Wayback2002

I'm not saying you are unpatriotic, or that I am somehow a better American than you.    As I said in my original post, this is an issue where we will just have to agree to disagree.  

The CIA is not detaining and interrogating  little old ladies caught shop lifting.  They are working hard to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack within our country.

They are trying to prevent a nuclear explosion in one of our major cities or a biological attack killing hundreds of thousands of civilian citizens, and I don't want Nancy Pelozi or Harry Reid  'hand cuffing' them in their ability to do their job, nor do I appreciate the MSM taking delight in publicizing CIA initiatives which only aid an abet our enemies.   As a matter of fact, I consider Obama, congress and the MSM a far greater danger to our country and constitution than Al Quaeda.

Our founding fathers created a government with a separation of powers - because they recognized the capacity of a small group of people with resources and opportunity to do great evil to our country.  Al Qaeda is as evil as they come, and I have no doubt that our founding fathers would have taken the necessary steps to deal with this kind of evil.

Wayback2002,
YOu are mistaken to believe the CIA is a threat to the American people. The purposed America's Army as postulated by Obama would be because it would conflict with the police and federal agencies. The CIA works in the US on limited grounds and restrictive rules. The FBI is the authority over domestic issues for intelligence and enforcement.

dittohead wrote:Wayback2002

I'm not saying you are unpatriotic, or that I am somehow a better American than you.    As I said in my original post, this is an issue where we will just have to agree to disagree.  

The CIA is not detaining and interrogating  little old ladies caught shop lifting.  They are working hard to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack within our country.

Would the world were filled with little old ladies - but it's not.  There are adult men in this world to - and some of them have darker complexions and foreign sounding names.  Obviously these folks are far more likely to be detained and interrogated.  That's one of the reasons we have a system of laws - to prevent bias.  It's about the law.  The law, the law, the law.  If we don't like the laws the CIA is operating under, WE have to change the laws - we can't allow the CIA to change/disregard the law.

Do you remember Ruby Ridge?  Do you remember Waco?  How many people at this website decry the overstepping of the federalgovernment (particularly now that Obama is president) yet someone seemto feel the CIA is impervious to making mistakes? Personally, I don't know what happened at either place.  But I do know that there are a lot of good people out there that believe that an organization within out government (controlled by the executive branch) overstepped their bounds.  Does this mean that the ATF is filled with bad, evil people?  Of course not.  I believe they were trying to do good.  But power corrupts.  You know this to be true.  This is why the founding fathers set up checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.  Right now, congress is totally lame and weak and the executive is way too strong (when was the last time congress declared war?  I believe it was WW2 - and how many wars have we had since then?).

dittohead wrote:They are trying to prevent a nuclear explosion in one of our major cities or a biological attack killing hundreds of thousands of civilian citizens,

It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter!  It doesn't matter what their intentions are.  It doesn't matter how good they are trying to be.  They must follow the law - not just when it suits them or rewards them - but when it hurts too.  Following the law, they can make us "safer" but they can't make us "safe".  It's impossible - for reasons you've already mentioned.  Some day a nuclear bomb probably will go off - perhaps more than one - and large American cities will be destroyed.  This cannot be prevented.  It doesn't matter how totalitarian our government becomes - it doesn't matter how many freedoms we lose, we will never be entirely safe.  There's nothing anyone can do about that.  So don't trade your freedom for it.

dittohead wrote:and I don't want Nancy Pelozi or Harry Reid  'hand cuffing' them in their ability to do their job, nor do I appreciate the MSM taking delight in publicizing CIA initiatives which only aid an abet our enemies.   As a matter of fact, I consider Obama, congress and the MSM a far greater danger to our country and constitution than Al Quaeda.

which is exactly why you should have come out against Bush amassing further power in the executive.

dittohead wrote:Our founding fathers created a government with a separation of powers - because they recognized the capacity of a small group of people with resources and opportunity to do great evil to our country.

Do you hear yourself?  You could be describing the CIA.  Again, I'm not saying that the CIA is filled with bad people.  It's filled with good people.  Very good people.  But we both know power corrupts - and because it corrupts we have to have checks and balances between the powerful.  And what checks and balances do the CIA have?  Only two that I know of: laws and the executive.  We already know the executive is too powerful (he'll be indoctrinating your kids in the classroom on tuesday, remember?) - so that leave T*H*E   L*A*W.

dittohead wrote:  Al Qaeda is as evil as they come, and I have no doubt that our founding fathers would have taken the necessary steps to deal with this kind of evil.

