I suggest you read it. Pay special attention to the mention of the War Powers Resolution. For example:
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
quote:Also, this amendment is actually saying that a policeman cannot MAKE you present your driver's license or any other documents to him unless he first presents you with a proper warrant issued upon probable cause (that a crime has been committed) and supported by Oath (i.e., someone swears that they saw you commit a crime) or affirmation.
This was a recent case before the SCOTUS over a man in Nevada who was arguing with his daughter, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court.
You can be arrested for refusing to give your name to a policeman when asked. The SCOTUS declared that giving your name is not self-incrimination. While this particular ruling stopped short of saying that you have to provide identification, that is the clear implication.
By your logic, the cops can't ask for your driver's license when they pull you over since no oath has been made.
quote: Al-Jamadi was brought naked below the waist to the prison with a CIA interrogator and translator. A green plastic bag covered his head, and plastic cuffs tightly bound his wrists. Guards dressed al-Jamadi in an orange jumpsuit, slapped on metal handcuffs and escorted him to the shower room, a common CIA interrogation spot.
There, the interrogator instructed guards to attach shackles from the prisoner's handcuffs to a barred window. That would let al-Jamadi stand without pain, but if he tried to lower himself, his arms would be stretched above and behind him.
The documents do not make clear what happened after guards left. After about a half-hour, the interrogator called for the guards to reposition the prisoner, who was slouching with his arms stretched behind him.
The interrogator told guards that al-Jamadi was "playing possum" â€” faking it â€” and then watched as guards struggled to get him on his feet. But the guards realized it was useless.
"After we found out he was dead, they were nervous," Spc. Dennis E. Stevanus said of the CIA interrogator and translator. "They didn't know what the hell to do."
Dr. Vincent Iacopino, director of research for Physicians for Human Rights, called the hyper-extension of the arms behind the back "clear and simple torture." The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of torture in 1996 in a case of Palestinian hanging â€” a technique Iacopino said is used worldwide but named for its alleged use by Israel in the Palestinian territories.
Hi, Crash. Internet problems at home, so it's been difficult to get back to you.
Now, he was speaking of his Iraq policy (which a majority of Americans don't support), but its pretty obvious that he and his staff are applying that rationale to literally every issue. The "accountability moment" has passed for this administration; a 3% victory in the election is taken as a mandate to do whatever they like.
Even the article you sent me to begins with Bush saying that he doesn't approve of torture, nor that he would send someone to another country to be tortured. The article goes on to say it happened anyway, despite what Bush said.
That story may be (and is) awful, but the article is saying the opposite of "there's no accountability anymore." Bush is saying he's against torture, because he knows the people of America are against torture. Maybe Bush knows about these goings on and about torture happening. Maybe (but only maybe) he approves of these things happening, but he's certainly not saying accountability is past for torture. He's saying he's against it, because he knows people care.
When torture is made public, Bush has to deal with it, and heads have to roll, because there is accountability. If the government sneaks and does things, it means they're sneaking, not that they don't feel accountable.
You asserted that he was stiff and uncharismatic as though it were fact; what you qualified was that those attributes were responsible for his loss.
He really seemed like someone's butler to me, but I'm totally open to the idea that he didn't seem like that to someone else. Either way, at some point he didn't win people over. He was unable to beat a president with popularity problems. Maybe stiff is debatable, but charismatic people win other people over, and Kerry didn't.
And why do you suppose that would be, given that his record in the Senate in regards to defense and the military represents a superior qualification to anything the Bush administration had to offer?
I'm not sure what this means. There's a lot of people who want the "war on terror" to continue and who think Bush will do that, and they were not sure Kerry would do that; maybe just because he's a Democrat.
A whole lot of people voted against their own better judgement, against the facts...
I don't believe this. I think people were looking for someone better than Bush, and Kerry did not convince them he was it. That's not voting against better judgment; that's choosing the lesser of two evils.
Not unusual, though. The constant choice between two rich white men is only so much of a choice, anyway.
Why do you suppose it was that Bush couldn't run on his own record? I mean, the only Bush campaign ad I ever saw that was about Bush's record as president was the one where he hugged the girl.
I don't have a TV, and talk radio, left or right, doesn't seem to run campaign ads (not sure why), so I heard very little. I saw a number news reports on Kerry while going to the gym (CNN), but they didn't ever seem to be covering Bush, so I only heard Kerry during the campaign.
After four years, though, Bush is a known quantity. As you said, people should have known what they were getting.
If Kerry tried to run on his record in his record in his campaign ads, good for him. I haven't seen a politician do that in a long time. I hear the local and state campaigns a lot, and there is very little campaigning based on record. It's 90% or more mudslinging, at least down here in Tennessee.
It sounds crazy, but the fact that a majority of the American people elected a president that only a minority actually approved of is crazy.
The difference between his approval rating and his vote percentage isn't much, really. If you go to http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/BushMeter/, you can see his approval rating was close to 50% around election time, and if you use the Gallup polls, he spent much time over 50% then. He got 51% of the popular vote. There's not a real difference there.
We're going to have to figure out why millions of people voted against their own interests while they knew they were doing so.
When torture is made public, Bush has to deal with it, and heads have to roll
I don't see how you can say that, when its clear from your own statements that he feels he doesn't have to deal with it, and that heads don't have to roll.
That's why I used the phrase "accountability moment." That's Bush's own words. What did you think he meant by that? Will there be accountability? That's up to us. But clearly Bush and his administration believe there is none.
I don't have a TV, and talk radio, left or right, doesn't seem to run campaign ads (not sure why)
My guess is, because you live in Tennesee. There was little doubt who your state was going to elect; hence, little ad presence in your state. Missouri may have been the same way. I did try to keep up with the ads on the internet, though.
