2004 election in the US

[Barbara Alonso Novellino]

Art,

You asked me: "Barbara, could you list a couple of examples of what bothers you about what people have said about Bush?" Listed below are some of the remarks that bothered me:

"sneaky business man without scruples"
"Mr. fake President"
"mean and merciless individual"
"not that fool squatting in the White House"
"that fool in the White House"
and others...

I commented in a previous posting that I was offended by these comments. After all, like it or not he is our President...of course, there are those who say that he is not their President. Like it or not, that is exactly who he is.

[Art]

Hi, Barbara. Thanks for the list. It helps to see what you were thinking of.

It's odd how we're each offended by different things. In your previous message two things of the things you wrote were mildly offensive to me.

I do not at all think that Senator Kerry would make a good President...he flip flops too much on most of the issues. He has changed his position many times. He has aligned himself with the likes of Senator Kennedy...give me a break...However, you will see from ALL my postings I have never slandered him or said some of the awful things you have said about President Bush.

The "flip-flop" flap is irritating to me, and it's getting old. It must be the official Republican cheer this year. To my mind it's disingenuous because all politicians flip-flop. Xose has shown how Bush flip-flops just as much. That's the reality of their business. So what are the real issues worth hearing about? There must be something more important.

Then you wrote that Kerry is aligned with "the likes of Senator Kennedy" as if Kerry was aligned with a low-life scumbag or something. I happen to respect Ted Kennedy views on a lot of issues. His personal life seems messed up, but politically he's a hero for many. Whatever, you've just insulted a hero.

Feeling offended is simply the way it goes in a political discussion when you're talking with people who don't agree with you. (At least it's not as boring as hearing "I agree!" all the time, right?)

In the process we'll at the very least learn how our views are different and maybe we'll reconsider some of them. Carlos, for example, has just done some "re-education" for most of us Americans. That's a good example of discomfort that ends up being good for us.

Some of the statements you listed are simply statements of opinion, such: "mean and merciless individual" or "sneaky business man without scruples." How is that different from writing about flip-flops and maligning Kennedy?

Other statements, like calling Bush "that fool in the White House" are also opinions, but using phrases like that isn't an effective way convince someone of the logic of your argument, is it?

If your desire is that we not criticize the President, please ask yourself if you would have said the same thing if Clinton were still President. (For what it's worth, I am an equal-opportunity critic. I have criticized Clinton in these pages, too.)

Criticizing is simply what we do in political discussions. If you want to wear flip-flops and crap on Senator Kennedy, that's okay in this political section of the forum.

We do, however, need to be respectful toward each other. Now, if Bush, Kerry, or Kennedy join the forum, we'll definitely have to change how we talk about them.

--------------

Hola, Barbara. Gracias por la lista. Me ayuda ver de qué pensabas.

Qué estraño que somos cada uno ofendidos por cosas diferentes. En su mensaje anterior dos partes de lo que escribiste eran suavemente ofensivas a mí.

No pienso de nada que el Senador Kerry haría un Presidente bueno ... él flip-flops [da los golpes de timón] demasiado sobre la mayor parte de las cuestiones. Él ha cambiado su posición muchas veces. Él se ha alineado con tipos como el Senador Kennedy ... ¡dejame, anda! ... Sin embargo, usted verá de TODAS mis mensajes nunca lo he difamado o no he dicho algunas cosas horribles que ustedes han dicho sobre el Presidente Bush.

La lío de "flip-flop" es irritante a mí, y se envejece. Debe ser el sonsonete oficial de los Republicano este año. A mi parecer es falso porque todos los políticos dan los golpes de timón. Xose ha mostrado como Bush da los golpes de timón igualmente. Esto es la realidad de su negocio. ¿Bueno, qué son las verdaderas cuestiones de que merecen oir? Debe ser algo más importante.

