Comments on: National Security Blanket http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/ Reality-based political commentary Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:55:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: akadjian http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5078 akadjian Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:22:53 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5078 Hey, don't talk about Michale or I that way :)! Hey, don't talk about Michale or I that way :)!

]]> By: Osborne Ink http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5068 Osborne Ink Sun, 31 May 2009 19:53:48 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5068 (don't feed the trolls) (don't feed the trolls)

]]> By: Michale http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5060 Michale Sat, 30 May 2009 22:33:06 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5060 FISA, by it's very creation and definition, is legal. No American's Habeus Corpus rights were suspended. And, prior to the SCOTUS ruling, enemy combatants and terrorists were not afforded Habeus Corpus rights. But, thank you for proving my point for me. The Hysterical Left is going ballistic in it's efforts to give terrorists rights that Americans have fought and died for. The Hysterical Left is giving American rights to the very people that have KILLED Americans. Where is the logic in that? As I have said time and time again (and has been ignored) terrorists incarcerated at Gitmo have more rights than American civilian prisoners.. Why is that??? <I>And p.s. the "hysterical Left" sounds pretty rational these days when you compare them to Rush Limbaugh and some of the right-wing pundits.</I> So??? A drunk Josef Stalin would sound "pretty rational" compared to Limbaugh when he gets a snit going. Is THAT the Hysterical Left's excuse for being Hysterical?? "Oh, it's OK that we are hysterical and want to sell out American. Limbaugh is such a jackass, after all." Yea... GREAT reasoning there... :^/ Michale.... FISA, by it's very creation and definition, is legal.

No American's Habeus Corpus rights were suspended. And, prior to the SCOTUS ruling, enemy combatants and terrorists were not afforded Habeus Corpus rights.

But, thank you for proving my point for me.

The Hysterical Left is going ballistic in it's efforts to give terrorists rights that Americans have fought and died for. The Hysterical Left is giving American rights to the very people that have KILLED Americans.

Where is the logic in that?

As I have said time and time again (and has been ignored) terrorists incarcerated at Gitmo have more rights than American civilian prisoners..

Why is that???

And p.s. the "hysterical Left" sounds pretty rational these days when you compare them to Rush Limbaugh and some of the right-wing pundits.

So??? A drunk Josef Stalin would sound "pretty rational" compared to Limbaugh when he gets a snit going.

Is THAT the Hysterical Left's excuse for being Hysterical??

"Oh, it's OK that we are hysterical and want to sell out American. Limbaugh is such a jackass, after all."

Yea... GREAT reasoning there... :^/

Michale....

]]> By: akadjian http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5058 akadjian Sat, 30 May 2009 22:15:37 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5058 And p.s. the "hysterical Left" sounds pretty rational these days when you compare them to Rush Limbaugh and some of the right-wing pundits. And p.s. the "hysterical Left" sounds pretty rational these days when you compare them to Rush Limbaugh and some of the right-wing pundits.

]]> By: akadjian http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5057 akadjian Sat, 30 May 2009 22:05:00 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5057 You're getting emotional and letting your gut talk for you, Michale. A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. The sky is blue. A tomato plant grows from a seed. The statement "no American's rights or liberties have been taken away" is an assertion of yours. A belief. Now you may have facts to support this belief, but please don't tell me that this is a "simple fact." By definition, it is not a fact. And in reality, this belief of yours seems to be contradicted by actual events or facts such as: - The disclosure that the government illegally spied on citizens thought FISA - The suspension of Habeus Corpus to imprison people indefinitely for undisclosed reasons and without access to the justice system Come back to the rational side, Michale! Because you're right, this country needs to start thinking with it's head and not it's gut. - David You're getting emotional and letting your gut talk for you, Michale.

A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. The sky is blue. A tomato plant grows from a seed.

The statement "no American's rights or liberties have been taken away" is an assertion of yours. A belief. Now you may have facts to support this belief, but please don't tell me that this is a "simple fact."

By definition, it is not a fact.

And in reality, this belief of yours seems to be contradicted by actual events or facts such as:
- The disclosure that the government illegally spied on citizens thought FISA
- The suspension of Habeus Corpus to imprison people indefinitely for undisclosed reasons and without access to the justice system

Come back to the rational side, Michale!

