Infinite MonkeysSorry, Robb. It's constitutional in ways the "war on drugs" is not. Puke all you like. Puke blood. You're still wrong.
From the lead editorial in Tuesday's Press-Enterprise (link requires onerous but free registration): "Americans can and should debate what measures the war on terrorism requires. But can we at least agree that we are at war?"
I suspect the answer to that question from certain quarters will be "No." The correct answer, of course, is "Yes." Whether you want to believe it or not, and notwithstanding the absence of a piece of paper with the words "Declaration of War" printed in 36-point roman type at the top...
But we've been through all of this countless times before. I have more to say. But, anonymously speaking, I'm too tired and too tipsy to slog through these arguments again tonight.
Posted by AnonyMonkey at December 19, 2005 11:49 PMLooks like one of the FISA court judges finds this practice questionable enough to resign.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at December 21, 2005 09:10 AMAnd no, we cannot "agree that we are at war" in the sweeping sense that justifies indefinite suspension of our basic civil rights. More importantly, we do not agree that the "war" we are engaged in meets the criteria for a "just" war. And if the war is not just, it is not legitimate, and "wartime powers" are likewise illegitimate. If they were ever legitimate in the first place.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at December 21, 2005 09:19 AM