Entonces escribió que Kerry es alineado "con un tipo como el Senador Kennedy" como si Kerry fue alineado con un cabronazo, escoria de la tierra, o algo así. Resulta que respeto las opiniones y posiciones de Ted Kennedy sobre muchas cuestiones. Su vida privada parece estropeada, pero políticamente es un héroe para muchos. Sea lo que sea, acabas de insultar a un héroe.

Sentir ofendido es simplemente lo que pasa cuando entramos en una discusión política cuando hablamos con gente que no están de acuerdo con nosotros. ¡(Al menos no es tan aburrido como oyendo "estoy de acuerdo!" todo el tiempo, ¿verdad?)

En el proceso al menos aprenderemos como nuestras opiniones son diferentes y tal vez reconsideremos algunos de ellos. Carlos, por ejemplo, acaba de hacer alguna "reeducación" para la mayor parte de nosotros Americanos. Esto es un ejemplo bueno de como la incomodidad puede termina para el bien para nosotros.

Algunas declaraciones que usted catalogó son simplemente las declaraciones de opinión, como: "un individuo tacaño [o malo] y despiadado", o "el hombre de negocios disimulado sin escrúpulos". ¿Cómo es diferente de escribir de golpe de timón y calumniar al Kennedy?

Otras declaraciones, como llamar a Bush "la idiota en la Casa Blanca" son también opiniones, pero usando frases así no es un modo eficaz de convencer a alguien de la lógica de su argumento, ¿verdad?

Si tu deseo es que no criticamos al Presidente, por favor pregúntese si hubiera dicho la misma cosa si Clinton fuera todavía el Presidente. (Por si te interesa, soy un crítico de igualdad de oportunidades. He criticado a Clinton en estas páginas, también.)

La crítica es simplemente lo que hacemos en discusiones políticas. Si quieres llevar "flip-flops" [también son un estilo de cancletas] y "cagarte por encima" [lo siento, no é como traducir "crap on"] del Senador Kennedy, está bien en esta sección política del foro.

Sin embargo, tenemos que ser respetuosos uno al otro. Pues, si Bush, Kerry, o Kennedy unen el foro, definitivamente tendremos que cambiar como hablamos de ellos.

[Barbara Alonso Novellino]

Fine Art...you asked and I told you.

I did not "crap" on Senator Kennedy...I merely said that Senator Kerry "alligned himself with the likes of Kennedy." I did not say "as if Kerry was aligned with a low-life scumbag or something" you did. I know there are those who think of him as a hero...so, I guess I insulted a "hero" Never mind the insults that went President Bush's way who also happens to be a hero to many.

Believe me its not important who agrees with me or not...and I don't think that you and Xose and some others ever will...but, thats OK...after all this is America...It was never my intention to sway anyone to what I believe in...I knew from the first day that would never happen...as no one could sway me in my beliefs...so be it...

By the way, I never mentiioned his personal life...thats something that he has to live with and it is indeed his personal life.

You and those who believe like you...can have your own opinions thats for sure. And on the other hand so can we...if I feel offended about what was said about President Bush thats my right as its your right to feel offended about what was said about the Senators..

Thats enough of this Art...you are going to compare Flip Flopper with some of the things that were said about President Bush...FINE as the young kids say WHATEVER!

[Ken Menendez]

Art, I agree with Barbara, as I believe you and Xose have been totally out of line with your unsubstantiated comments and mud slinging to support your beliefs and causes.

I wasn't going to particpate in the Political Discussion section of the Forum and had warned you of the future consequences that will divide rather than unify those of us who participate and have enjoyed the cultural aspects of the Forum. It was beginning to tie us together as "cousins" on both sides of the Atlantic. Now I see, as a result of this dialogue, a bitterness that is developing and will develop between us. I begun to participate as I could not take it any longer to read your and Xose comments. Our friends in Spain are excused as they get their information, as Manny has stated, from a biased press. I personnally feel offended by your and Xose comments. It is getting old to read the ongoing mud slinging from Art and Xose to Barabara and Ken, and then Barbara and Ken back to Art and Xose. It is beginning to read like the talk shows with a Rep for Bush and a Dem for Kerry, back and forth with no give or take, just words to fill the late night air. A big joke.

