Senator Robert C. Byrd blasts Homeland Security bill

Thomas, I thought we established a thicker hide for you; is that now not the case? Please feel free to stop the attempts of deflecting using that threadworm canard in the future, ok?
I understand completely what you're saying: Bush is our resolute defender who is calling this police action a War on Terror and is moving a full scale offensive to Iraq for someday possibly being at a military capability that already exists in much more adversarial states to the US, the loss of certain freedoms is a must to bring about the sense of security that you feel can be accomplished no other way, and the provisions to reward massive Republican campaign contributors is perfectly acceptable and germane to US security. I do not misunderstand, I just find that your points are completely without merit, are grown from ultra-conservative partisan denial, and don't reflect anything usable to this discussion.
It, after all, was my home, place of business and my livelihood that was attacked on 9/11. Yet, I don't feel as you do in regards to "The citizenry will probably lose rights and liberties, but they will quickly adjust since they have lost so many in the past and have not gone to war against the system a few more won't matter."
ANY loss of rights & liberties matter, Thomas. Staying within your pro-Bush stance serves as the blinders from your considering this topic with anything remotely resembling intellectual honesty. To so completely avoid denouncing the payola for big GOP contributors grafted to the bill is proof positive of that.

Simply:
With CIA And FBI Out Of Homeland Security Dept., Look For Duplication And Competition. Look for all the agencies to be in a cat fight over money & credit for discovery during the consolidation period. And, look to be no more safer because of this whole political window dressing exercise.
But with far too many people mistaking blind patriotism for a need to allow freedoms lost, it does not bode well for us in the US.

Posted by Bout Time
This new Department of Homeland Security has the power to wiretap any American it wants, without a court order, without cause and without justification to any higher authority. Homeland Security goon squads will have the power to enter any American home, without a search warrant, without probable cause, simply because someone somewhere says �hey, this guy might be a threat.� No checks and balances, no due process. Nothing.

It sounds to me like these guys are a law unto themselves. A bit like the thought police in 1984, gee that guy Orwell was insightful.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
It sounds to me like these guys are a law unto themselves. A bit like the thought police in 1984, gee that guy Orwell was insightful.

Too many Orwell, as well as Fascist, similarites for my taste.
But........
From the sound of this newsletter, 'The Republican', some in the party are standing against the radical right wing that has over taken the party. EvenBob Barr & Dick Armey joined the ACLU !!!!!!!!!

"What is remarkable about the following piece is that is was circulated through a mailing list called "The Republican." If there is truly movement within the Republican rank and file to reign in the abuses of this administration all those that oppose those abuses should embrace that movement. - ma.")

Bush Government "Out of Control"
By Chuck Baldwin
Disrtbuted by The Republican

November 22, 2002

Back in August, columnist Paul Craig Roberts asked the question, "Is a vote for Republicans a vote for a police state?" The answer seems to be a resounding yes! The Bush administration seems determined to turn our country into the most elaborate and sophisticated police state ever devised.

Things are so bad that outgoing house majority leader Dick Armey said that under Bush the federal government is "out of control." In fact, the conservative congressman is reported to be seriously considering taking a position with the ACLU in order to help fight the federal government's usurpation of constitutionally protected liberties. Does that mean one must leave the Republican Party in order to fight for liberty? Maybe so. "

www.truthout.org...

Let us get one thing understood, B-T, you have developed nothing for me, thick skin or anything else. It appears you overestimate your influence here on the board. You also dodge the issue, again, by responding as you have.
The fact that you defend Clinton, a man who said that we Americans need to get used to the idea of giving up a few liberties for security, and said this during peacetime, indicates to me that you are not concerned with any liberties but who takes the liberties. You seem to be driven more by party lines than I am. I have the presence of mind to admit that I may be a little biased as Bush sings a song that I like and conducts himself with the dignity and self-respect that was sorely missed the eight years before. The concerns about an erosion of liberty during this time of war is not one, in my opinion, that is warranted, unless you subscribe to the theory that we attacked ourselves in order to wage war against the middle east. I do not subscribe to that notion.
It is always a concern that the government may never call an end to the war, be it victory or defeat, and, as this seems to be uncharted waters into which we find ourselves sailing, this is certainly a concern, but not one that warrants us to hinder what needs to be done at the present time. It does require us to be mindful of the fact that certain liberties are suspended during times of war, and that we should be vigilant to regain them at the appropriate time. In my cynical way of looking at the society in which I find myself, I doubt we will take notice, and if we do, will not take appropriate measures if they are warranted. If that be the case, it won't be the present administration's fault, or the next one to come be it Republican or Democrat. The guilt will be laid squarely upon the citizenry as it is natural for government to aquire power, legitimately or not, and unnatural for it to give it up without pressure.
Just because Dick and Bob don't understand is not sufficient reason for me to get unduely worried. Not on this end of the war.
I'm still waiting for this police state, evidence of which I have still not witnessed.
Once again, B-T, you and the people of your mindset will be more likely to catch it before I do as I'm more likely to give the Shrub the benefit of the doubt. I just hope you don't numb my mind with silly little false alarms for the next two to six years.