Because you're right, this country needs to start thinking with it's head and not it's gut.

- David

]]> By: Michale http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5053 Michale Sat, 30 May 2009 17:33:55 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5053 The simple fact is, no American's rights or liberties have been taken away. Unless, of course, you count carrying hair gel on an air craft. What I oppose is the hysterical Left who wants to give those rights to terrorists.. <I>Why do you hate Democracy, Michale? </I> Why do you love terrorists, David?? Michale..... The simple fact is, no American's rights or liberties have been taken away. Unless, of course, you count carrying hair gel on an air craft.

What I oppose is the hysterical Left who wants to give those rights to terrorists..

Why do you hate Democracy, Michale?

Why do you love terrorists, David??

Michale.....

]]> By: akadjian http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5049 akadjian Sat, 30 May 2009 12:11:31 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5049 It's also important that our Commander be an elected civilian who is ultimately responsible to the people so that we don't become like so many of these other nations run by a military commander. Why is it that so many conservatives who claim to fight for freedom want to take away rights from the people and create a country run solely by the President? Why do you hate Democracy, Michale? - David It's also important that our Commander be an elected civilian who is ultimately responsible to the people so that we don't become like so many of these other nations run by a military commander.

Why is it that so many conservatives who claim to fight for freedom want to take away rights from the people and create a country run solely by the President?

Why do you hate Democracy, Michale?

- David

]]> By: Michale http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5044 Michale Fri, 29 May 2009 21:51:18 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5044 So, you're advocating a completely open government where the people make ALL the decisions. Shirley ( :D ) you can realize how completely and utterly impossible that would be? You simply cannot prosecute a war by committee. Which is why we have a COMMANDER IN CHIEF. For better or worse, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.. Where I have a problem is when people elect leaders to LEAD, to make the tough calls and then those same people that ELECTED those leaders whine and bitch and moan that they aren't doing what they were elected for when, in fact, that is EXACTLY what they are doing. Lead, follow or get the hell outta the way... <I>And they're kinda fun to toss around. Maybe we need a battle of movie quotes.</I> Don't tease me..... :D Michale..... So, you're advocating a completely open government where the people make ALL the decisions.

Shirley ( :D ) you can realize how completely and utterly impossible that would be? You simply cannot prosecute a war by committee. Which is why we have a COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

For better or worse, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy..

Where I have a problem is when people elect leaders to LEAD, to make the tough calls and then those same people that ELECTED those leaders whine and bitch and moan that they aren't doing what they were elected for when, in fact, that is EXACTLY what they are doing.

Lead, follow or get the hell outta the way...

And they're kinda fun to toss around. Maybe we need a battle of movie quotes.

Don't tease me..... :D

Michale.....

]]> By: akadjian http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5043 akadjian Fri, 29 May 2009 21:23:59 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5043 How foolish of me. And here I thought elected officials were there to represent the people. All of that "We the People ..." Democracy stuff is just so much blah, blah, blah. Elected officials shouldn't be responsible to us. Once we elect them, they should rule us. For our own good. Especially since the people are too stupid to govern themselves. What we really need is a government where the people don't know what is going on and elected officials aren't responsible to anyone. Because we can't handle the truth. That there is no wizard. That there is no spoon. - David p.s. Apologies for mixing in so many cliched movie references at once, but one cliched post deserves another. And they're kinda fun to toss around. Maybe we need a battle of movie quotes. How foolish of me. And here I thought elected officials were there to represent the people. All of that "We the People ..." Democracy stuff is just so much blah, blah, blah.

Elected officials shouldn't be responsible to us. Once we elect them, they should rule us. For our own good.

Especially since the people are too stupid to govern themselves. What we really need is a government where the people don't know what is going on and elected officials aren't responsible to anyone.

Because we can't handle the truth. That there is no wizard. That there is no spoon.

- David

p.s. Apologies for mixing in so many cliched movie references at once, but one cliched post deserves another. And they're kinda fun to toss around. Maybe we need a battle of movie quotes.

]]> By: Michale http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5041 Michale Fri, 29 May 2009 14:46:57 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5041 Yes, there is a danger to invoking the spectre of "National Security".. But what's the flip side?? A government that has no secrets is a government that will last only one single day. That is the very reason we HAVE elected officials. So that they can know the information we don't WANT to know... So they can make the decisions that we can't. <I>"If you have a better idea, now's the time."</I> -Admiral James T. Kirk Michale..... Yes, there is a danger to invoking the spectre of "National Security"..

