Thanks for the link -- especially because it linked to ANOTHER excellent blog I hadn't come across yet, called the Religious Policeman, by a Saudi blogger (I think he now lives in the UK).

The blog is http://muttawa DOT blogspot DOT com/
(sorry for the wording, the b-spot.com text is banned) and I highly recommend it as a breath of fresh air for anyone out there still wondering just how many "moderate" Muslims might actually be out there.

Answer? Maybe more than I was beginning to think...

Don't think it isn't perfectly clear that Neocons like yourself are latching on to this as a "free-speech" issue just to give yourselves cover from your support of limiting Free Speech in America under the ruse of "fighting terrorism".

I don't believe for one stinkin' minute that you actually give a damn about "free speech" or even understand what it really means. Neocons like yourself want to reserve the right to define this as they see fit, depending entirely on political expediency and not at all on actual UNBIASED EQUAL protection of citizen's rights.

For example, criticizing "The Commander in Chief" or publishing leaked information that hurts the administraion becomes "helping terrorists" and should carry political or even legal penalties.

This playbook is getting really worn out and tiresome now.

Wizener, I believe the term is known as "projection."

Leaked information bound by national security laws re: secrecy may indeed carry political or even legal penalties. If natioanl security was anything other thana distraction from handing money to your domestic client groups, that might be clearer to you. At one time, that was clear to the vast majority of Democrats.

That is not incompatible with the freedom to publish without worrying that you are disobeying the theocratic edict of a religion you do not believe in. An edict backed, I might add, with the open threat of violence.

An edict for which all too many left-liberals like yourself, always willing to wail about an illusionary Christian "theocracy," are only too happy to serve as flack-boys.

Wizener, you continue to amaze me. Can you imagine that there might be a fairly bright line between opinion speech (which should be protected at all cost) and speech which, for example, list your bank account numbers and access codes? Or speech which details troop movements? Or speech which details the nature and existence of programs - the success of which rely in large part on their secrecy?

No one in a leadership posiiton in Congress is standing up and saying that the NSA program is wrong, or immoral, or should be stopped.

There are legitimate issues about whether the Administration followed the legal procedures it should have followed, as there are legitimate issues about whether they could have.

Note that the existence of isses != proof that wither side is right. We have processes to resolve those things, in the courts and in the political arena. No one is empowered to simply declare a specific act by a specific person illegal without that process being followed - that's a good thing in most people's views.

And can I tell you how much I love the noseholding "you people" in your construction? Way to win friends and influence people.

A.L.

"For example, criticizing "The Commander in Chief" or publishing leaked information that hurts the administraion becomes "helping terrorists" and should carry political or even legal penalties."

Please site one instance of any reputable republican figure indicating that criticizing the commander in chief should carry a legal penalty. Thats total demagogic B.S. and you know it.

Political penalties? Of course it should carry the risk of political penalties. Just as it carries the hope of political gain. That's the real issue here. You guys want to be able to say whatever you want without the other side being able to criticize your argument in return. And when you cant you consider that censorship. No, its called discourse. Funny that your solution to this perceived assault on free speech is to muzzle the exact speech you dont like. Not surprising, but funny.

Wizener,
Since no one here or in the Bush administration has ever claimed that criticism of the Commander in Chief should carry legal penalties, those above are treating your comments far more seriously than their specious nature deserves.

As for political penalties, I am amused that you think the principle of freedom of speech immunizes anyone from the consequences of being judged a fool in the political arena. Evidently you rely on this nonexistant doctrine far too much.

LMFAO.

#5

"You guys want to be able to say whatever you want without the other side being able to criticize your argument in return. And when you cant you consider that censorship. No, its called discourse. Funny that your solution to this perceived assault on free speech is to muzzle the exact speech you dont like. Not surprising, but funny."

When Republicans learn to respond to criticism with a defense of the points of criticism and not attempt to deflect attention by accusing Dems of "aiding terrorists", then we can call THAT discourse,

"STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re saying that censure resolution weakens America abroad?

FRIST: Yes. Well, I think it does because we are right now in a war, in an unprecedented war, where we do have people who really want to take us down and we think back to 9/11 and that war on terror is out there. So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our Commander in Chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that we know is making our homeland safer is wrong. And it sends a perception around the world and, again, that’s why I’m saying as leader at least of the Republican side of this equation, that it’s wrong, because leadership around the world of our sworn enemies are going to say, well, now we have a little crack there. There is no crack. The American people are solidly behind this president in conducting this war on terror."

