3 posts tagged “iraq”

And no, I don' t mean Virginia.

The People have issued a mandate to the current executive administration.  But the implications for the next two years will begin to be understood when the President addresses the country, I would assume within the next 12 hours.

Now, more than ever, there is an opportunity for our elected leader to temper ideology with some practicality.  While I disagree strongly with neo-conservative ideology, that is not the issue.  It is my hope that President Bush will make the next two years a new chapter in his administration.

The wasted six years are gone forever.  Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, the success of the next two years will not be determined by political party.  No, there is one person that has the opportunity to make a choice as to whether we will see produtive politics from now until the next Presidential election.

NOW is the time for our elected leader to approach his administration and his actions over the last six years with humility and honestly.  It is clear that we have been on the wrong track.  Our President can salvage his administration by choosing to no longer ignore the concerns of his nation.

We will have more than a glimpse of what is in store for us in the next two years when we the President addresses us. 

Please!

I've been listening to coverage on Election 2006 throughout the evening, and there has been substanitally commentary that the swing in political party power has not necessarily been about the Republican-led administration's grand mistake in Iraq. 

Can we get one thing straight?  Other important issues aside, the single biggest thing that tonight was about IS about Iraq.  Would the rest of you stop kidding yourselves?  Yes, there are some other significant issues.  But when we rank them in order, the singles biggest issue is that finally, the American population is standing up and loudly say: "No more, Mr. President.  We tried to tell you that this Iraq thing doesn't make sense, but you kept pushing to have your way.  Now, we hope you get the message".

Ok, now let's all work on putting this country back together.

Some Thoughts on "The Smart Politics of the Detainee Vote" (article by MSNC National Affairs write, 09/28/06 19:56PST - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15049251/)  as well as "Senate passes bill on terror detainee trials" from the Associated Press around the same time - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/)

Both the House and the Senate have passed legislation (on Wed. and today, respectively) supporting our current President's continued infringement on the civil liberty of Americans.  And it wasn't just loyal, if too lazy to think, Republican legislators who voted yes.  Among them was Sherrod Brown of Ohio who is reported as stating that detainees "are not soldiers, not combatants representing a government, these are terrorists." 

Oh that's convenient.  That's sounds a dangerously close to saying "I'll decide who is a person and who is something else." (This actually reminds me of a somewhat recent measure passed by the voters in Utah usurping the right of criminals to vote, but that's a different issue for now).  The beauty of the rule of law is it ensures, among other things, a consistency of thought and process that safeguards against the danger of political expediency.  When one starts recreating basic definitions (such as those about people) "on the fly" to meet a particular agenda or situation, it becomes contradictory to assert one's self as a defender of the rule of law.  And when a group of people get to start defining who gets to keep their civil liberties and who doesn't.......well, watch out!!  And you'd better hope you make it into the "right" group.

Many would probably hear or read Brown's statement and not bat an eyelash because no one wants to sound like they support terrorists.  And that's exactly the rhetoric that we reportedly hear from the Republican camp.  Not everyone is fooled, though.  Some of us know that we can disagree with political actions in the last few years without supporting terrorism. 

Americans, let's at least be honest in our political discussions.  The point isn't what liberal minds think about terrorism.  The point is what we think about civil liberty.  At least a few Democrats, including the honorable Senator Feinstein from California, have pointed out that the issue with the President's bill regarding detainees relates to the rule of law.  And a little thing called the Bill of Rights, perhaps you've heard of it?  We all want to see terrorism end.  But we don't want to see grave mistakes made along the way. 

Brown's comment is also rather odd in regards to detainees not being soldiers.  I'm sorry.  I could have sworn I've heard things about a war in Iraq and a War on Terror.  Aren't the people fighting in a war typically called soldiers?  Perhaps a grade school level vocabulary is a luxury these days for legislators. 

And that is all really just an ironic side note, given that the definition of whether a terrorist is a soldier has nothing to do with how the severe mistake being made with this recent legislation.  Oh, its really easy to talk about all of this when detainees really are terrorists.  But what are you going to think when your next door neighbour is the next one rounded up?  Should they really be detaineed without the basics liberties granted in the Bill of Rights?

The powers given to the President to exercise judgement are far too great (we should not be comfortable even when the leader in question has a reputation for good judgement) and the powers to those accused far too little.  The legislation also redefines what can be considered evidence - "hearsay" being one of them. 

Finally, one should be questioning the timing of the legislation.  So this is the way that past violations of law will be condoned?  By conveniently altering the law?  Perhaps we should do away with the rule of law entirely, after all, it takes so much time to be consistent.

This is yet another say day for all of us.