[Rhodes22-list] political: CNN Poll Finds Rhodes 22 Owner As #1Political Irritant

[Robert Skinner]

Now, Pete.  You know that "The constitution is 
just a piece of paper," and we must all back the 
President without reservation, or foreign terrorists 
will question our will to lay down our lives, 
liberties, and happiness in support of the 
military-industrial complex that keeps us free.

We must be thankful that someone has taken on the 
burden of deciding what is right and wrong.  It 
is abundantly clear that privacy and the right to 
be free of arbitrary arrest and detention are 
intolerable impediments in our death struggle with 
those foreigners who threaten our exercise of our 
freedoms.

I hope this helps you get back on the right track.
You need to stop challenging those who have a 
perfectly clear picture of that way things should be.
Your questions could weaken the resolve of citizens
to support our war with global terrorism, wherever it 
is, and however our leadership chooses to define it.

Where did you get this idea that we could or 
would actually impeach a sitting president?  
Or even prosecute after him leaving office?

Presidents do not commit crimes.  They may be a bit 
overzealous in pursuit of the national interest, 
which naturally coincides with their own, but they 
are not criminals, no matter what they do.  They are 
national father figures, and are automatically 
pardoned so that their actions do not embarrass or
divide the nation.

And remember, our leadership has decided that the
old namby-pamby restrictions on interrogation methods 
do not apply to terrorists.  If you are not for our 
leadership, you are against it -- and could be 
declared a terrorist.

Remember that.

/Robert (cum grano salis)

petelargo wrote:
> 
> Just got back from 3 day cruise in the florida keys. It was awesome. Then,
> Herb, I saw your posts. You ask me for my sources (verbally denigrating me
> and doubting that I even have them). Then when I give them to you, you don't
> like them or go "so what". It seems as if you are just going to hide behind
> the 3 monkeys rule and regurgitate your views (while acting like you are the
> only one without an agenda-laughable by itself).
> 
> I don;t know what it means that the troops supported Ron Paul as their
> number one candidate. I just thought  it was interesting that they did.
> Don't you think it's interesting that they supported a fringe candidate like
> him? It's open for discussion. But it's true as I said it was. Why, why,
> why.
> 
> When ANY politician hides their past records it is a red flag for concern.
> Lack of transparency in politics is the road to ALL evils. And again it is a
> fact that Bush made his service records confidential. Why, why why.
> 
> You are not up to date on the illegality of Bushes DOMESTIC wiretapping.  Or
> again you are hiding behind the 3 monkeys rule (see no..hear no.. speak no..
> about Bush). And yes I am doing something about it as a supporting member of
> IMPEACHBUSH.ORG. However, I have made it clear that if Bush is caught in a
> proper sex scandal I will immediately drop my membership.
> 
> data for all your illegal domestic wiretapping reading needs:
> http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/house_nsabrief_docs_012006.html
> 
> 1) "Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President ordered in this
> case was a crime.... and we have to deal with that as citizens and,
> unfortunately, You have to deal with that as Members of Congress....Now,
> Members that stay silent are making a choice.  Very few Members have faced
> this type of test of Faith.  But You are facing it now, and as Citizens and
> as Members, it's now up to us.  We are called to account to the many
> benefits that we have gotten from this system. We are called to account to
> do something, and not to remain silent."
> Jonathan Turley
> Professor of Constitutional Law,
> George Washington University
> 
> 2) "...so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion into
> the private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on the
> unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth Amendment
> 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and
> seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of constitutional
> power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the President
> by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I......the argument
> goes... Invasion of that citizen’s privacy was, alas, but one of war’s sad
> side effects — a species of collateral damage. The technical legal term for
> that, I believe, is poppycock. ”
> 
> Laurence H. Tribe
> Professor of Constitutional Law
> Harvard University
> 
> 3) "...it is not simply a claim that the President has the sole power to
> decide which laws to violate and when to go outside the judicial power, but
> that he has the power to do so in secret....until the New York Times
> reviewed this program, he withheld the fact from the American people that
> his view was that FISA did not limit his powers.  He secretly believed that
> he had broader authority than was laid out in the public statutes, but he
> withheld and misled the American people about that view of his own
> powers......examine what kind of misleading statements, if not deception,
> were put before the Congress in connection with this”
> Kate Martin
> Director
> Center for National Security Studies
> 
> 4) "...when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in
> 1978, it expressly rejected the President’s claim of inherent authority to
> conduct warrantless wiretaps. It then went further and made it a crime to
> conduct such wiretaps. The President has acted contrary to the express will
> of the Congress. The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of
> presidential authority to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress.”
> 
> Kate Martin
> Director
> Center for National Security Studies
> 
> 5) "...under his interpretation ... he could suspend the writ of habeas
> corpus, ... saying: This authorization enabled me to do anything in
> furtherance of the war effort. I can suspend the writ of habeas corpus
> unilaterally even though Congress hasn't ...He could authorize breaking and
> entering of homes in order to secure intelligence to fight the war against
> terrorism, despite the fact that there is an authorized procedure in an
> amendment to FISA that governs physical searches......the principle that the
> President has established here, if gone unchecked, will, as Justice Robert
> Jackson said, lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any future
> incumbent who claims a need. And the history of power teaches us one thing,
> that if it's unchecked, it will be abused.”
> 
> Bruce Fein
> Deputy Assistant Attorney General
> Reagan Administration
> 
> 6) "In each case the president’s answer has been the same ... Courts and
> Congress have little or no place to question his decisions....it is
> nonetheless a dangerous path for our nation. Our laws provide ample tools
> for fighting terrorism without eroding basic liberties. No one, not even a
> wartime president, is above the law”
> Michael S. Greco
> President,  American Bar Association
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/political%3A-CNN-Poll-Finds-Rhodes-22-Owner-As--1-Political-Irritant-tp17068794p17068794.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

-- 
Robert Skinner  "Squirrel Haven" 
Gorham, Maine         04038-1331
s/v "Little Dipper" & "Edith P."