False Alarms? What does it take for you to remove the blinders, Thomas? It's already been legislated. No, Joe Smith over in Mobile did not have his door kicked in yet while he was on the phone paying for a prayer with some Televangelist. But Thomas, the Patriot Act & Homeland Security are already enacted, why do you refuse to take issue with the provisions often mentioned on these boards?
The fact that I defend a president vilified by a Right Wing smear campaign started while still a governor & talking about running, yet still led our country to a much better place in six over what the previous 12 years COULD NOT DO, is of zero bearing to the here & now and what is not only happening on Bush the Usurpers watch, but with his blessing.
I have dodged nothing, but rather pinpointed my concerns item by item. Overestimate my influence? I don't even have a preconception of influence...I'm here for fun! You're the one getting the vapors from the rest of the RRW ...just go back through threads and look at how you guys pat each other on the back in you Clinton bashing-Bush love!

You again provide the evidence of your left-wing fanaticism, B-T. Right wing smear campaign! LOL!!
I suppose you agree with Daschel that by telling the truth about him, Limbaugh invites nasty emails to be sent to Daschel, therefore Limbaugh should hush! LOL!
Smear campaigns to left are any persons telling the truth!!
You're a riot!!
Once again, B-T, we'll see.
I would have been very suspicious if Clinton had passed such legislation, but then again, he is the one who suggested we give up liberties for security. Maybe I trust Bush because he doesn't seem so cavalier about my liberties, but understands we have had war declared upon us and must act accordingly.
This isn't the first reorganization of the agencies, relax. Or don't relax, clue me in on when the real stuff happens. You seemed to have missed it with Clinton, maybe you'll catch it with Bush.
While you're having tizzy-fits about Bush and defending Clinton, though, remember that they are all owned by the same people, whether they are willing accomplices or those who resist as much as possible (too much resistance will get you shot by someone like Hinkley, Jr., though).

Intellectual honesty.......lack there of is a recurring theme with you Thomas. $70 million dollars of my money & yours & other tax paying Americans fully investigated Mr. Clinton, floated all these rabid right wing conspiracies you swear are fact, and what happened? He was prosecuted for lying about sex. That really eroded my civil liberties.
No one declared war on us, we suffered a terrorist attack. It wasn't a war then and it's not one now. You want to be a sheep in the herd and follow the guidelines of the marketing campaign, so be it. Presidents at war don't spend half their time out of office campaigning for their party during war time, or on a fake ranch or up in the New England blueblood family compound. They don't work 9 to 5 with a two hour lunch-jog-nap.
I don't give a fig about the musical chairs, other than it being passed off as a panacea to make us safe.
As to the smear campaign, search "Arkansas Project", search the writings of David Brock or Joe Conason or Nixon's boy John Dean.
You need to look in the mirror and remind yourself that by default, with you being a Fundamentalist AND a Far Right Wing Conservative, you're not exactly 'open' to considering other possibilities but dogma, so your points run the risk of being grossly invalid.
I really would love to hear your defense of John Poindexter and Otto Reich making a return performance in the Boy King's troupe.

As usual, the Clinton defenders just fixate on his extramarital affairs and want to ignore everything else! I'd be careful about using that "vast right-wing conspiracy" crap, somebody else used it and it bit her in the buttocks!
You seriously saw nothing wrong with either Hillary or Billy, did you? You think they were right on the money, all the way across the board! LOL!! You think I'm biased and a brainless right-winger, yet you are so blind to any wrong-doing by your hero and his husband, Hillary, that you think anyone who knows better is wrong-wrong-WRONG!!
LOL!! You really are funny. I'll have to rely on someone who is both lucid and not counting on Shrub to do the right thing to give me the heads up when he steps out of line.
Thanks, anyway.