I believe this section of the Political Discussion on the 2004 Election should be closed with a vote of USA members and let it go at that.


Kerry being labeled a flip flop may be with or without merit. All I know is what I read and hear from our news media. This morning while reading the Kansas City Star, a Knight Kidder paper, there was an op page article on Kerry's latest flips. Along with that was a op page cartoon from the Birmingham, Al, paper giving a Kerry flip flop. The KC Star, in my opinion, will endorse Kerry. Why the local paper has the Kerry flip flop articles is beyond me as the paper is supportative of Kerry in its own op page cartoon that pokes fun at Bush. Same time as I was reading the op page article I had on MSNBC for the news on the hurricane, and lo and behold was a story on a Kerry flip flop. Why, I don't know, but the news media seems to be obsessed with Kerry's position on issues from time to time.

Again, let's close down this Election 2004 Political Discussion as its losing its meaning.

[Ken Menendez]

Art, I forgot to add. In your response to Barbara you mentioned Xose pointing out the Bush flip flops to make your point, but you failed to mention that I provided several web sites that list the Kerry flip flops. Hell, one web site had to index the flip flops because there were so many.

Art, try to be fair and balanced.

[Xose]

"...you and Xose have been totally out of line with your unsubstantiated comments and mud slinging to support your beliefs and causes."

Ken, all of my arguments have been substantiated. It is not "mud-slinging" to point out the failings in policy and ethics of the current administration.

I'm sorry if you feel alienated. I value the insight into the Republican mindset that you and Barbara have demonstrated in this forum. I obvously don't agree with 99% of your views, but that's life.

As for only knowing what you see in the press, here are some alternative news sources that may interest you:

www.cursor.org (this is a GREAT site that brings together stories from all over the globe--it doesn't write its own stories; it's more of a clearinghouse for other news outlets.)

www.salon.com

[Art]

Reading Ken, Barbara, and Xose's posts made me wonder what "mudslinging" is exactly. My dictionary defines "mudslinger" this way:
"One that uses offensive epithets and invective especially against a political opponent."

"Epithets" are "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing. A disparaging or abusive word or comment."

"Invective" is "insulting or abusive language. "

....

I'd suggest that we think of those who agree with us as being rational, fair, and balanced. Anyone else is "out of bounds." This is a very human myopia that makes us blind to what's really happening, but that's how we're wired. It seems very difficult--perhaps impossible--to have an objective view of our own behavior in a forum like this.

According to my reading of the definitions of mudslinging, epithet, and invective, Ken and Barbara have been among the worst offenders, along with Xose--and me, if Ken and Barbara are correct. My contribution is hard for me to judge since what I write sounds reasonable and collected to me (of course!) and I've tried to avoid insults directed toward members.

I do want to say that I've winced every time I read one of Ken's insults toward Xose. Xose has been very gracious toward you, Ken. I've ignored the few zingers you've tossed my way.

Even without insults, reading differing opinions can be very annoying. But if anyone finds this section of the forum irritating, they don't have to read it. That's why we put political topics in a separate area. The assumption is that if you read and respond, you're willing to tolerate the attendant irritation.

(Hmm. Maybe we need a warning label on this section of the forum, something like, "WARNING: may cause redness, irritation, and soreness.")

I read an interesting article the other day in which a political operative said that you can tell when your argument is winning because the other side gets emotional. He gave an example in which his opponent kept shouting, "Shut up!" over and over when the debate went badly for the opponent.

