Letters to the Editor
Nequals1
Published Letters: 332 Editor's Choice: 7
-
What oath do intelligence offiers take?
[Read the article: A.J. Rossmiller: "Still Broken"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In other words, do citizens have a right to the expectation that intelligence officers either whistle-blow or resign when they discover that their findings are to be tailored to political goals and expectations?
What standards of conduct regulate intelligence officers?
I am just an ignoramus about how intelligence officers are used. I would like to think that they collect intelligence so that diplomatic channels of peace and goodwill can be advanced, but I'm guessing that it's all war and terrorism all the time.
-
O, Celery!
[Read the article: Obama shows that dismissing slimy right-wing attacks is not difficult]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry to learn about the osteomyelitis. Hope that the wounded stalk will heal well and soon. I'm glad that the VA is being aggressive in treating it. That's one war you need to attack full frontal and from both flanks. Do you have good generals and a sound C-in-C?
Here's Jefferson's medicine:
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.
-
Charlie Savage's Questions
[Read the article: John King with Mike McConnell: Rare journalistic honesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I apologize if I've missed this mentioned in other comments, but did you see charlie Savage's list of questions in the NYTimes op-ed?
1. Responding to a questionnaire from The Boston Globe on presidential power, you both criticized President Bush’s use of signing statements, with which he has asserted a constitutional right to bypass more than 1,000 sections of bills that he has signed into law. You both also said you would continue using signing statements, though in a less aggressive way.
But the American Bar Association has called for an end to this practice, and Senator John McCain says he will never issue a signing statement. Why are they wrong?
2. Both of you have said the Constitution does not allow a president to detain a citizen without charges as an enemy combatant. But President Bush won court rulings upholding the indefinite detention of two Americans as enemy combatants. Were the courts wrong? Does a president have the authority to interpret the Constitution differently from the judiciary? Would you ever use the court-approved authority to hold a citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant?
3. Both of you have said that President Bush cannot attack Iran without first obtaining Congressional authorization for the use of military force. But two Democratic presidents, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, ordered American forces into extended armed conflicts without Congressional authorization. Did the Korean and Kosovo wars violate the Constitution? Would an attack on Iran be legally different, and if so, how?
4. Are there any circumstances — including in matters of detention, surveillance, interrogation and troop deployments — under which you believe that presidents have the constitutional power as commander in chief to bypass laws in order to take an action they think is necessary to protect national security?
5. Proponents of the so-called unitary executive theory argue that the Constitution does not allow Congress to enact statutes that place the actions of executive-branch officials beyond the president’s control, such as by giving independent decision-making authority to the head of a regulatory agency. Do you agree?
— CHARLIE SAVAGE, a reporter for The Boston Globe and the author of “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26debate-questions.html?ref=opinion
What are the chances that they will be asked and answered by any of the candidates? Why is it that intelligent and prepared reporters aren't able to interview candidates in the manner that CNN, MSNBC and Fox allows?
-
@ Little Brother
[Read the article: John King with Mike McConnell: Rare journalistic honesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right. How assinine of me!
And the correct answer is a family tree - right?
-
Emerson's Brilliance
[Read the article: Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson on a blog post at the Science-Based Medicine blog today that struck me as Bush's legacy. But reading this column and comments, I realize that it has utility in many venues. Read it and laugh/cry/ponder/pontificate:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Doesn't this also apply to the punditocracy?
-
Big Government and Little Government
[Read the article: Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another "convert" to liberalism here, except that I was a liberal all along and just didn't recognize it.
My problem was that I conflated the idea of little government wiht increased liberty, and it's not the same notion on the same continuum. Once I understood that liberalism is aimed at providing the most liberty and freedom while mitigating capitalism by the use of judicious regulation, the pieces fell into place for me. It's why I almost always voted a Democratic ticket whilst registered as a Republican - talk about yer cognitive dissonance.
I knew at some fundmanetal level that most Republicans acted in their own self-interests at the expense of the community and most Democrats espoused tolerance and the community good at their own expense when they were uniformly accused of big spending and big government. I learned that it's the balancing and oversight - the cumbersome and time-consuming aspects - that actually provide the checks and balances - and ultimately - good government.
The other key difference I perceive (your mileage I'm sure is varying from my perception and experience) is that liberals tend to think in terms of long lasting effects and changes, and conservatives tend to look for the immediate and short term effects of legislation and oversight.
It's that short sightedness and mean-ness/stinginess that ultimately turned me away from the conservative agenda and led me to align permanently in the liberal camp, where I'm happy to proclaim that affiliation as an attribute and a strength, rather than shy from the term.