Patriot Act: Good or Bad?

[Len Colby]

If indeed Ike and Warren had made such a deal it doesn’t seem so corrupt to me as it does to Jim and Tom. Certainly seats on the Supreme Court shouldn’t be sold in political deals but aren’t such ‘arrangements’ made all the time in politics? Didn’t JFK offer LBJ the VP slot to get his backing? Is it anymore corrupt that JFK’s deal with the Dixiecrats? One could argue there were more qualified candidates than Warren but he was certainly more qualified for the Supreme Court than RFK was for AG. Warren was a practicing lawyer for 28 years including time as state AG before serving as governor, Bobby was only 9 years out of law school.

I’m not attacking the Kennedys - I think JFK was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century and that his brother was an excellent AG and senator and would have made a great president – just making the point that politics isn’t always a clean game. It’s not fair to condemn those you don’t like for certain behavior and give those you admire a free pass for similar conduct.

As for whether or not the deal was made – I have yet to see to see any evidence that it was. Jim/Tom can you cite any sources.

Despite his dubious role in the investigation of JFK's assassination Warren was in my book the best Cheif Justice this country ever had. I'm not sure Jackson would have been a good choice, as I stated before Brown probibly would not as been far reaching nor a unanimous descision if he had been Cheif Justice.

[Jim Root]

Len

My source is attributed to Goodwin Knight who became Governor of California upon the appointment of Earl Warren to Chief Justice.

"Warren's successor as governor, Goodwin J. Knight, was to relate in later years that Eisenhower had promised Warren the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in return for delivering the California vote to him, but intended to renege when the first vacancy turned out to be in the office of chief justice. The court's leader, Fred M. Vinson, died on Sept. 8, 1953."

Taken from http://www.mnc.net/norway/warren.htm

Jim Root

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Len

My source is attributed to Goodwin Knight who became Governor of California upon the appointment of Earl Warren to Chief Justice.

"Warren's successor as governor, Goodwin J. Knight, was to relate in later years that Eisenhower had promised Warren the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in return for delivering the California vote to him, but intended to renege when the first vacancy turned out to be in the office of chief justice. The court's leader, Fred M. Vinson, died on Sept. 8, 1953."

Taken from http://www.mnc.net/norway/warren.htm

Jim Root

This version appears to be fully substantuated as being extremely close to the facts.

The only difference that I am aware of is that Warren was to be given a regular position on the court, with one of the existing members stepping up to fill the "Chief Justice" slot.

To this, Warren held to the "promise" that he would fill the first vacancy, which as it turned out, was that of Chief Justice.

For whatever the true and factual reasons, Warren was allowed to step directly into this position, even though Eisenhower opposed such a "giant leap".

It would therefore appear as potentially more of the political blackmail when on can refuse the lower position and demand the Chief Justice position, when the President of the US is even against such an appointment.

Therefore, it would appear that any discussion of Earl Warren, and how he acquired his direct appointment to "Commanding General" of the US Supreme Court, as well as all of the other interconnections between LBJ/RMN/JBC/JEH/Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, etc, are all quite relevant in understanding the formation and operating procedures of the WC, as well as the necessity for the continuation of the misrepresentations of this group.

It would be interesting to determine how Specter secured his appointment as a staff counsel.

No secret there either, for those who are of a "fraternal" nature.

[Robert Howard]

No political leader, Democrat or Republican, no American nor group of Americans has the right nor should even claim the right to sacrifice liberty for a “security” that is as illusionary as the leadership that is so sadly lacking in that same America today

[Tim Gratz]

So, Robert, if American security is as illusionary as you say it is, I imagine you can provide me with the names of American victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil post 9-11-2001.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

So, Robert, if American security is as illusionary as you say it is, I imagine you can provide me with the names of American victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil post 9-11-2001.

As a Brit I'm slightly reluctant to get into this but lets be fair Tim, how many American victims of terrorist attacks on US soil were there BEFORE 911. Seems to me that you got hit by a one trick pony, and that some Americans,terrible though this event was, are wildly overeacting to it.If as Bush claims they hate you for your freedom, just imagine what joy the patriot act must have given Bin Laden.FWIT, Steve.

[Len Colby]

So, Robert, if American security is as illusionary as you say it is, I imagine you can provide me with the names of American victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil post 9-11-2001.

As a Brit I'm slightly reluctant to get into this but lets be fair Tim, how many American victims of terrorist attacks on US soil were there BEFORE 911. Seems to me that you got hit by a one trick pony, and that some Americans,terrible though this event was, are wildly overeacting to it.If as Bush claims they hate you for your freedom, just imagine what joy the patriot act must have given Bin Laden.FWIT, Steve.

Steve, you beat me to it I was going to ask Tim the same question and raised a similar point earlier in this thread, I guess great minds DO think alike!!

Tim, I know you were replying to Robert's comment but you indicated before that you believe Bush's policies namely the Patriot Act and extra-judicial eavesdropping are what has protected the US from additional attacks. Do you have any evidence that this is true?

Len

PS - Tim, I'm still waiting for you to reply to the thread about Bush lying about what he saw on the morning of 9-11-01. Can we take your refusal to reply as a tact admission on your part that it's true? I would've thought you would have jumped at the opportunity to defend your boy Bush.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5209

Edited January 6, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I guess great minds DO think alike!!

Len, or as Shakespere said in the Tempest..."There be five others on the island, if they are brained like us the state totters

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Gratz has previously asked just what constitutional rights that GWB has permanently taken away.

I contend that any constitutional rights that are denied, and the denial of them has no specific expiration, are de facto permanent...until such time as either an expiration of the denial is determined, or the rights themselves are restored to the citizens.