Well, I'm not sure that's always true. But it does seem true that when we can't defend our positions with logic we move to an emotional response. I'm thinking of a few arguments with people I'm close to. When the other person says something that we can't deny, and this means that their side might be right but we don't want to give in, what do we do? We stop discussing and shout, sulk, or slam a door. It would be helpful if we could take in the fact that our argument didn't add up, sit back, think, and adjust our stand. But that's not the way we humans are, is it?

In that light, although this section of the forum started as a way to learn about other views, I'm also finding it a very useful way both to learn about myself and to hone my own positions. I'm seeing what kinds of things irritate me. I'm learning to avoid using words or phrases that irritate those who disagree with me. And my stance on the death penalty has a new solidity that I owe wholly to this forum. So, thank you, all!

---------------
Voy a traducir luego

[Manny]

I completely agree with Ken and Barbara in that the insults directed at Bush are far stronger than the ones directed at Kerry. All I heard about Kerry is that he flip flops, which is true. By experience I know that people with leftist tendencies resort to strong and direct insults. Here in Spain after the 11th of March or 11M as they say here, began and still do call the Popular Party and its sympathizers, MURDERERES. I can't think of a worser insult. As for Xose. Why are you afraid of the Patriot Act. I myself have know problems if it makes us all safer. I have a feeling that like it or not, you're going to have to get used to it. It hasn't changed my life one bit.
Now to Carlos. I'm 3 years older than you and spent some of my childhood here in Spain. I also remember many things, like when the Guardia Civil patrolled together in pairs with their machine guns on their backs. Personally, I or anyone I know had any problems with the authorities. Then again I never looked for trouble. As for the civil war and who was bad and who was good is very complicated. Anytime you read history books or biographies you should read more than one on the same topic. Remember there are always two sides to a story. As for the pictures you sent. I'm sure none of us are Hitler or Mussolini sympathizers, but in all fairness, please send some pictures of people from the left with their friends in the old USSR, Rumania, Yugoslavia, etc. They do exist you know.
Enough for today.
Manny

[Berodia]

Hello.

Es cierto, que se llamo "asesinos" a los miembros del partido popular, y quizás también a alguno de sus simpatizantes, pero si mal no recuerdo, fue como consecuencia del apoyo de este partido a la invasión de Iraq por parte de EEUU. Quiero recordar que en una votación en el parlamento, el 100 % de los diputados del PP votaron a favor del gobierno en esta cuestión de política exterior. Obviamente, no se quería decir que estas personas eran asesinas directas, que matan ellos mismos, si no que eran asesinos por apoyar a Bush que SÍ ordeno el bombardeo e invasión de un país con resultado de muertes humanas.
El mismo PP utilizó esta manera de calificar cuando atacaba al entorno de ETA y el nacionalismo radical vasco, claro que aquí le suponía beneficios electorales. No solo llamaban asesinos a los ejecutores, y/o a los impulsores intelectuales de los asesinatos, si no también a sus apoyos. Me temo que ese termino, "asesinos", también lo usaran contra los votantes y miembros de Herri Batasuna.
Esta claro, que cuando se usa el lenguaje como arma arrojadiza, se corre el riesgo de también recibir calificativos de la misma índole.
Creo que el uso del termino "asesino" era un tanto exagerado, por el contrario opino que el calificativo de "encubridor", y/o "cómplice de asesinato" esta totalmente indicado para hablar del Sr Aznar y sus colegas diputados, ademas de otros muchos que apoyaron esta guerra.

¿Es la guerra otra cosa que un asesinato en masa?

Un saludo.

[Carlos]

Manny, lo siento, pero por ahí no me vas a pillar. En primer lugar, "mis" fotos sólo trataban de contextualizar un sujeto de discusión en este foro, sujeto que es tangencial (colateral) al debate principal. Ese sujeto es el papel que en ciertas épocas pudieron jugar los USA respecto a Franco. Alguien hizo una afirmación y yo expresé mi opinión contraria, sólo eso.

