, where we would get those ideas? I mean, outside of those "Death to Freedom" signs during the cartoon riots and all.

So, what's the better option? Vast infiltration of Muslic communities, intelligence, diversified trade, interdependence, limited pre-emptive ops, shared wealth and economic opportunity, respect for boarders, minimize war based on fabricated arguments, and refraining from the rediculously ignorant defining of your enemy as "Islam".

Nope. Carpet bombing is a significantly better option than the kumbaya crap you're peddling here.

Guess what? Islam ACTUALLY has a practice of honoring a peace treaty only until they have the power to destroy their enemy --- then they ignore it. It's called the hudna.
-=Mike