The blogosphere’s convulsing over statements made that would seem to cheer on the Taliban and wish for the death of our Vice President.

Yeah. Awful. But not for the reasons being bandied about….

In previous wars, some individuals have occasionally violated these principles, but I believe a general abandonment by our government of these principles is unwise, dangerous, unnecessary, and just flat wrong.

Really this is just nonsense. Those weren’t isolated incidents but wholesale changes in government policy during a time of war. In every major conflict letters have been opened, people spirited off in teh middle of the night, domestic spying has taken place and rough men used rough measures to get intelligence. To say that this administration is taking such changes to a new level is simply, and completely, fallacious.

The smoke screen is the wailing and gnashing of teeth whilst crying “We’ve never done this before!”. It’s just rubbish and historically incorrect.

What you are asking is whether we should now fight a war with respect for individual rights at a new level for warfare. Should we fight a war using the standards that we now set…and rightfully so…for the treatment of criminals.

I find myself in the middle. I don’t think for this war that domestic spying at the level that the FBI did during WWII and all the way through the 1960s is required. We know where the enemy lives and we know how communications get there.

I don’t think long term torture and interrogation works. When a prisoner is first captured they are teh most disoriented. That’s when agressive techniques yeild results. After a certain amount of time your beating someone for fun. Then the detainee must have their status determined. If they are a POW they should be humanely detained until the end of hostilities. If they are determined to non-cobatants then they should be freed.

If they fall into that category which the Geneva Convention does not protect…armed combatants without proper uniform identification…the next step is clear and approved by SCOUTUS.

The examples you produce to are beside the point, because mistakes we’ve made in the past should not (cannot!) be used to “justify” making the same mistakes today. Or are you, like Michelle Malkin, claiming the internment of Japanese-Americans was not a mistake? That Nixon wasn’t wrong to claim the power to break the law? That OSS violations (pre-Geneva conventions, mind you) were the right thing to do? Need I go on?

Enough dancing and smokescreening. I stand by my original point, which is that we do not need to abandon our defining principles (Rule of Law, respect for human rights, individual freedom, protection of the individual from government power, etc.) in order to defeat al Qaeda. In previous wars, some individuals have occasionally violated these principles, but I believe a general abandonment by our government of these principles is unwise, dangerous, unnecessary, and just flat wrong.

If we abandon who we are and what we stand for, then we abandon the reason to fight. Apparently you disagree. So tell me why it’s ok to abandon our principles in order to fight al Qaeda. And while you’re at it, you can tell me what we’re fighting for, if it’s not freedom.

A CAR BOMB goes off outside the gate of Bagram airbase, killing at least four (including an American soldier) and injuring dozens. Vice President Cheney is on the base at the time, a good, long distance away from the explosion…….

As for Roosevelt: Aside from the internement camps there is the “Duncan” case decided against Roosevelt in 1946.

Both Presidents order mail to be secretly opened and looked at.

And the actions of the OSS fill the rest.

So please enlighten me.

Or do you think that just because it’s been done before (regardless of the context), that means it’s ok to do it now (again regardless of the context)?

Do you really think torture, kidnapping, suspension of Habeas Corpus, and Presidential lawbreaking are necessary to defeat al Qaeda? If so, why?

or the Germans or the Japanese- in other words, without torture, without illegal abductions, without eliminating Habeas Corpus, without Presidential lawbreaking, etc.

We did all those and more. Roosevelt and Lincoln both violated habeas corpus and _both_ were admonished by the SCOTUS after the fact. Read some of the adventures of the OSS. Particularly the events surrounding the Kachin Rangers in Indochina.

One could go on and on. It just floors me that so many people believe so much nonsense with so little factual basis.

Allow me to get a little snarky, however. Tell me again why I must sacrifice my civil liberties and my freedom in order to fight and eliminate these crazies? Why can’t we defeat these guys like we defeated the Soviets or the Germans or the Japanese- in other words, without torture, without illegal abductions, without eliminating Habeas Corpus, without Presidential lawbreaking, etc.

I could go on and on, but I think everyone gets my point- there is no need to fundamentally alter who we are and what we stand for in order to defeat these people.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/217082.php

Yeah, or like Lucianne Goldberg or Phillis Schlafly! Haw haw! Get it? Because they’re ugly!

Ah, the wit and wisdom of the conservative blogosphere.

Did the Taliban know of Vice President Cheney’s surprise visit to Afghanistan ahead of time? Or are they claiming to have invented fire?

I’m not expecting the Associated (with terrorists) Press to get to the bottom of that question any time soon….