Ese sujeto colateral de discusión, lo mismo que el principal (las próximas elecciones en USA), no incluían para nada la caracterización política, económica, social o democrática de los antiguos países del Este, o Bloque Comunista, que es al que pertencieron todos esos países que citas. Si te apetece discutir sobre ellos, lo normal es que abras un debate específico, no mezclándolo en un hilo que tiene una relación bastante lejana.

Aún así, viendo por dónde va tu forma de pensar, y pareciéndome que debes de entrar en ese tipo de planteamientos del todo-o-nada, blanco/negro, pro-USA/anti-USA, conmigo/contra mí, que tanto parecen gustar a personas como Bush o Aznar, te aclaro: no soy miembro, ni simpatizante, ni siquiera votante, ni del PSOE, ni de IU. Ni mucho menos defensor de lo que ocurrió durante muchos años en el Bloque del Este. Es más, estoy seguro de que dispongo de una infinidad de argumentos en contra de aquella sociedad llamada "del socialismo real", si es que a estas alturas ya merece la pena hablar de ella, a no ser para analizar las lamentables secuelas que dejó como herencia, tipo Putin o la situación de Chechenia. Por si hubiera alguna duda, tampoco profeso la religión musulmana, ni es una religión que me parezca más respetable que otras, al contrario, creo que contiene algunas creencias bastante reaccionarias y dañinas. Y para acabar, respecto a tu falta de problemas con la Guardia Civil durante el franquismo, pues mira qué bien, yo tampoco, a mí me detuvo la Policía Nacional (no recuerdo si en aquella época ya se llamaba así). Pero yo no analizo la historia de un país sólo basándome en experiencias individuales, tengo en cuenta la historia colectiva. ¿Te atreverías a afirmar que durante la dictadura de Franco aquí todo el mundo vivía feliz y contento? Bueno, disculpa, la pregunta es mera retórica, no hace falta que respondas.

[Xose]

Manny,

The Patriot Act is un-Constitutional and un-American. It tramples the rights and freedom from government oppression clearly laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In the name of temporary security, we are systematically dismantling the safeguards that protect us from our government. For example: [source: ACLU website, bold is mine]

Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.
• The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. 
• The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. 
• The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.
For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.
• Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.
If the government had been keeping track of what books a person had been reading, or what web sites she had been visiting, the person would never know.

And it's already happening. Who would have imaged secret courts and tribunals in the USA? Prisoners being held indefinately without being charged with a crime, with no access to lawyers or outside communication of any kind? Here are more examples:

• 8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been
interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background,
not because of actual wrongdoing.
• Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin,
have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and
months, sometimes without any charges filed against them.
The government has refused to publish their names and
whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.
• The press and the public have been barred from immigration
court hearings of those detained after September 11th and
the courts are ordered to keep secret even that the hearings
are taking place.
• The government is allowed to monitor communications between
federal detainees and their lawyers, destroying the attorneyclient
privilege and threatening the right to counsel.
• New Attorney General Guidelines allow FBI spying on religious
and political organizations and individuals without having
evidence of wrongdoing.
• President Bush has ordered military commissions to be set up to
try suspected terrorists who are not citizens. They can convict
based on hearsay and secret evidence by only two-thirds vote.
• American citizens suspected of terrorism are being held
indefinitely in military custody without being charged and without
access to lawyers.

And please don't say, "they're only doing it to foreigners." That's the argument the Germans used when they were "only doing it to Jews."

Fascism is a slippery slope. We are currently stepping off the edge onto it.

[Ken Menendez]

Manny, having just read Xose post to you on the Patriot Act and its application to the USA society and visitors, yes, Xose is some what correct that the law if missed applied can invade one's privacy. However, most Americans (using the word "most" should not be taken as a majority as no one, Xose or myself or the ACLU have any idea on how many Americans support the Act or not) do not fill threatened since they (we) believe the law will protect us.