I don't think they did that.
I don't see any other explanation. The American people did not make a rational choice.
I don't think he meant that on torture. I think he meant that on other things.
An interpretation I believe is contradicted by John Yoo's statement, specifically on the subject of torture:
quote:As Yoo saw it, Congress doesn’t have the power to “tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique.” He continued, “It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.” If the President were to abuse his powers as Commander-in-Chief, Yoo said, the constitutional remedy was impeachment. He went on to suggest that President Bush’s victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was “proof that the debate is over.” He said, “The issue is dying out. The public has had its referendum.”
Yoo believes that the 2004 election, plus the acceptance of Gonzales as Attourney General, means that the American people have given their imprimateur for torture by the government, and he uses the language of the president to say so. I believe this is clear indication of the administration's views on the subject - they believe that their 2004 victory is the American people absolving them of responsibility for anything that they do.
You can close your eyes to this, but the evidence is pretty clear to me - we re-elected a large group of people that are interpreting that re-election as tacit approval of everything that they've done so far, and anything they might continue to do in the same vein.
I was walking past the TV yesterday and I heard a report (ABC or NBC)that in most colleges across the country, a US history course isn't required and most students get through high school and college without a single class.
As far as taxes, I have heard so much in these years about it. I believe that if we as a country new more about the constitution, and out history, then our taxes, (as far as this string goes) would be much less. I believe in paying our share to help keep our great country up, but 45% on average is very high. This reminds me of a story.
Remember the story of Joseph (yes from the Bible) who was sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers. After many years he interpreted a dream for Pharaoh and become "Vice Pharaoh". He asked for all the slaves to give 1/5 of their food to store for the drought. They were "taxed" 20% and look at us today. The slaves in Egypt were doing much better (at least in that department). Anyway, we all need to get more educated on taxes, and more "honest" people need to run for local, state, and federal government and just maybe one day, taxes won't bite so bad.
Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.
The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.
The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda.
It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.
More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found.
Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely" to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.
The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent.
For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far.
Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.
CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception.
As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.
PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.
Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it.
quote:As far as taxes, I have heard so much in these years about it. I believe that if we as a country new more about the constitution, and out history, then our taxes, (as far as this string goes) would be much less. I believe in paying our share to help keep our great country up, but 45% on average is very high.
Not really. Compared to many european countries, we have similar or lower taxes. Many of those countries also have much better standards of living for their people, including free healthcare for everyone, very low poverty rates and excellent education for everyone.
Anyway, can you flesh out what you mean by your figure of a rate of "45% on average". Do you mean income taxes? I thought that the tax rate for the wealthiest americans was only something like 35%.
He asked for all the slaves to give 1/5 of their food to store for the drought. They were "taxed" 20% and look at us today. The slaves in Egypt were doing much better (at least in that department).
I think that's a great example, because many of the taxes we pay are based entirely on that principle of "a little money now saves us a lot of money in the future." So many of the social programs conservatives decry actually save us money in the long run.
Or, would it be more accurate to say there are both exteremely conservative and moderate conservative voices on the radio, and really no liberals at all?
I don't think that's true. I sometimes really enjoy Bill O'Reilly, who calls himself middle of the road. He is a moderate conservative, in my opinion, not middle. On the other hand, there's a guy--whose name slips me at the moment, because it has been a while since I've caught him--on CBS radio who is very liberal. He's on in the evening, so I don't hear him as much (and when I do, he irritates me a lot), but he says his program is nationwide and popular.
We're going to have to figure out why millions of people voted against their own interests while they knew they were doing so.
I don't think they did that
I'm afraid that this is exactly what they did
Thanks for the article link, but it doesn't address what Crash claimed. Crash said "while they knew they were doing so." He basically asserted that people voted for Bush knowing it was a bad idea. That would be bizarre, and I don't believe it happened.
Your article doesn't really address voting for Bush, but I will agree there is a large overlap between those who support the war with Iraq and those who voted for Bush. However, it agrees with me, not Crash, because it says those who support the war do so based on bad information.
A couple notes:
I hold to one of those "misperceptions," thinking that Bush made several clear claims that there were pre-war links between Iraq & Al-Qaeda. So now the question is who's telling the truth. I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe informationclearinghouse.com that there was no pre-war links, either.
(Looked this up...According to CNNn, Bush admits there was no collaboration between Iraq & Al-Qaeda about 9/11, but still claims long standing relationship between Iraq & Zarqawi. There are those who deny this entirely and others who accuse Bush of "inflating" the relationship.)
As for believing that world opinion supported a US war with Iraq, it seems stunning that anyone would believe that. I believe the conservative message was "who cares what Europe thinks, and definitely no one cares what the other Muslim nations think, we need to go do this."
Anyway, can you flesh out what you mean by your figure of a rate of "45% on average".
I've heard people give figures like this. There's two ways to get it. One is to include sales tax and any other tax you can think of. They get pretty high numbers that way, but since I've never heard someone give their method, I don't know how they're doing it.
The second way is just to include SS & Medicare. Then you just have to be in the 28% tax bracket to get to 43%. I never make it to that bracket, so I can't remember where it is, or even if it's still 28%.
Compared to many european countries, we have similar or lower taxes.
I don't know all the European countries, just decade-old rates in Germany and England. They pay much higher taxes, and I've been told repeatedly that Sweden is highest of all, where you take home just half of your paycheck at best.
There's not really any doubt that we pay lower taxes than Europeans by a long shot. I don't really get what "gathering_INFO" is thinking.