To Search or Not to Search

[scoutingagain]

"The patriot act; wiretapping with out a warrant; and watching antiwar protesters, environmental groups and religious organizations are all small step toward restricting freedom. Once these are accepted what is next? "

 

Secret prisons in foreign countries?

 

Those that currently support the actions of this administration with respect to any of these actions should ask themselves, are they willing let a Hillary Clinton administration wield the same authority?

 

SA

 

[Rooster7]

All I see is baseless ranting. While I agree that we need to guard our freedoms, I have yet to see one real life example (as requested) that comes close to the hysteria being presented here.

 

Long Haul whether you intended it to be interpreted this way or not, your quote is meant for people of prejudice and/or insensitivity, who turn a blind eye to injustices and atrocities which do not affect them directly. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. If you meant for it to be interpreted properly likening me to the citizenry of NAZI Germany who supposedly were aware of atrocities but chose to ignore them - then I have a few choice words for you which I cannot post here. Use your imagination.

 

I disagree with those who purport that our freedoms have been seriously hindered by the current administration. Its that simple. I see a lot of pudding, but no proof.

 

[Lisabob]

Part of the difficulty with "proof" is that the reporting requirements are set up in such a way that you may never know if you have been investigated, unless the investigation turns something up. (Which might then trigger a criminal investigation and possibly detention. And there are several well-documented cases where, once in detention, gov't has attempted to refuse information even to the detainees' lawyers about potential charges and evidence. Hamdi is one; Padilla is another that has been in the news a lot over the last couple of years. This does little to build trust in gov't's self-restraint on the use of broad powers.)

 

I have a colleague who found himself on the receiving end of some unwanted FBI attention as a result of expanded monitoring powers granted to the gov't after 9/11. He teaches a course on international conflict at a large public university in an area where there is a large Arab-American population. As part of his course he runs a simulation of peace negotiations in the Middle East, assigning students roles of various groups in the region. He has done this simulation for years, no problem. The first time after 9/11 that he did it, the FBI suddenly appeared, wanting to know why people in his class (with Arab sounding names) were sending emails back and forth about terrorist groups (like Hamas and Hizbullah). They sat in on his class for the rest of the semester too. Talk about a chilling effect on classroom discussion.

 

But Rooster, you know, in general it is really hard to get information on how the Patriot Act has been used. Major news organizations have repeatedly had to go to court to get basic Freedom of Information Act requests fulfilled to find out the frequency with which library records have been checked, etc., under the provisions of the Patriot Act. Without that basic information being available to the public it is not surprising to me that people are worried, perhaps more than they would be if they just knew the actual facts - which none the less, this admin has been reluctant to share. National security is crucial but too much secrecy can be self-defeating sometimes too.

 

I submit: if the GOVERNMENT has nothing to hide with regard to how they are using the powers granted by the Patriot Act, then let the GOVERNMENT open its records to the public more fully and stop hiding behind this wall of secrecy, so we can see what they're doing in our name. Let facts replace speculation.

 

Lisa'bob

[BrentAllen]

scoutingagain writes, "Iraq war vets will have strong credibility with respect to defense and security issues, especially running against Republican incumbents that have spent the last 4 years in a comfy Washington office, or who have never served. Although I suppose I shouldn't underestimate the depth to which this party will sink to given the way they have treated veterans such as McCain, Murtha and Cleland."

 

Cleland was voted out of office because of his political positions, which are far left. He was not treated unfairly, unless you consider using his voting record against him as off limits. I guess some think that even though the huge majority of Georgians disagreed with Cleland's positions and voting record, we should have voted for him because he is a disabled vet. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt here in Georgia.

 

I don't know the rest of y'all, but considering the fact that Cleland was not wounded in battle, it is pretty hard for me to consider him a "war hero," as he is often described. Yes, he lost both legs and an arm, but it wasn't on the battlefield. An engineer accidentally dropping a grenade at his feet is not the same as a combat soldier injured while fighting the enemy - at least not to me.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[LongHaul]

BrentAllen,

Cleland volunteered for service volunteered for duty in Viet Nam when he could have stayed state side but is less in your mind because the grenade was dropped by a friendly. Are you saying that the men who gave their lives in the service of their country aboard the USS Oriskany and the USS Forestall fall lower on your scale than those who died aboard the USS Cole?

[BrentAllen]

Nope, never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

I said I personally do not think Cleland is a war hero. His defenders and campaign staff have used his military service as a huge shield to defend against any attacks on his voting record. They have implied that he was wounded in battle, which is simply not the truth. I am grateful for his service to our country, but I am tired of seeing this false story thrown around.

 

When I think of war heros, I think of soldiers like Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon.

[LongHaul]

BrentAllen

While I agree that a persons military service, or lack there of, should not be used to justify or qualify actions I find your classification, for the lack of a better word, of what is or isn't a war hero interesting. You seem to favor the term be used to discribe a single act rather than a personal trait. As to Clelands not being wounded in battle or on the battlefield, I wasn't aware that there was anyplace in that country at that time that wasn't part of the battlefield. If Shughard's and Gordon's helicopter had exploded on landing back at base they wouldn't have died in battle but would still be heros because of a single act?

LongHaul

[BrentAllen]

LH,

Do I make a distinction between soldiers or sailors killed while performing their routine duties, and soldiers who died after volunteering to go into a situation to help a fellow soldier, against uncountable odds, with little to no chance of survival, with no help on the way - knowing they are facing certain death - but do so because they think they can make a difference? Do I see a difference between the two? Yes. Our country does as well. Shughart and Gordon were awarded the Medal of Honor.