Couple of items to be covered should be the following, assuming those in Spain do not fully undestand our government structure:

1. What are the checks and balances in our government:
(a) Basically we have three branches of government, Legislative (Congress with two houses, House of Representatives with 432 members and Senate with 100 members--2 from each state); Administrative (office of the President and his Cabinet); Judicial (Supreme Court and varies Federal courts in the districts and states).
(b) Does a President make laws? No, the President can only suggest laws and lobby Congress to introduce a bill and pass that bill. Then the President can sign or veto the bill.
(c) What are the checks and balances on Congress and the President? We have the Supreme Court to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. This is usually a result of a suit filed in a lower level federal court that can challenged thru the varies federal courts and into the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court believes there is justification for a constitution issue.

Having given a very short lessons on our Constitutional government, the Patriot Act came about after 9/11. Our US Senate (Senate Bill S1510) passed the Act on a vote of 98 for, 1 against (Feingold, Dem, WI) and 1 not voting (Landrieu, Dem, LA). This was on Oct. 12, 2001. The House of Representatives (Bill No. HR3162) passed the House by a vote of 357 for, 66 against, and 9 not voting. The "FOR's" consisted of 211 Republicans, 145 Democrats and 1 Independent. The "NO's" consisted of 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats and 1 Independent. The "Not Voting" consisted of 4 Democrats and 5 Republicans. The House passed the Act on Oct 26, and the President signed the Act the same day. For the timing you can tell that our Congress and the President believed we needed some legislation to protect our citizens from terrorist within our country and from those attempting to come into our country. Also, the Patroit Act was not a Republican or Democrat issue, but bi-partisan.

The Act (law) can be changed by Congress or found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which then returns the Act (law) back to Congress to debate and make changes to bring the Act into line with our Constitution. The Act is now three years old and the Supreme Court has not ruled the Act unconstitutional. I do NOT know if there are any suits, assume there are from the ACLU, that have reached the Supreme Court. I didn't check their register of pending cases when I wrote this post.

As for the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liaberties Union (ACLU) is against various sections of the Patriot Act if not all of the Act itself. The ACLU, which was founded in 1920 primary as a legal organization, to protect us from unlawful laws that violate our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These two documents are the corner stone of our democracy.

The issue with the ACLU from 1970 to present has been what many perceive as an attempt to secularize the American society. In other words, the ACLU has challenged and won court cases to take the word "God" out of any government supported group and have stopped local governments from displaying the Ten Commandments or Christmas Displays on government property. Yet, our Federal buildings and our money state "In God We Trust". As a result our country is greatly split between secular and religious beliefs. This is just a quick summary on this challenge.

The ACLU has also found and won cases that have effected the family unit. Where does paternal control end and what age? Can a girl under 18 have an abortion without her parents knowledge or approval? ACLU says yes. The have fought the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual scout masters lead scout troops. Pledge Allegiance to our flag is being challenged by the ACLU that schools should not say the Pledge, and also remove the words "under God" from the Pledge. Also, ACLU says its okay to burn our Flag. The ACLU is attempting to destroy our symbols of pride and loyalty to our system of govenment.

The ACLU has found a willing Federal court in our 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, which has been labeled the most liberal federal court in our federal court system, to file their suits.

I could go on, but just go to their web site, as Xose suggests, read about the various challenges they have to the foundations of our country--family, one nation under God, and so on. Leave it to the ACLU and we would have a secular society without controls (do what you want as long as it does not hurt someone else. No matter that it destroys society and the family unit as we know it). The ACLU has become to many of us a dangerous organization that has gone beyond the bounds of reason.

In the years to come it will be interesting to see, if we are still alive then, what affect this will have on the United States. Will it lead to civil disobedience or civil war? Who knows. Will it lead to more constitutional amendments to protect us from the ACLU challenges, and add to our Constitution the protection of our Flag, Under God, and so on.

I don't believe this Country can continue down this path without some form of civil strife as the secular and non-secular groups square off on each other prodded on by the ACLU.