...In an interview for Fox News Radio, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) accused Senator Russ Feingold (D - WI) of [siding] with terrorists by introducing a resolution to censure George Bush.

That is an accusation of treason for excercising not only his right of free speech but also his sworn duty to serve the Constitution and the citizens of the US.

And all because he criticized your Great Wartime Commander-in-Chief.

#4

Guess you just ignore the news that doesn't fit your script.

"Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday he believes that President Bush violated a 1978 law specifically calling for a secret court to consider and approve such monitoring. The Pennsylvania Republican branded Gonzales' explanations to date as "strained and unrealistic.""

"The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy...charged that Bush misled the public when he said during the presidential campaign in April 2004 that his administration was following the law by getting warrants for wiretapping."

There are plenty more examples from both parties, BTW. Have you had your head in the sand throughout this whole episode???

"Or speech which details the nature and existence of programs - the success of which rely in large part on their secrecy?"

And you know the illegal NSA wiretapping efforts comport to this...how?

Wiz --

I'll note you are unable to say that Muslims worldwide and in this country threatening violence on those who publish cartoons is wrong.

Profiles in Courage? Hah.

Dems are spineless when it matters most, that is critizing Dark ages religious maniacs. Who threaten death for violating any of their bizarre rules. Anywhere, anytime, by anyone.

Heck yeah Frist believes Feingold is aiding the terrorists. Because, he's a politician. He's free to say what he likes. Feingold is free to say what he likes. He's also free to pay a political price when he finds it brought up for a vote and no one votes for it.

Feingold will get the nutroots money and votes, and drag Dems into the ground. He's GWB's best new friend and believe me Rove is laughing at him and the Nutroots.

When Iran threatens to nuke us daily, Al Qaeda is making threats, to outdo 9/11 by orders of magnitude, and every American fears a nuking of an American city in the coming time.

And Russ Feingold offers censure for Bush listening in to Al Qaeda? Less you miss the lessons of DPW and the heavy criticism Bush took from the right; the sense is that the nation has moved to the right of GWB.

Dems are simply not capable of condemning Muslim attempts to make blashpehmy a capital offense. Because your Mulit-culti religion makes that (ironically) blashphemy.

"When Iran threatens to nuke us daily.."

OMG. You can't be serious.

I'll note that you live in an alternate reality where marching to the War Drums being banged by your Idiot King is your only galvanizing force.

Jim, your posts are always good for a laugh. I'm glad people like you seem to gravitate instinctively toward the Right.

And that your kind is becoming more and more rare every day.

"That is an accusation of treason for excercising not only his right of free speech but also his sworn duty to serve the Constitution and the citizens of the US."

Treason is a very specific charge delineated precisley in the constitution. I dont hear Frist or Allard calling for treason charges which is what you are claiming. Do you not understand that it is a politicians job to argue that his ideas are correct and his opponents are wrong, wrongheaded, and counterproductive to America's best interest? Do you really want to live in a country where Frist cant say he thinks Feingold's ideas hurt America because of X, Y, or Z? That is what politicians do. The fact that it hits a nerve with you people is more telling about you than about the Republicans. When Teddy Kennedy says Republicans are cutting Medicare is killing old people nobody thinks the Senate Majority Leader is about to be indicted for murder. Get a grip. You know full well you are making a silly argument.

Wizener, as I said, your comments are being treated far more seriously than their nature deserves.

"Do you really want to live in a country where Frist cant say he thinks Feingold's ideas hurt America because of X, Y, or Z?"

No, but I want to live in a country where people wouldn't foolishly and wrongly try to argue that their accusations have any merit or constitute "debate". Where people see that the tools of fascism and totalitarianism are being routinely used by Republicans for political purposes, and clearly recognize the threat this poses to American security and viability.

In short, I want to live in a place where people want to sustain America and not allow it to be torn apart, like you do.

"No, but I want to live in a country where people wouldn't foolishly and wrongly try to argue that their accusations have any merit or constitute "debate"."

And how do you prevent that from happening? Stifling speech?

"Where people see that the tools of fascism and totalitarianism are being routinely used by Republicans for political purposes, and clearly recognize the threat this poses to American security and viability."

Lets see, the tools of fascism... how many political opponents are in concentration camps right now? How many assasinations have there been this campaign season? How many newspaper offices were burned down this year? How many media types were strong armed into writing propoganda? When was a political parties phones tapped? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Either you dont understand fascism, or you have a disjointed and psychotic view of what is actually happening in this country.

