Don't need anything from the likes of you.

Was it the original intent of the constitution to allow the president to use force abroad at his sole discretion? Original intent or not; is it a wise policy?

-- heru-ur

What are you asking us for? We're bloodthirsty warmongers who have an insatiable blood lust for murdering women and children in wars wherever the "Empire" wants to start them. Or at least that is what you tell us all the time, day in and day out, year after year.

Would you mind inquiring of Slackman whether or not he [Slackman] is, in fact, drawing the distinction to which ondelette is referring? Slackman's far more likely to answer you, I presume. And you're more capable than I of formulating a query that will cut to the heart of the matter sans wiggle room.

From the article, Slackman says

The government has made it a practice to publicize confessions from political prisoners held without charge or legal representation, often subjected to pressure tactics like sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and torture, according to human rights groups and former political prisoners.

But it's Afshari the NYT is quoting here

“They tortured me, some beatings, sleep deprivation, insults, psychological torture, standing me for several hours in front of a wall, keeping me in solitary confinement for one year,” Mr. Afshari said in an interview from his home in Washington.

Regardless of whether or not you follow up w/ Slackman, thanks.

Seen on the net:

Senator Robert Taft (1889-1953)

Here is Taft on the danger of giving Truman war power to fight in Korea: “If the President can intervene in Korea without Congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.”

So, was old Taft right or not?

If we had to have a real declaration of war passed by congress for each use of the military; there would be far fewer uses of the military --- or many more congressmen not re-elected.

Was it the original intent of the constitution to allow the president to use force abroad at his sole discretion? Original intent or not; is it a wise policy?

When one caller asked her why NPR uses euphemisms for torture, when it's perfectly frank about calling "child abuse" or "wife abuse" by its correct name, she said, apparently with a straight face, "there are no two sides to child abuse or wife abuse." What crap! Of course there are two sides, there always are! No abusive husband in history has been without excuses: "She asked for it. I didn't really hit her hard. She likes it." Etc. etc. And child abuse? Some parents will quote to you from the Bible about sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Hey, if RELIGIOUS beliefs are involved, well then, shouldn't you use the term "hard disciplinary tactics" rather than "domestic abuse" to avoid taking sides? It's the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.

I'm behind so you may have discussed this more than enough, but I'll put my $0.02 in.

It's hard to think of a more difficult question to answer (for me at least), and I've given this considerable thought. As others have pointed out in this thread and countless other threads, we are in so deeply that no remedy will be quick or easy. Simply voting Democratic, Libertarian, Independent, presidential candidate X, or not voting at all, is about the laziest, if not the least effective solution that can be posited.

I think most here understand the consequences of not addressing the issues, but when I get beyond the confines of UT I know that is not the case with the citizenry. Just yesterday, a very bright, well educated (formal), and professionally successful person said to me, "I don't care how much we tortured as long as we kept the country safe."

The proper way to respond to an incredulous statement like that is to forcefully argue that torturing "others" makes and has made our country less safe (break down of rule of law, humanity, etc.). But those rebuttals fall on deaf ears. They are returned as "that's just a bunch of Democratic b.s. to get Democrats elected."

To find the answer to What Do We Do Now, I think we have to back into the answer by seriously answering the question, what are the consequences of doing nothing (or not enough). And those answers need to be articulated in a very clear and concise fashion that the citizenry can understand.

Pointing out symptom after symptom will only carry us so far. We have to convince people like the asshat I encountered yesterday what are the real consequences facing our country and it needs to be expressed in terms applicable to the individual and the whole. Simply responding with rule-of-law type answers or our democracy will fail just don't get it. Maybe others are finding more successes, but that's my experience in everyday interactions.

I can quote the Founding Fathers all day long, but that is all washed away with one brief Fox interview with Dick Cheney.

American Exceptionalism propagates the notion to many that America will never fail, not just that there are double standards.

(link at sig)

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Please read more here:

http://home.att.net/~scorh3/July4A.html

" Titonwan That's a nice list of organizations. If you add up all the participants in all those organizations, you'd have possibly .00001% of the population. The rest of the citizenry is composed of people like calamine and faragut. What are your chances of accomplishing anything positive? I'd say none in this world! It must be terribly frustrating for you. i have empathy for you but it seems to me to be a fruitless endeavor."-- antineocon

I hope you're just being ignorant instead of stupid on this supposed "Independence Day". By your "calculation", there's only 3,500 people total involved and I've been to protests (the Pentagon was the last one) where the crowd was at least that many people but probably closer to 5,000. That's just ONE event. And I know the least of the people there are the true leaders of their particular communities because they show the gumption (read guts) to actually put their money where their fucking mouths are. I ignore polls and bogus guestimations on what the civil libertarian statistics are is either an excuse to not get involved or just way out of the ballpark. As far as the commenters on here goes, I guarantee you for everyone that writes a post, there's far more people that merely read and take something away from it. The same thing applies to leaders that protest.

So, enjoy your "Independence Day", or as we aboriginals say, the "Oh shit, they've decided to stay here" Day.