The 1995 attack on the Murraugh Federal Building in Oklahoma City is an example that illustrates how the "war on terror" has no specific beginning, and how it will have no end. The Oklahoma City bombing was claimed to have been masterminded by an American citizen, so the internal threat is no less deadly--except perhaps in numbers--to the external threat. [i say "no less deadly" because I don't believe, for the purposes of this forum, that a victim of the Oklahoma City bombing is any LESS dead than a victim of the WTC.] And was the Olympic bombing in Atlanta any less a terrorist attack, although agreeably much more limited in scope?

So if the Bush administration is "only" suspending our constitutional rights until the threat of terrorism is gone, then one CAN correctly argue that these rights have been taken away permanently. And since Bush has declared this is a GLOBAL war on terrorism, as long as Hamas bombs Israeli buses, the global war on terror hasn't been won...as long as there is unrest in any corner of the world, Bush has his declared grounds to deny freedom. And as an avowed conservative, you must of course realize government's reticence to relinquish ANY power it gains...you DO, don't you, Mr. Gratz?

So if the terrorists actually hate Americans for their freedom, as Mr. Bush insisits, does it not follow that, whenever Bush encroaches on that freedom, THE TERRORISTS WIN? The terrorsist don't WANY Americans to be free...so to defeat the terrorists, we have to SURRENDER OUR FREEDOM ??? By giving the govenrment the power to take AWAY our freedoms, Mr. Gratz, I fail to see how that buttresses your argument, on another thread, that you are AGAINST "Big Government." Can you expain the apparent discrepancy? Or is it that "big government" is bad, but "BIG BROTHER Government" is good in your eyes? Mr. Gratz, if you honestly fail to see the inconsistency in your position, I suggest an eye examination by a competent professional...because in the words of the late Flip Wilson, "Ray Charles could see THAT!"

And so should you.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

So, Robert, if American security is as illusionary as you say it is, I imagine you can provide me with the names of American victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil post 9-11-2001.

Don't we need a sample study in order to make a generalization about the effectiveness of Bush's protection of the U.S. from terrorism?

In other words, don't we need to compare terror attacks in the U.S. BEFORE 9-11 with those after?

Oh, I forgot about the Ku Klux Klan, and the FBI Military Intel's murder of MLK. O.K. I guess your right Tim, there is a bit less terror now!!

As we know all know, terror is one of the most Orwellian words going in todays's corporate press. If you include "state terror," then I would argue that the U.S. is definitely the biggest promoter of terrorism in the world.

The death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala (250,000 dead out of a population of 5 million) were created by the Green Berets and the CIA under Lyndon Johnson (see Michael McClintock's writings on these countires: he is currently the head of America's Watch.

Not to worry, however, the current head of U.S. anti-terrorism worked for King George 4 and the CIA with death squads in Honduras. At least he knows terror when he sees it-- red, on his hands.

[Robert Howard]

Tim Gratz wrote

"So, Robert, if American security is as illusionary as you say it is, I imagine you can provide me with the names of American victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil post 9-11-2001."

Since 9/11 President Bush has been President for a lengthy period of time, in which there have been no terrorist attacks.

One could say it is a moot point given the repeated assurances by various personages in our Government, who speak of 'a future terrorist attack,' in the context of another terrorist attack is 'not a case of if, but when.'

How completely nauseating, it is as if the order of 'every day' since 9/11 is to scare the living hell out of the American people, My God! Tell me Tim do you consider that 'leadership?'

While we're at it, maybe the Bush Administration can make Pat Robertson the WASP Pope in the official position as head of 'the Dept of National Religion.'

The President cannot even decieve convincingly, he can try to appear sincere in declaring that relations between Republican's and Democrats should not be so acrimonious. But a comment like that is hard to take seriously when Karl Rove is your Chief of Staff

Let's see what are those joking comments about 'wouldn't mind being a Dictator?' Is that supposed to be funny, It is not very funny to me.

Secondly, at what cost has our alleged safety been obtained 'to blatantly disregard the very specific FISA provisions, that have been 'the rule of law' until at least the current administration began its tenure?

The irony of it is that I basically am a conservative, notice Tim that the first voices of discord being heard in the Republican ranks (what took so long?) are from 'real conservatives.' Honestly there are very few politicians in Washington that I have ANY respect for - Bernie Sanders I-VT being one. Because if politics was still an 'honorable profession' every single Senator and member of Congress would have addressed this nonsense a long time ago, but why start now.

I think the following sums up my feelings on the matter.

- After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's TIA (Total Information Awareness) project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."

Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." -

Edited January 6, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Tim Gratz]

So, Robert, all you said just obscures the fact that you cannot or will not answer my question with a "yes" or "no".

In court, if a witness was asked for a question that could be answered "yes" or "no" and he instead offered a bunch of claptrap, the judge would strike the response and order that the witness respond with a "yes" or "no".

The point is simply that there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since Bush launched the war on terror. I am sure there are classified records of terrorist attacks that have been prevented.

Are we totally secure from terrorist attacks? No, of course not, unfortunately. Are we safer because we have a president who recognizes the nature of the threat and understands that his first responsibility is to protect the safety of U.S. citizens? Of course we are.

[Ron Ecker]

Are we safer because we have a president who recognizes the nature of the threat and understands that his first responsibility is to protect the safety of U.S. citizens? Of course we are.

You live in a dream world, Tim. You ought to open a theme park in Key West and call it Gratzland.

[Tim Gratz]

So Ron perhaps you can identify any Americans killed on American soil after 9-11-2001?

I have not been able to find a single incident. Am i missing something here?

(By the way, I did admire your recent post in the "Familiar Faces" thread.)

Edited January 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

So Ron perhaps you can identify any Americans killed on American soil after 9-11-2001?

All 260 people aboard Flight 587, plus 5 more on the ground in Queens.