What gets me is that you dont understand the absolute hypocracy of everything you are saying. Its blindingly hypocriticaly. Breathtakingly. You are accusing Republicans of some terrible crime because they insinuate the opposition are 'traitors' somehow, then in the same breath you accuse them of being fascists!

"In short, I want to live in a place where people want to sustain America and not allow it to be torn apart, like you do."

Accusing the opposition of being Brownshirts in waiting... yeh, great way to bring the country together. If you dont like the fact that in America you have the absolute right to say the political opposition is stupid, misguided, and that their policies hence hurt America and then by definition help our enemies- too bad. Read the constitution. The only way to establish the America you want to see is to tear up the Constitutional freedoms you claim are under threat. Dont you see that as a little bit of a problem?

Wizener writes: "Where people see that the tools of fascism and totalitarianism are being routinely used by Republicans for political purposes, and clearly recognize the threat this poses to American security and viability."

This is completely silly rhetoric, Wizener. There is no rational argument to support it. There is exactly zero evidence of the Bush administration doing anything of the sort. It reveals a ludicrous abuse of language and a detachment from reality that is actually dangerous.

This is the kind of sputtering declarations that reveal a lack of seriousness among yourself and those like you who make these pronouncements.

Mark,
Wizener has a constitutional right to limit his opponents to exactly one-third of the slander and invective he uses.

Says so right in the First Amendment.

"And how do you prevent that from happening? Stifling speech?"

Nope. By taking away political power from those who want to destroy America to cement their own grip on government. The first step is to call it what it is.

Luckily people on the left AND right recognize this threat. Even Sandra Day O'Connor recently came out to warn people about the dangerous Republican efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary branch, and I've heard Bob Barr and many other Republicans say the same kind of thing regarding other adminstration abuses of power.

"WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Either you dont understand fascism, or you have a disjointed and psychotic view of what is actually happening in this country.

LMAO.

If you think your little list of deeds are the only definining features of "fascism", then you're the one who doesn't understand it well enough to recognize the symptoms, only the full-blown disease. Any idiot can do that. But it takes someone with at least a minimum amount of intelligence and honesty to be able to catch the disease early enough to do something about it. I would not put you in that category.

Heres some reading to explain how Neocons use tools of fascism in great detail:

http://dneiwert.blo*spot.com
The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fascism.pdf

(*=g)

"If you dont like the fact that in America you have the absolute right to say the political opposition is stupid, misguided, and that their policies hence hurt America and then by definition help our enemies- too bad. The only way to establish the America you want to see is to tear up the Constitutional freedoms you claim are under threat."

Ahh, the mindset of a Neocon. That is your side's approach to things, not mine. Accuse the opposition of doing what you'd do (because you're apparently incapable of seeing any other alternative) and then argue that it is bad, bad bad.

We don't need to "tear up the constitution" or our laws. No one on the Left ever said that. It seems to me rather that Republicans are the ones doing this (NSA/FISA). And trying to pass it all off as "just politics". Riiiight.

When a party supports a president that has willfully broken laws under the cover of "national security" and "fighting terrorism" and regards loyal law abiding Americans and elected representatives as "terrorists" and "threats" because they LEGALLY oppose the governments ILLEGAL actions, then you have to ask yourself honestly who is really trying to tear up the constitution here.

Wizener, you really don't seem to get it. Your claim that criticism you don't like equates to "tearing up the Constitution" is simply ridiculous.

SPQR;

Perhaps you'd be a little less confused if you didn't misunderstand my claim.

My claim isn't against the criticism but the actions that go along with it. For example, Republican's blocking investigation of the NSA spying even though it is constitutionally illegal, or allowing the detention of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens without charge, access to an attorney or the courts. Many prisoners held by the Pentagon and CIA are subjected to torture and abusive practices permitted by the White House.

And now Abu Gonzalez is going after journalists for publishing "leaked" information that has made these illegal activities public (but not, incidentally, those leaked to benefit the adminstration...Cheney outing Plame).

These actions against the Constitution. Ignoring them is "tearing it up", abso-f*cking-lutely.

Wizener, your new complaints don't match your old complaints.

There is in fact nothing unconstitutional about the NSA program, that's established constitutional law. The question of whether it violates the FISA statute and/or is not authorized by AUMF is largely a statutory argument. With respect to your complaints about detention, these legal issues are being addressed in the courts, so calling them "tearing up the constitution" or "fascist" are just cheap baseless and irrational slanders.