Anyway, as you can read I do not care for the ACLU. I believe the Patriot Act is okay trusting that it is used properly, and it can be amended, and it does have an end date subject to renewal. I believe in God, our Flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, and probably about everything the ACLU is against.

[Manny]

First of all to Berodia. I'm glad that you think the term murderers is too strong in describing the PP and it's sympathizers. But then you try to smooth it out by saying "accomplices of murderers" would be better. Now my question is, if they are accomplices to the murderers,who are you referring to as murderers.
Now to Carlos. As far as I know this topic area was titled "Elections USA" and from there it branched out into Spanish politics and why the US didn't save Spain from the Franco dictarorship. Including pictures of Franco with Hitler, Mussolini and Eisenhower thrown in to make some sort of comparison. I never said that During the Franco regime Spain was happy happy land. What I did say was that I and everyone I know (of my age) never had a problem. I will say that we did not talk politics in front of the law. But then again I had no desire to cause trouble.
To Xose. I believe that when I was growing up in the States the law was much stricter than now. Maybe that's why the Patriot Act doesn't bother me. I have no problem with the FBI knowing what I read. I think you're exagerating a bit. Right now the FBI and other intelligence agencies have thousands of recordings of known terrorists and don't have the manpower to follow-up or translate them. Do you really think that they're going to spy on normal law abiding citizens? Even if they wanted to I find it impossible.
Now about the rights of those being held without certain rights. This war on terrorism has nothing to do with previous wars. The Geneva Convention is precisely for traditional wars. Now I personaly don't consider these terrorists to be soldiers. These are people, if they can be called that, that put bombs indiscrimately on planes, buildings, wherever. Cut peoples heads off and tape it maybe to get their jollies off.
Anyway, its 3AM here and time for bed.
I'll try to keep to American politics from now on.
Manny

[Xose]

Ken, thanks for your response re: the ACLU. I, too, at times wish that the ACLU would pick its battles more effectively. That said, someone has to fight for the ideas that only the minority support.

I am, of course, completely and totally for a secular society. God should have no place in any offical government actions. Belief in god is a personal thing and belongs in the home and the church. The phrase "under God" has no place in the pledge as far as I'm concerned. There are many patriotic citizens like me who don't believe in god (actually, I'm agnostic, so I believe that you can't prove or disprove the existence of god), and we should not be forced to choose between our religious beliefs and our country.

I also believe that burning the flag is absolutely political free speech and should be protected, although I find those who do it childish and foolish.

The ACLU is the only organization that fights for the rights of ALL citizens, and I can respect that even if I don't agree with the positions of their clients. (For example, they have fought for the right of Nazis to march in parades. Obviously, I'm appalled by Nazis, but technically they do have a right to march from the Bill of Rights.)

Manny, unlike you, I don't want the FBI to know what I do, because I have a right to privacy and it's none of their business. But the real problem arises when corrupt politicians (of any party) decide that they can say a political opponent is a "terrorist threat" and have them jailed without a trial or even formal charges. Don't laugh. It's happened in many countries just as "civilized" as ours.

[Manny]

You're right Xose. Maybe if the ACLU picked its battles more effectively it would be a more respected organization. I remember years ago, I think Koch was the mayor of NYC, he tried to prevent the homeless from dying on the streets in those very cold winters. Well, the ACLU took the city to court claiming that the homeless couldn't be picked up and taken to shelters because it infringed on their rights. Now most of us that lived in NYC know that most of these people have some kind of mental disorder. Anyway, the ACLU won the case and the homeless continued to freeze to death. That's where they lost my respect and that of many others.
As for the flag I don't agree with you that free speach applies to the flag. It seems free speech can be applied to everything. Some people say that the flag is just a strip of cloth but others feel very different. Many people have died for that cloth. Its our symbol as a nation. I am very patriotic and it hurts me terribly whenever I see someone burning it.