The way that the U.S government is operating right now is totally against what the constitution stood for.
People are acting like sheeple, it makes me sick.
What proof do american civilians have of Bin Laden’s guilt? The answer is we don’t, we only have the word of our government. In terms of the constitution this is wrong, we have the right of accountability.
Proof of Bin Laden’s guilt cannot be considered a national security issue, because it already happened, so why the secrecy?
I like what america stands for, but I don’t like the way our current government goes about its bussiness, and people should wake up.
Oh, but it can. It’s naive to not protect the sources. Publishing the information might give the enemy an idea to who the informer is (if that’s how it happened), where the leak is, what he can do to tighten his operational security. Think Churchill’s Coventry dilemma.
If the immediate publishing of the evidence would make our information sources dry out, the cost would far outweigh the benefits. If the sources are human informers, it would of course lead to their deaths. Which is dishonorable and very bad for recruiting future informers.
I dunno, it seemed to me that Spiny Norman and Violet provided thoughtful responses to your question.
On the other hand, you seem to have simply posted an unsupported opinion that has all the earmarks of being a re-published statement from one of the many ankle-biting groups that wring their collective hands and cry “America is bad.”
Sheeple can be found among any group on the political spectrum, and you have not demonstrated that you are not one, yourself.
I have some doubts, frankly. What, exactly, do we mean by guilty? From the news, etc., I gather the impression that OBL (Piss be on his name) is more of a grant-dispenser and figurehead than a executive decision maker. Truth is, the whole array of terrorist organizations is murky to us, we don’t know much, and what we do know is supplied to us by others. Typically, we end up relying on info supplied to us by Israel’s Mossad, who are the acknowledged experts in this area. Time and again, they have shown that they are in it for themselves, period. When thier concerns coincide with ours, they are reliable. They haven’t the slightest qualm about manipulating us to their advantage.
Our intelligence services are top-heavy with Cold War relics, we have 100 Russian expert for every one Arab/Muslim experts. Remember how they talked about being unable to effectively translate intercepts due to a lack of Farsi speakers? Take ten cabs in NYC, you’ll find at least one.
Time and again, our intelligence people have said “trust us blindly” while they engage in activities that ranged from the foolhardy to the outright villainous. It is precisely those times when patriotic fervor is high that we are most inclined to give them carte blanche, therefore it precisely those times when we need to be most alert.
Now, don’t misunderstand. Nothing in this should be taken as a defense of OBL and his crew. These are dangerous times, and we simply must keep a cold eye on these guys, lest they drape a flag over their blunders and utter the Ancient Litany “operational…classified…trust us”.
Answer to the question in the OP: Yes. But not necessarily now.
And the Bush Administration is not “operating right now … totally against what the constitution stood for” [sic.
The public has the right to hear the evidence against any accused criminal when he is brought to trial. The authorities retain the right to keep such evidence under cover while the accused remains free, not yet detained. His counsel has the right to such evidence as soon as he is arraigned. (One of our lawyers can correct any specifics in the timing here.)
We (i.e., the U.S. government) appear to have adequate evidence to link him to the terrorist attacks to the standards expected by courts of law. Such evidence has been presented to Her Majesty’s Government (and brought them into alliance with us) and to the NATO Secretariat and governing council. Only a very small portion of this has been made public, for what I feel are obvious reasons.
It may have been a mistake not to provide it to the Taliban when they asked for it. But I am not prepared to second-guess the Government on this, with the inadequate knowledge of their stance, the information at hand, and my belief that moderate Republicans can act in accord with the rule of law, at least on occasion.
The President of the United States, as chief executive officer of the United States, has primary responsibility for conducting relations with foreign states. He is also commander in chief of the military forces. The Congress makes all laws and exercises oversight over the functions of the executive branch, including its conduct of foreign affaris. There is nothing in the Constitution about conducting foreign affairs by public referendum. If the citizens of the United States disapprove of the way the President is discharging his duties as chief executive officer and commander in chief of the armed forces, or the way Congress has exercised its oversight role over the foreign policy of the United States, the people of the United States are free to choose other persons to carry out those duties at the next elections.
But what if it takes the citizens of the United States 50 years to know the facts (“truth”, if you will) behind the actions taken by the President and the Congress today?
Would the citizens of the United States and the UK have approved (back in the 1950s) that a popular Iranian leader (Mossadegh) should have been overthrown by the CIA and replaced by the tyrannical Shah who was backed by the US?
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the people of the United States really do not care about the foreign policies of their government. And that is precisely where lies the root of the current terrorism problem.
At the end of the day, the West’s underlying policy may be to get rid of Bin Laden and AlQaeda (good policy), replace Taliban with a more democratic government in Afghanistan (good policy), come up with a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan (maybe a good policy), that will include laying pipelines across Afghanistan to pass to the West the newly found cheap oil and gas from Turkamanestan and Uzbakistan (not sure at all if this is a good policy). Meanwhile, the US will not help to bring up the standard of living in Afghanistan’s neighboring countries (bad policy).
After 40 years, Afghanistan may be doing better, but the poor neighboring countries will not. They will pour into Afghanistan and start blowing up the oil and gas pipelines (which was the backbone of the West’s original foreign policy formulated back in 2001).
Now it is year 2045. How could the citizens of the United States (back in 2001) have known or cared about what was behind the US policy in the Middle East? Concequently, how could have they voted George W Bush and the Congressmen out of the office in 2004 elections because of bad foreign policy decisions?