"Nope. By taking away political power from those who want to destroy America to cement their own grip on government. The first step is to call it what it is."

Go win an election.

"If you think your little list of deeds are the only definining features of "fascism", then you're the one who doesn't understand it well enough to recognize the symptoms, only the full-blown disease. "

Therein lies your problem. Your 'symptoms' are totally subjective. Was Lincoln or FDR a fascist? Because we all know they did things far more authoritarian than anything the Republicans have been accused of. The things you consider the first steps toward Krystalnatch 2005 the American people find- not just totally reasonable- but absolute no-brainers. You are never going to convince the American people that listening in on phone calls from wanted overseas terrorists to parties in the US is anything but required.

"For example, Republican's blocking investigation of the NSA spying even though it is constitutionally illegal,"

Rome is right, the constitution doesnt enter into it. In fact the Presidents Article II war powers are what entitles him to intercept enemy communications originating offshore. Thats why the dems in Congress ran screaming from an investigation. Why doesnt Rockefellar launch his own investigation and call his own witnesses as he is entitled to as vice-chair of the Select Intel committee? Riddle me that.

"or allowing the detention of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens without charge,"

When captured on overseas on the battlefield you bet. The one we caught here is currently on trial is he not?

"access to an attorney or the courts. "

Thats just rich considering how many court challenges this Adminstration has won.

Any other horrifying abuses that are the next step to the gas chambers you wish to bring up? You obviously havent come to realize what your Democratic congress people concluded long ago- you dont dwell on this nonsense because A.you end up being wrong on the facts and B.every time you describe one of these things Bushs poll numbers go up. Because they are good ideas.

"You are never going to convince the American people that listening in on phone calls from wanted overseas terrorists to parties in the US is anything but required.

Let me say it slowly so you can understand this simple point:

As an abstract issue, no one is even TRYING to convince the American people that "listening in on terrorist conversations" is bad. (Although in the real world, it's value as an anti-terrorism tool is highly questionable, compared to, say, inspecting cargo containers at ports.)

The problem we have is that there is NO PROOF AT ALL that this is ALL your Commander-in-Chief is doing. And that he is claiming that he doesn't even need to provide any; and that he is above the constitution and laws of the land.

The problem YOU now have is that you can no longer ask the American people to "Just Trust" Bush (or his Neocon/Republican stooges). You're side has completely lost their trust, thankfully.

Let me put it this way: Your are never going to convince the American people that we have to tear up our laws and constitution to protect ourselves from terrorists. Americans are far more resilient and courageous than you make them out to be, and the principles upon which this nation were founded are perfectly well suited in their present form to combat terrorism, despite Republicans skepticism that they are.

They're just not well suited for a corporatist totalitarian state.

Win elections? You bet.

"The problem we have is that there is NO PROOF AT ALL that this is ALL your Commander-in-Chief is doing. And that he is claiming that he doesn't even need to provide any; and that he is above the constitution and laws of the land"

Mmm hmm. All very, very true. Of course the constitution also provides for the president the authority to go off and kill anyone he sees fit during wartime with NO PROOF AT ALL that they are the right people. It gives him the authority to plan strategies to land armies with NO PROOF that that is the right place and time to fight a battle our nation may depend on for survival. In other words, the Constitution provides what we call 'power' to the Commander in Chief. Listening in on enemy communications is the least of it. What you are suggesting is that although the CIC could send a SF team to Afghanistan to murder the guy with the cell phone, he cant order the NSA to listen to his phone calls. Its a silly argument on its face.

"Win elections? You bet."

Let me know when it starts.

"Of course the constitution also provides for the president the authority to go off and kill anyone he sees fit during wartime with NO PROOF AT ALL that they are the right people."

But it does NOT give him the SOLE RIGHT to determine what "wartime" means.

What that means is that the constitution does provide the President some latitude in dealing with IMINENT THREATS (because they require quicker action than a Democracy is designed to provide), but it DOES NOT completely insulate him from having to justify his actions if the efforts are protracted and require a substantial commitment of material and human resources. THEN, the constitution DOES provide for multiple mechanisms to question and check his power.

That you seem comfortable with the idea that a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL can make such profound and far-reaching decisions without having to justify their actions to the American Public (which is what you and other Republican apologists are arguing against here) is a perfect illustration of the contempt that Neocons like yourself hold for the basic laws and principles our country and democracy were founded on.

Its a silly argument on its face.

It would be if that is what I or anyone else opposed to the Adminstrations actions were doing. But it isn't, so it's not.