But what's the flip side?? A government that has no secrets is a government that will last only one single day.

That is the very reason we HAVE elected officials. So that they can know the information we don't WANT to know... So they can make the decisions that we can't.

"If you have a better idea, now's the time."
-Admiral James T. Kirk

Michale.....

]]> By: akadjian http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5039 akadjian Fri, 29 May 2009 12:24:32 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5039 "National security" really is brilliant marketing, isn't it? You don't have to define what it means and you can use it to justify just about anything. And then, if anyone questions you, you can claim that you can't divulge any details in the interests of "national security." Joseph Heller would have been proud. - David "National security" really is brilliant marketing, isn't it?

You don't have to define what it means and you can use it to justify just about anything. And then, if anyone questions you, you can claim that you can't divulge any details in the interests of "national security."

Joseph Heller would have been proud.

- David

]]> By: Chris Weigant http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5038 Chris Weigant Fri, 29 May 2009 05:54:55 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5038 BashiBazouk - That is indeed an interesting question. Up until WWII, it was known (a lot more straightforwardly) as the "War Department." -CW BashiBazouk -

That is indeed an interesting question.

Up until WWII, it was known (a lot more straightforwardly) as the "War Department."

-CW

]]> By: Osborne Ink http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5037 Osborne Ink Fri, 29 May 2009 05:43:21 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5037 Ultimately, we KNOW the government's case in <i>US v Reynolds</i> was bogus because the Soviets were <a href="http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm" rel="nofollow">already building a B-29 knockoff</a>. The US Army Air Corps / US Air Force (the incident happened during the force's transition to an independent defense department) was quite aware that two of their bombers had been interned by the USSR at the end of WWII, and there was absolutely nothing secret about this airplane that Joe Stalin didn't already know. Ultimately, we KNOW the government's case in US v Reynolds was bogus because the Soviets were already building a B-29 knockoff. The US Army Air Corps / US Air Force (the incident happened during the force's transition to an independent defense department) was quite aware that two of their bombers had been interned by the USSR at the end of WWII, and there was absolutely nothing secret about this airplane that Joe Stalin didn't already know.

]]> By: BashiBazouk http://www.chrisweigant.com/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5036 BashiBazouk Fri, 29 May 2009 01:56:43 +0000 http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2009/05/28/national-security-blanket/#comment-5036 And to refine that further, what about "defense". We have a defense budget, but most of it is offense. Some of that offense is there to protect our "interests" rather than territory and could be considered your more psychological security as you have defined it. I wonder what level of military would be required to purely defend the US and it's territories. Looking at large scale invasions like D-Day, island hopping in the pacific theater and the first gulf war, the logistics required in invade across an ocean are huge and complex. Few countries exist with that capability, even fewer that could even make a showing against the US military on home soil, especially in the age of satellites. I have always thought it would be interesting to separate the two as far as politics and budget are concerned. I have no problem with the people through the legislative process having a huge military but they should know and be able to control the size, expense, and reach of it. Blind support of defense is IMO a huge political problem. It's hard to beat a candidate that is pushing a strong "defense". Would it still be so if there was a rough idea of what level of military spending was needed for pure defense and what beyond that was for extending our power overseas? And to refine that further, what about "defense". We have a defense budget, but most of it is offense. Some of that offense is there to protect our "interests" rather than territory and could be considered your more psychological security as you have defined it.

I wonder what level of military would be required to purely defend the US and it's territories. Looking at large scale invasions like D-Day, island hopping in the pacific theater and the first gulf war, the logistics required in invade across an ocean are huge and complex. Few countries exist with that capability, even fewer that could even make a showing against the US military on home soil, especially in the age of satellites.

I have always thought it would be interesting to separate the two as far as politics and budget are concerned. I have no problem with the people through the legislative process having a huge military but they should know and be able to control the size, expense, and reach of it. Blind support of defense is IMO a huge political problem. It's hard to beat a candidate that is pushing a strong "defense". Would it still be so if there was a rough idea of what level of military spending was needed for pure defense and what beyond that was for extending our power overseas?

]]>