But what if it takes the citizens of the United States 50 years to know the facts (“truth”, if you will) behind the actions taken by the President and the Congress today?
Would the citizens of the United States and the UK have approved (back in the 1950s) that a popular Iranian leader (Mossadegh) should have been overthrown by the CIA and replaced by the tyrannical Shah who was backed by the US?
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the people of the United States really do not care about the foreign policies of their government. And that is precisely where lies the root of the current terrorism problem.
At the end of the day, the West’s underlying policy may be to get rid of Bin Laden and AlQaeda (good policy), replace Taliban with a more democratic government in Afghanistan (good policy), come up with a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan (maybe a good policy), that will include laying pipelines across Afghanistan to pass to the West the newly found cheap oil and gas from Turkamanestan and Uzbakistan (not sure at all if this is a good policy). Meanwhile, the US will not help to bring up the standard of living in Afghanistan’s neighboring countries (bad policy).
After 40 years, Afghanistan may be doing better, but the poor neighboring countries will not. They will pour into Afghanistan and start blowing up the oil and gas pipelines (which was the backbone of the West’s original foreign policy formulated back in 2001).
Now it is year 2045. How could the citizens of the United States (back in 2001) have known or cared about what was behind the US policy in the Middle East? Concequently, how could have they voted George W Bush and the Congressmen out of the office in 2004 elections because of bad foreign policy decisions?
Although the secrecy of intelligence agencies and covert operations do present an impediment, American citizens can certainly educate themselves about foreign policy more than many of them do. They can also vote for elected representatives with declared philosophies or viewpoints about foreign policy (i.e., “no overthrowing foreign governments under any circumstances” or “we must vigorously pursue the way against terrorism by both overt and covert means”).
At any rate, whether or not it should do so, the fact is that the Constitution doesn’t provide for foreign policy by referendum. If you want to argue that we should change our system of government in some way in this respect, that would probably be fodder for a whole different thread. But Hiyruu’s original point–“The way that the U.S government is operating right now is totally against what the constitution stood for…In terms of the constitution this is wrong”–is false.
But what if it takes the citizens of the United States 50 years to know the facts (“truth”, if you will) behind the actions taken by the President and the Congress today?
Would the citizens of the United States and the UK have approved (back in the 1950s) that a popular Iranian leader (Mossadegh) should have been overthrown by the CIA and replaced by the tyrannical Shah who was the darling of the US/UK oil and defense companies?
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the people of the United States really do not care about the foreign policies of their government. And that is precisely where lies the root of the current terrorism problem.
At the end of the day, the West’s underlying policy may be to get rid of Bin Laden and AlQaeda (good policy), replace Taliban with a more democratic government in Afghanistan (good policy), come up with a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan (maybe a good policy), that will include laying pipelines across Afghanistan to pass to the West the newly found cheap oil and gas from Turkamanestan and Uzbakistan (not sure at all if this is a good policy). Meanwhile, the US will not help to bring up the standard of living in Afghanistan’s neighboring countries (bad policy).
After 40 years, Afghanistan may be doing better, but the poor neighboring countries will not. They will pour into Afghanistan and start blowing up the oil and gas pipelines (which was the backbone of the West’s original foreign policy formulated back in 2001). Meanwhile, the terrorism around the world continues as the fundamental problem of economic imbalance on planet earth had not been addressed.
Now it is year 2045. How could the citizens of the United States (back in 2001) have known or cared about what was behind the US policy in the Middle East? Concequently, how could have they voted George W Bush and the Congressmen out of the office in 2004 elections because of bad foreign policy decisions?
But what if it takes the citizens of the United States 50 years to know the facts (“truth”, if you will) behind the actions taken by the President and the Congress today?
Would the citizens of the United States and the UK have approved (back in the 1950s) that a popular Iranian leader (Mossadegh) should have been overthrown by the CIA and replaced by the tyrannical Shah who was the darling of the US/UK oil and defense companies?
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the people of the United States really do not care about the foreign policies of their government. And that is precisely where lies the root of the current terrorism problem.
At the end of the day, the West’s underlying policy may be to get rid of Bin Laden and AlQaeda (good policy), replace Taliban with a more democratic government in Afghanistan (good policy), come up with a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan (maybe a good policy), that will include laying pipelines across Afghanistan to pass to the West the newly found cheap oil and gas from Turkamanestan and Uzbakistan (not sure at all if this is a good policy). Meanwhile, the US will not help to bring up the standard of living in Afghanistan’s neighboring countries (bad policy).
After 40 years, Afghanistan may be doing better, but the poor neighboring countries will not. They will pour into Afghanistan and start blowing up the oil and gas pipelines (which was the backbone of the West’s original foreign policy formulated back in 2001). Meanwhile, the terrorism around the world continues as the fundamental problem of economic imbalance on planet earth had not been addressed.
Now it is year 2045. How could the citizens of the United States (back in 2001) have known or cared about what was behind the US policy in the Middle East? Concequently, how could have they voted George W Bush and the Congressmen out of the office in 2004 elections because of bad foreign policy decisions?
Hiyruu, are you trolling just because you’re still mad not everyone accepted and embraced Jesus Christ on your say-so last time? Because your posts have been high on accusations and low on arguments, which smells like petty vendetta to me…
I beg to disagree. Usama bin Laden has had ample opportunity to deny the charges against him. He isn’t doing that. In fact, he is urging even more violence against America. Case closed.