The death cry of a losing argument......the 'LOL' in a feeble mocking attempt!
Listen Thomas, I'm getting tired of dancing around with you. You know too much about my points of view to make stupid comments and feign ignorance to my beliefs. You know there were issues I had with Clinton from previous posts. You know that you're holding on to things that were falsehoods about the man by his political opponents. You also know that it's past, it was ALL vetted, and we are talking about the here and now.
Stay on topic.
Bush & regime have enacted restrictions to our freedoms for consolidation of power under the guise of imminent threat and warfare. All of which is by their own negligence ( Reichstag Fire = 9/11/01) and cunning ( closed door government = underhanded dealings).
There is zero connect to what you imagine in a out-of-power-conservative-get-him-at-all-costs haze of the Clinton years to what your fascist leaning master has implemented today.
Stay on topic.
Or do you really believe your MasterCard purchases and library book withdrawls are our governments business?

Ok, we'll allow you the motion to ignore Clinton's massive abuses of the law and damges to the constitution and just look at the here and now (until, of course, another Clinton takes power, in which case we are to look at the past and ignore the present).
First off, in order to have this objective conversation (if that is possible with a liberal), let us speak plainly, and try and do so without our blind hatred and bias from clouding the issues (or am I the only one that has to walk the straight and narrow?)
What I mean by that is negligence (Reichtag Fire), and,
cunning (closed door government=underhanded dealings).
Your shorthand cryptic-wording with left-wing conspiratorial insinuations-without-fact drivel isn't conducive to an objective attempt to discern the truth.

As far as my Mastercard purchases helping the war on terror, no, it won't. But that is because I am not a terrorist. Haven't we covered the fact that this is not what we have grown to view as a conventional war? Are we to conduct an unconventional war by conventional means so that nobody who is looking for the purchases of a terrorist may accidentally discover your kiddie-porn purchases?
Didn't I mention the fact that the citizen always has to expect a change in their liberties in times of war, it is the resumption of normalcy that we have to be prepared to demand at the end, and in the case of such an abstract war, we must be mindful that the government stays on track and doesn't try and make this an eternal event?
You seem to be more fearful of the ones trying to conduct the war on our behalf than you are of the ones who are trying to end our existence.

Just to make sure you don't try and project your myopic view unto me, let me clarify that I am aware of the fact that the changes occuring couldn't one day be used against the population in general and that in time, Shrub will be shown to be as sinister as Bush '41. I'm just not viewing him through your blind hate and warped view. As a matter of fact, I have criticized him in the past, only to be served a little crow by my fellow conservatives that aren't as quick on the trigger as I am. I'm learning, though. Not everyone is as sorry and self-serving as Clinton.
Oops! Did I mention Clinton again? I-Sorry!

[Edited on 26-11-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

B-T:

The attacks of 9-11 were the beginning of World War 3. We just don't know it yet. Osama Bin Laden has declared war on America on several occasions. The sad part is that many Muslims mistakenly follow him. This means that a sizeable portion of the world's population is ready to rise up and strike the U.S. through nonconventional means.

Thomas....remarkable. I'll probably fail to meet someone online more blind to the malfeasance in front of them due to their rabid partisanship. I haven't decided which is 'more': my happiness over that fact or my sadness for you.
Clinton's damage to the constitution? Proof of your Ditto-head, Limbaugh inspired fairy tale, is what exactly?
Yet, you swallow hook-line-sinker the legislated in writing moves by Bush? Making the comment "Are we expected to fight a unconventional war, conventionally?"
I can see the terrorist on the check out line buying bomb materials with their Visa. Simple monitoring of the places that sell that stuff & their transactions are lost on you, huh? Wal-Mart is such a hotbed of anti-American purchases, I'm sure.
No, my -fascist-state-enabling-Brownshirt-friend, unconventional means we leave the Abrams in the shed and send it light & fast target specific teams to make the bad men go bye-bye before the day's camel turds are dry in the street. Unconventional doesn't mean we fatten the coffers of the defense contractors.
Son, about that WWIII thing, probably right. But we will be responsible for starting it, much the way your three year old kid brother runs up to your 17 year old butt and punches you in the leg & you respond by punching him full force in the jaw....yeah he started it, but who was responsible for restraint and to avoid over reaction?

It seems to me that TC can only denounce what BT is saying by discarding it as propaganda.

Are u in favour of a police force that answers to no one Thomas? I certainly would never be. READ THE SIGNATURE!

[Edited on 29-11-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]