I got this from Harry Hope on alt.politics . . .

Bret Cahill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.forbes.com/business/commerce/feeds/ap/2006/09/29/ap3055270...

Associated Press

Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending President Bush's
anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that
federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the
president's judgments in wartime.

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and
the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role
in foreign affairs.

__________________________________________________________

SIEG HEIL!!

Harry

I did not write this book, nor have I been elected to public office,
thank the deit(y)ies.

Because I am linking it does not necessarily mean that I whole hog
endorse it gung ho one hundred percent completely.

However, I have previously conceded that I'm pragmatic, compromising,
hopefully adaptive and certainly NOT a Constitutional
literalist/fundamentalist of which I've previouswly explained to my
fool & full capacity.

The true fact of the @#$%%^&*() troubling matter is I can't decide,
and thus merely wanted to herein play the provoking/advocating devil:

I take it (I perceive) many others are in the same dilemmical gray area
ditto, though would not articulate it in the semi-articulate way I do
herein:

page 1 of 3 of NYT book review

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Constitution Bending: A Jurist's Argument
Print Single-Page Save

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: September 19, 2006

Not a Suicide Pact
The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency
By Richard A. Posner
171 pages. Oxford University Press. $18.95.

Citing national security concerns in the wake of the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has repeatedly sought to expand
presidential power, often doing so in secret and sidelining both
Congress and the judiciary.

page 2 of 3 of NYT review of Posner's book

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Constitution Bending: A Jurist's Argument
Print Single-Page Save

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: September 19, 2006
In fact, Judge Posner appears to see the Constitution as a
fantastically elastic proposition that can be bent for convenience's
sake. ''The greater the potential value of the information sought to be
elicited by an interrogation,'' he writes, ''the greater should be the
amount of coercion deemed permitted by the Constitution. The
Constitution contains no explicit prohibition of coercive
interrogation, or even of torture, to block such an approach.''

page 3 of 3 of review of Posner's book in NYT

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Constitution Bending: A Jurist's Argument
Print Single-Page Save

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: September 19, 2006
Judge Posner believes that ''additional counterterrorist measures, in
particular in the related areas of electronic surveillance and
computerized data mining, could be taken without violating the
Constitution (even if there were a clear constitutional right to
informational privacy), especially if the effect on privacy is
minimized by a strict rule against using information obtained through
such means for any purpose other than to protect national security.''
And he writes that ''coercive interrogation up to and including torture
might survive constitutional challenge as long as the fruits of such
interrogation were not used in a criminal prosecution.''

The 2 questions you refuse to answer are,

1. How many died from centralized elective government trashing,

a. separation of government & religion,

b. freedom of communication, and,

c. unreasonables searches?

and,

2. How many died from "Islamofascists" and how many CAN die from
Islamofascists?

Until you answer those 2 questions everyone is going to think you are
one very very very foolish guy.

Bret Cahill

The "Islam-totalitarians" are a clear & present danger to the people of
the U.S.A.

The self-declared enemy's reason-to-be/pitch/declaration is to instill
fear and to seek to back it up in ways beyond the ethical, civilized
strictures of the Geneva conventions.

The murdering/targeting of civilians by troops disguised as civilians
aren't allowed by the U.S. Constitution; but if they are interpreted as
protected by our enlightened due processes, they are not so by me, Bush
etal.

A rational, prudent person is by (at least my) definition not:
absolutist, extremist, fanatic, unreasonable, uncivilized, and
indecent.

The U.S. Constitution has been rationally & pragmatically adapted since
Matbury versus Madison:

There are "implied" aspects as the first Chief Justice proclaims.

We are a nation of laws, while humans must rationally, prudently
interpret & administer the complex laws with discretion.

I think I felt this way before noon Eastern time on September 11, 2001.

How and how much?

Do they have thousands of H-bomb tipped ICBMs like the USSR?

Or are they going to swim over here with knives in their mouths?

You never explain why Americans should be quaking in their boots over
one random attack.

You just keep dodging and dodging and dodging all the questions that
need to be answered.

Now why should any reasonable American spend more than one minute a
year worrying about bin Laden when the odds of dying in a terror attack
are ORDERS of magnitude less than dying of obesity, heart disease,
cancer, AwOL's fascist government COMBINED.

ORDERS of magnitude.

ORDERS of magnitude.

ORDERS of magnitude.

How?

Here, we'll try again:

Rational fears about the threats of:

Nuke
Bio-weaponry
Dirty nuke
Chemical-weaponry
Saboutage of food & water supply
Car & truck bombs a la Iraq
and fear itself

If I were President, then protection against the above awfulnesses et
cetera is my primary responsibility.

I suppose nearly everybody thinks about the harsh realities and the
paradoxical consequences of ignoring/acting.

The 9-11 Commission's
suggestions have allegedly been given short-shrift, perhaps/probably
because the necessary fundings have been going into the nutty Iraq
debacle.

.