"Let me know when it starts."

Oh, something tells me you'll know without anyone other than your contracting anal sphincter telling you so.

You losers want more? Open your goddamn eyes. You only distrust government when it ain't Republican's or when they haven't succeeded in brainwashing you, apparently.

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss real Conservatives and Libertarians.
--
Olbermann: (reading from a U.S. News & World Report press release) "Soon after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, lawyers in the White House and the Justice Department argued that the same legal authority that allowed warrentless electronic surveillance inside the US, could also be used to justify physical searches of terror suspects homes & businesses without court approval."

Olbermann: Doesn't that send chills down your spine?

Turley: Well it does. It's horrific, because what that would constitute is to effectively remove the 4th Amendment from the U.S. Constitution and the fact that it was so quick as a suggestion shows the inclinations, unfortunately, of this administration. It treats the Constitution as some legal technicality instead of the thing were trying to fight to protect. Notably, the U.S. News & World Report story says the FBI officals, or some of them apparently, objected... [W]e're seeing a lot of people in the administration with the courage to say "Hold it, this is not what we're supposed to be about. If we're fighting a war, it's a war of self definition and if we start to take whole amendments out of the Constitution in the name of the war on terror-we have to wonder what's left at the end , except victory."

Olbermann: (reading from the press release) "According to 2 two current and former government officals . . . the Bush administration lawyers presented the arguments to senior FBI officals who expressed strong reservations about their proposal. . . . It could not be determined whether any warrentless physical searches had been carried out under the legal authority cited by the administration, but at least one defense attorney representing a terrorism suspect has alleged that his law office and home may have been searched without a court warrant."

Olbermann: The attorneys office and home not the suspect's office and home. Is there away to overstate this? When you start to talk about the 4th amendment and protections of constitution verses the needs to try to track down terrorist, you can move very quickly into tin-foil hat zone. When you sound totally Paranoid-like they're spying on us through our walls, but is this...is this not the first thing you would see if you did some sort of... prequel to the book 1984, wouldn't this be somewhere in the 1st chapter?

Turley: I'm afraid it would. This is something to be very concerned about. These are not trival matters. We've seen a sort of broad-based assault on basic Constitutional rights in our country since 9/11. We have a President who ordered electronic surveillance by the NSA without warrants in something that constitutes a federal crime. Congress isn't even holding serious hearings on that. So we have a system that has checks & balances but none of them seem to be working. At the same time, as we noted earlier, we have an attack on the Judiciary itself, all of this should present a picture of concern for any American.

Wizener,
Congress decided this was wartime in September of 2001. Pay attention, you are embarrassing yourself again.

Olbermann? ROFL. That's hilarious.

>>Was Lincoln or FDR a fascist?

Yes.

>>I never thought I'd say this, but I miss real Conservatives and Libertarians.

Some of us are still here.

>>Your are never going to convince the American people that we have to tear up our laws and constitution to protect ourselves from terrorists. Americans are far more resilient and courageous than you make them out to be, and the principles upon which this nation were founded are perfectly well suited in their present form to combat terrorism, despite Republicans skepticism that they are.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans are in fact sheeple who are easily manipulated. I wouldn't count on them to save us.

#25

LMFAO. Your comment only serves to illustrate exactly what I'm talking about when I say Neocon powermongers like yourself want to reserve the right to decide how to define what "wartime" or "terrorism" means. Guess what? Lots of people disagree, including Republicans and Democrats alike. And guess what else? The Constitution also provides US with a mechanism to question this.

To be clear, the resolution you cite has to do specifically with the 9/11 attackers, not Saddam Hussein or American citizens speaking on telephones, as you are arguing.

And at any rate, Bush is not even attempting any longer to get bin Laden or eradicate Al Qaeda, so I don't know why you'd even cite this resolution. He's moved on.

(And when I say Bush, realize I mean "Bush adminstration". This guy can barely ride a bike and chew gum at the same time, let alone run a country or a war.)

Senate Joint Resolution 23

"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

War Powers Resolution of 1973

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

#25

"Olbermann? ROFL. That's hilarious."

What is hilarious is your naked attempt to dismiss the underlying argument using the typical Neocon character assassination technique, which you somehow think releases you from having to acknowledge the fact that the Bush administration is claiming inherent authority to break into people's homes without a warrant.

Guess you don't want Libertarians in your party any more.

The commentor, BTW, is George Washington Law School Professor Jonathon Turley.

The joint resolution of Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq can be viewed here.