Cheney really wants U.S. dictator (GREELEY ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 7, 2006 | ANDREW GREELEY

[G Larry]

Typically, this guy is ignorant of the facts.

The programs he denigrates are within the law and have the required congressional oversight.

The act requiring warrents have them, those that don't, don't.

There are simply some things FISA doesn't cover, but the detailed explanantions aren't in the countries best interest.

The RINOs (i.e. Specter) who complain are simply spoiled children, who are angry because they aren't privy to the select committee info.
They PRETEND the entire committee should have access, but those simply aren't the rules, and they are well aware of them.

[jjm2111]

1. Inteneral monitoring of phones.

for one....

[Rummyfan]

Richard Cheney is a vile, indeed evil, influence in American political life. He is a very dangerous person who would if he could destroy American freedom about which he and his mentor prate hypocritically.

I have long suspected it, but this column proves Greeley is off his effing rocker!

[ClaireSolt]

I have enjoyed some of his fiction about life in the rectory, but the last book I picked up was full of this intemperate political anti-bush screed. Too bad.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Greeley is a tool of the left...


...but, mostly, he's just a tool.

[gonewt]

Just what our country needs. More vitriol.

Sigh.

[sergeantdave]

This fellow doesn't understand the military mind.

A sergeantdave military dictatorship would be quite benign. My first three dictatorial decrees would be:

1. Designate beer, burgers and chips, with a side of bourbon, as the national food.

2. Ban males from wearing earings unless you're a pirate on my payroll.

3. Tilt California 45 degrees for 20 minutes and see what rolls into the ocean.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

The United States is caught up in a new campaign for a military dictatorship -- rule by a military chief with absolute power. Her name is Hillary.

Exactly right. Which is why we can't allow even a trustworthy Republican adminstration to concetrate too much power in the executive for fear of what might follow.

Thus Greely I agree with Greely's theme althoughI reject the use of Cheney as his means to get there.

PS Roosevelt tried to assume dictatorial powers and the Supreme Court stopped him. Extraordinary times call for exraordinary measures" came from ol Frankies mouth in 1932.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

My rights emanate from the constitution of The United States and the last time I looked it hasn't been amended.

Not yet. But didn't our GOP congress just try to amend it twice in the past month? 2 tries in one month is a lot considering we have only had 26 in the last 220 years.

And, weren't those Amendments apparently banning things and restricting freedoms in contrast to most of the other amendments?

Just keep asking yourself, what would Hillary do with all of that power and momentum. Don't ever trust any politician, no matter how much you want to or agree with them. Power corrupts.

[Lazamataz]

Language in the PATRIOT Act makes it legal for the federal government to investigate organizations and individuals, even if the target of the investigation has no reason to be suspected of any wrongdoing. This abrogates the requirement for probable cause. My rights are thusly diminished.

The government does not have to disclose to the targeted individual or group that they have requested such information, the government may retain that information indefinitely, and if anyone discloses that he/she has received a secret order to turn over information to the government without first getting Department of Justice permission, they face criminal charges. This amounts to nothing short of a Secret Police. This diminishes my rights.

The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "foreign agents," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. This diminishes my rights.

Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. This diminishes my right.

Shall I continue?

[MNJohnnie]

"The court, they will tell the American people who want the detainees to be shot at sunrise tomorrow, is soft on terror, just like Democrats in Congress"

That is just fact. Sorry the truth hurts. The Leftist on the Supreme Court ignorned Prior case history, the US Constitution, the direction of the US Congress and the clear intent of the Geneva Convention regarding Unlawful Combatants to simply manufacture a intellectually absurd rational for their own emotional whimsy. The Court has NO intellectually legitimate leg to stand on with this judgment. It another example of the Leftist simply deciding what they want to do and then manufacturing a flimsy rational to do it.

[HawaiianGecko]

Not yet. But didn't our GOP congress just try to amend it twice in the past month? 2 tries in one month is a lot considering we have only had 26 in the last 220 years.

It takes 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the states after that to amend the constitution. If that happens, then the amendment is likely quite necessary. Sixty six votes in the senate is bi-partisan.

And, weren't those Amendments apparently banning things and restricting freedoms in contrast to most of the other amendments?

I'm not sure this is relevant to my original post, but are you saying that amendments can only expand freedoms?  It is certainly a debatable point to claim that prohibiting flag burning is a restriction of freedom any more than urinating in public or spray painting graffiti on the Lincoln memorial.

There are 27 amendments rather than 26 and the 28th should be that people cannot read more into the constitution than is actually there.

[bmwcyle]

Hillary will squeeze every bit of power out of her position or resort to dumping bodies into parks or plowing them into mountains.

[el_texicano]

Pure psychological projection on Greely's part. Truth be told, they would have us living under their despotic rule such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro et. al.

They've never met a dictator they didn't love.

[MNJohnnie]

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof
6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

3 examples of where the Geneva Convention was willingly ignored by the 5 idiots on the US Supreme Court to impose their emotional whimsy on the Administration. Once again the Leftist Judiciary demonstrates they are as out of control as the Leftist activists.

[Old Student]

"My rights emanate from the constitution of The United States and the last time I looked it hasn't been amended."

NOT in any version of the Constitution I've ever read! I'd suggest you go and read the Declaration of Independence, and then reread the Constitution. You are WAY off base there.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

Since you chose to be mysterious in your post I assume you are referring to the following sentence in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is true that these concepts have been incorporated into the body politic of the United States, but the Declaration of Independence itself does not -- of itself -- create or legislate rights or obligations.

While the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 are considered "Organic Law" they are merely preambles to the constitution.

The first thing that can clearly be stated about the Declaration is that it is not law. That is, none of its provisions can be law unless enacted into law. The Declaration is inspiring, but those inspirational parts remain in the realm of politics, not law. It represents a statement of political philosophy from a past age. It did not purport to create a new government or to enact any new laws. It is exactly what it claimed to be: an announcement to the world that America was renouncing its ties to Great Britain and the reasons why.

New governments and new laws were created later-in state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation.

Now while the ninth amendment which is mostly ignored today by most constitutional scholars writes the philosophy of unalienable rights into law, the Declaration is too broadly written and is of no use in defining these rights that are unremunerated in the Declaration.

I can stand up and recite the Declaration of Independence at anytime and probably only screw up a couple of words, so I don't need to re-read it.  From a legal standpoint I certainly understand it better than you do. 

Next, maybe you think your rights emanate from God as it says in the Declaration. There isn't a court in this country, not even Judge Roy's of Alabama that will ever claim legally that you have a certain right because God says so. That said, God was certainly in the forefront of the minds of our founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but think about this... If they believed that our rights emanated from God and would be enforced by God there wouldn't have been any reason to make them into laws...

 

 

 

[Old Student]

Amendments 9 & 10 specify where the powers delegated by the Constitution are derived from, i.e., the People.

Certain segments of our population spend all their time accepting portions of the 1st, while denying others, and denying the 2nd refers to the People at all. That doesn't make them right, any more than it made your statement correct.

BTW, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution because sufficient of our Founding Fathers were able to persuade enough of the people that the government they were founding was our most likely most-dangerous-next-opponent. Seems to me that one of the founders (James Madison?) stated something to the effect that if we could count on God (or actually, his angels) managing our government for us, we need fear no tyranny. Since we had to do it ourselves, we needed all the help we could get.

You may be able to recite it, but somehow I doubt your understanding exceeds mine.