 

I compare that to Cleland who was severly injured in an accident, but is described as "A former US army captain, who won the Silver Star after losing both legs and his right arm in Vietnam,..." and "Max Cleland is a guy who lost three limbs in Vietnam, left them on the battlefield, said Vietnam veteran and Senator John F. Kerry..."

Take a look at Cleland's own words, from his own book. "There were no heroics on which to base the Soldiers Medal,...and it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didnt deserve it." "I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action."

Do I see a difference between Shughart & Gordon, and Cleland? Yes, I do.

[GernBlansten]

Brent, you are traveling on thin ice here.

Vietnam was a battlefield in its entirety just like Iraq or Afghanistan is today. Any soldier who puts that uniform on and is injured or killed while deployed in a war zone is a battlefield casualty in my mind. The circumstances are irrelevant. To splice hairs demeans the sacrifices of every soldier. Is Pat Tillman just an accident or did he die in battle? It wasn't at the hands of his enemy but his own men, just like Cleland. Your criticism of Cleland's sacrifice would also paint Tillman's sacrifice with the same brush.

 

As for hero status, I think it is overused and diminishes the term for the true heroes that earn it.

[scoutingagain]

If you disagree with Mr. Clelands politics that's fine. Heck I disagree with his politics. I disagree with most of Kerry's political positions and have only voted for him once in my whole life, the same number of times I've voted for George Bush.

 

However, I would never question Kerry or Cleland's patriotism or their commitment to this country. Which is what the Republican Party did in their campaign against Cleland. Any man (or woman) who voluntarily enters the service with the intent of serving in a combat is putting their life on the line for their country and deserves the respect and gratitude of their fellow citizens. In my mind their actions are heroic. I compare these actions to those who used every deferment possible or those that volunteered for domestic non-combat roles and then asked for early discharge from their commitment.

 

 

SA

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

The word hero, like the word terrorist are overused and have lost much of their meaning in today's world.

 

As a conservative independent, it disturbs me greatly that just about any Democrat who has served in the military constantly has their service and actions questioned. Just because some people disagree with the assessment of someone like Murtha is no reason to call him a traitor. The man is a patriot and knows what he is talking about when it comes to the military.

[BrentAllen]

SA,

The Republican Party did not question Cleland's patriotism. They pointed out his voting record after 9/11 and made the argument that he was not strong on defense. That is not questioning one's patriotism - it is questioning their judgement and priorities.

 

GB, I am not discussing Tillman - there are many variables in the different situations which makes each unique. As for Cleland, it is hard to pin down exactly what happened during his military career. Some bios mention he was either Airborne, or attended Airborne training, or never mentions it. Others mention he was in AirCav.

Here are two very different descriptions of the accident, one from Cleland, the other from the New Georgia Encyclopedia.

 

""On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade. A blinding explosion threw me backwards."

 

NGE: On April 8, 1968, as Cleland was returning to his barracks, a grenade was accidentally dropped. Cleland reacted quickly by falling upon it, no doubt saving the lives of several soldiers. He lost both his legs and his right hand in the explosion.

 

Other accounts say he was on a mountain top, setting up a radio relay station, getting off a helicopter when it happened. Another says he was 15 miles behind enemy lines at the time. Which is true? Why all the confusion?

I admire his ability to overcome his injuries and carry on. I don't know if I would be able to do the same.

The bottom line is he lost his Senate seat because of his voting history, which was too far left for the majority of Georgians.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[SR540Beaver]

I posted this back when the server date and time was corrected and it ended up on page one instead of page three where it belonged in sequence, so I'll post it again.

 

Rooster,

 

I'm not quite sure how you can take the reasoned and legitimate concerns of conservative patriotic citizens and see them as rants and hysteria......but you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. I've detected your comments and responses to be directly in line with the talking points of pundits such as Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tony Snow, Ann Coulter, etc. I suspect that you take most of your information from those kind of sources since you repeat their points almost verbatim. I know because I listen to them almost daily, but do so with a critical ear. Again, it is your right to develop your opinions from sources that support your views. That doesn't really do anything to support your claim of no proof in the pudding however. It just means you limit yourself to one brand of pudding. I suggest that you do a Google search on "patriot act abuse" to find that there are indeed proofs to that which you choose not to believe. Yes, you'll find stories from the ACLU, but you'll also find stories from sources such as Fox News.

 

[scoutingagain]

From sourcewatch:

 

"Max Cleland lost the 2002 general election to Republican Saxby Chambliss. A key element in that loss was a negative ad that challenged Cleland's votes in Congress on the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.

 

The text of the ad is as follows:

 

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.

"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."

"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."

"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

The issue in 2002 was civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill. The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it]

 

In February 2004, "vitriolic right-wing ideologue" Ann Coulter wrote that Cleland should not be referred to as a war hero, as he had lost his limbs in a routine non-combat misssion. Regardless of the exact circumstances of the explosion, or its non-relation to the prior battles for which the stars were given, it is worth noting that Cleland was awarded a Silver Star "for gallantry in action" at the battle of Khe Sanh. "

 

 

 

SA

[Rooster7]

SR540Beaver,

 

My opinions are my own. You made the accusation, so please provide the proof of abuse. Less hype, more facts please

 

From the USA Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner discussing the civil liberties violations resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act:

 

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA PATRIOT Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's independent Inspector General, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations. Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the PATRIOT Act provisions Congress is renewing.