The founding fathers did not create the CIA.  I believe the founding fathers would have been terrified at the idea of an organization controlled by the executive that was set up to defend the United States but does so by doing whatever it feels like, breaking federal and international laws left and right - without any oversite by the American people.  The CIA needs oversite.  It needs more oversite.  And if a good soldier feels they need to break the law to defend our country then perhaps they need to break the law - but then they have to "fall on their swords" - it's what good soldiers do.  They don't hide behind a bureaucracy.  And they don't get their own programs on Fox.

wayback2002 wrote:

dittohead wrote:Wayback2002

dittohead wrote:  Al Qaeda is as evil as they come, and I have no doubt that our founding fathers would have taken the necessary steps to deal with this kind of evil.

The founding fathers did not create the CIA.  I believe the founding fathers would have been terrified at the idea of an organization controlled by the executive that was set up to defend the United States but does so by doing whatever it feels like, breaking federal and international laws left and right - without any oversite by the American people.  The CIA needs oversite.  It needs more oversite.  And if a good soldier feels they need to break the law to defend our country then perhaps they need to break the law - but then they have to "fall on their swords" - it's what good soldiers do.  They don't hide behind a bureaucracy.  And they don't get their own programs on Fox.

Wayback is right, John Adams defended the British troops who opened up fire on crowd at the Boston Massacre.  That seems like proof that the framers were firm believers in following the rule of law no matter what.  That is why the Constitution was created.  To limit the power of one person or one branch and defend the rights of the people.  The CIA, ATF, NSA, or whatever crazy branch is invented next should not be allowed to run willy nilly.

If you want to watch something scary, check out the NOVA episode "Spy Factory."  It is about the NSA and their basically unrestricted power.

Old Joe Hill wrote:Wayback is right, John Adams defended the British troops who opened up fire on crowd at the Boston Massacre.  

Well, then I guess we know how one founding father would have felt about Guantanamo...  Balls in your court a1.  Please tell us how the CIA can do no wrong and should not have oversite - and please tie this to the writings of our founding fathers.  I'm looking forward to this.

One last detail.  When the president takes the oath of office, whether he swears on the Bible, the Koran, or Walden Pond, he (or she) takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION - NOT the American people.  Why?  Because the CONSTITUTION is MORE important than the American people.  That's why.  Next time you want to look the other way while an organization within our united states wants to take the law into their own hands, you think about that.

Great Britain, as a sovereign nation, sent troops to HER colony to enforce laws passed by the British congress.  The Boston massacre was a result of this action.   So, I am having a difficult time understanding how John Adams reaction to the Boston massacre proves your point.

What does the Boston massacre have to do with Al Qaeda brand terrorism in our present day?

dittohead wrote:Great Britain, as a sovereign nation, sent troops to HER colony to enforce laws passed by the British congress.  The Boston massacre was a result of this action.   So, I am having a difficult time understanding how John Adams reaction to the Boston massacre proves your point.

What does the Boston massacre have to do with Al Qaeda brand terrorism in our present day?

It's quite simple.  At the time of the Boston massacre, most Americans considered the British the enemy.  Even those that did not were afraid to speak about because they didn't want to be branded as enemies themselves.

John Adams, on the other hand, wanted to make sure the British soliders involved in the massacre were treated - and tried fairly.  To this end, he defended the British troops - making him very popular indeed.  John Adams did this for one reason only - and it wasn't because he believed in the British.  It was because he believed in the rule of law.  Do you dispute this?

John Adams, a British subject and lawyer, believed that British soldiers should receive a fair trial.  I don't dispute this fact.

It is a stretch of vast proportion to assume this tells us anything about how John Adams would react to the Al Qaeda terrorist threat today.

dittohead wrote:John Adams, a British subject and lawyer, believed that British soldiers should receive a fair trial.  I don't dispute this fact.

It is a stretch of vast proportion to assume this tells us anything about how John Adams would react to the Al Qaeda terrorist threat today.

Yet somehow people claim to know what the founding fathers would have thought about healthcare, the environment, medical marijuana, abortion, the current financial system, gay rights, assisted suicide, gun control, drugs, and education.  Makes sense to me.