Vince wrote: > As far as the usual "conservative" position of state rights, Ashcroft is the poster boy for > hypocrisy - as well as for a nice violation of the conservative doctrine > of non-governmental intrusion into people's private lives.
>From what I've been hearing many "conservatives" agree with you on this one. Another good example of the Feds impinging on states' rights and moreso impinging on private rights. > Ashcroft's other decision was to allow the government to listen in on > all conversations between attorneys and their clients for those held in > detention and/or arrest for anything related to September 11th. That > eliminates a whole series of civil liberties - the right to > confidentiality between the accused and their lawyer, the right to > effective counsel and effective defense, the right to a presumption of > innocence. >From what I've read it only applies to 13 terrorists being held who they believe are still plotting They are being told upfront that their conversations will be monitored. Not that I agree with this - under normal circumstances - but these are not normal times. In times of war many civil liberties have been blunted. Many conservatives are also with you on this one, however. Other people feel we've left the gate open way too long and sometimes in extreme cases the rights of the majority (protection against being terrorized and killed) supercede the rights of a few foreign terrorists. Interesting about conversations being monitored. That has been done to Americans in many areas of industry (especially the defense industry) for years and no one has ever said much about it. > Meanwhile, Bush in a little noticed executive order last week issued an > executive order to override federal law which says that all presidential > papers must ultimately be made public Again I think we have to trust that this is being done because we are at war, Vince. >After the bombing of the two US embassies, Clinton launched missile attacks on positions > where intelligence showed Osama to be. Evidently those missiles just > missed Osama - that is, those missiles which hit their intended target. So how good was the intelligence? > I remember a certain governor of Texas who joined with other Republicans > and the media wits in general in denouncing Clinton for going after > Osama bin Laden - yes, denouncing Clinton for going after bin Laden- > with the term "Wag the Dog" used nonstop to mock Clinton for supposedly > considering Osama bin Laden a major threat to the US only because > Clinton wanted to distract from the Lewinsky stuff. Many opposed it, including myself, because it was never made too clear why missiles were suddenly being launched without any public dialogue, or congressional approval or oversight as I recall. If Bush decided to lob a few cruise missiles suddenly into the Sudan tomorrow without anyone's approval or without most people knowing why, I'd be very alarmed at that, too. It really did seem like a token gesture on Clinton's part to many at the time. If he'd just settled up the Monica issue and moved on to address more serious national issues, we'd have all been better off right now perhaps. Kakki
