quote:In the secret trial cases of Hassan Almrei, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Adil Charkaoui, there is an official acknowledgement from the Canadian government that these men face a substantial risk of torture or death if deported. Expert human rights opinions have come to the same conclusion for Mohamed Harkat (who has yet to have his government pre-removal risk assessment). Yet still the government continues its efforts to deport these men, in the meantime condemning them to years of indefinite detention and, in one case, draconian house arrest release conditions.
The circumstances are quite different, of course, but the consequences to these men are remarkably similar.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one should be tortured. Unless the bomb is ticking or something on a massive scale is about to happen and torture will prevent it. Abu Grab was bad mojo. I didn't like it one bit. But I bet it made a lot of terrorists in the region a little scared. So it may have helped in some sick sense. But I hope nothing like that is repeated.
Wow. You're like a poster boy for moral equivalency.
Do you REALIZE how much of a joke your username is?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The circumstances are quite different, Dags, but I agree that the Canadian government is behaving in an abhorrent manner over this. The problem, of course, is that Canadians hate looking closely at their own affairs.
I can't help but think that the reason for this is because so many people tie our national identity to "We are not the US". As a consequence stories where we can thump our collective chests and be proud about how we're not the US get a lot of air time while our own atrocities go on largely unnoticed. The list, sadly, is an ever-growing one.
But then, that's something for another thread.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why I now breathe a sigh of relief when I cross the Canadian border.
CT, I think it's clear that I am NOT happy about this decision. But I'm trying to figure out why you feel so much safer in Canada...
Yup. We actually have an act that bears a faint resemblance to the USA PATRIOT Act, but in our case it was passed with no fanfare and no media attention. It isn't quite the same, but while the government claims it contains safeguards to prevent conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the summary is a fairly disturbing read. Why there isn't a huge stink being raised about this in Canada is incomprehensible to me.
quote:Security Certificates have been part of the immigration legislation since 1978:
- The certificate process is contained in provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), not the Anti-Terrorism Act.
- The use of certificates predates September 11, 2001. In fact, the certificate process has existed in immigration legislation in one form or another for over 20 years.
- Since 1991, twenty-seven certificates have been issued and, of these, only five have been issued since September 11, 2001.
Security Certificates are only used in exceptional cases:
- A certificate is issued only in select cases when there is information that needs to be protected for reasons of national security or for the safety of any person.
- Given the serious consequences of issuing such a certificate, this process is used judiciously. It is only used on a limited basis in very serious cases for individuals who present the highest level of risk.
Security Certificates do not apply to Canadian citizens:
- The provisions of the IRPA do not apply to Canadian citizens or to persons who are registered Indians pursuant to the Indian Act;
- Certificates only apply to permanent residents or foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security such as espionage, subversion or terrorism, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.
The security certificate process has been determined to be constitutional by the Canadian courts:
- The Supreme Court of Canada has validated the certificate process. In 1992, it examined the issue of in camera, ex parte proceedings (Chiarelli v. Canada) and ruled that the process does not breach the principles of fundamental justice and that it was not necessary that the individual be given details of intelligence investigation techniques or sources used to acquire the information upon which the two Ministers relied in issuing the Certificate.
- On December 10, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal reiterated in the Charkaoui decision that the certificate process is constitutional and is in accordance to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can also refer to the Ahani decision.
posted
One more thing. The ATA contains a provision for a three-year review. The review began in late December, 2004, and is still underway. The reviewing bodies have one year to report back.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Please tell me you're not suggesting that because you feel the Canada/US border is not secure that the US should be having a say in who can enter Canada.
Sure. I’ll take that position. As Canada should be able to detain suspected terrorists trying to enter the US.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Padilla was captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after flying in from Pakistan, and U.S. authorities believe he planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in an American city. U.S. authorities "believe" he planned to do something illegal.
Well that’s the perfect time to arrest a terrorist huh?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: First, the government's contention is that the courts have no say in this. Second, the selection process this country has instituted in its most basic founding document involves proof with "clear and convincing evidence" for pretrial detention and proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to detention after trial. There's also a right to a speedy trial included in that document.
The selection process has been short-circuited in this case. The government's evidence has not been subjected to the rigorous standards needed to protect the rights of the accused.
I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. I believe this is our main point of disagreement. The President is held more accountable to his actions than any judge or jury. Our system of representative government only works if you have a certain amount of faith in the people we have elected. I just happen to have a little more faith than some of you.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Why are you surprised that we have "so much faith in out criminal justice system" when you have far more faith in a single man
Michael Jackson.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: 1. How do you get we sent him back to Syria. He wasn't coming from Syria, he was coming from Tunsnia. They are two different countries. so we didn't "send him back to where he came from."
Sorry. I made a mistake. This could have been handled better by the US as far as I can tell. I wonder why we didn’t just keep him here and question him? And I’ll concede that Syria may have actually tortured him if we had asked. Do you think we asked for that? If so what makes you believe that?
I am finding this a fascinating discussion. I’m keep telling myself you guys aren’t foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government Bush haters. You’re just ‘protectors of liberty’ who think that we can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing anything. I wish that were true. And while the drama that comes with believing in conspiracy theories can be very delicious, I just can’t buy most of them. Government officials have never been held more accountable than they are these days. Ironic that a tool developed by the US military is the very medium that allows all of us to expose, or simply discuss what the hell this collective group of idiots do on a daily basis.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Government officials have never been held more accountable than they are these days."
No, they're not. They're pointed at a lot more, but I don't see a lot of accountability.
Yes, the courts have problems. But our Constitution was designed at some pains to make sure that no one person or body of people could call all the shots. When all the decisions are made by one person it's not democracy. It's dictatorship. Even were the president a man I trusted utterly, I would not want him to have that kind of power.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. I believe this is our main point of disagreement.
Yeah, I guess some of us trust the work of Jefferson and Madison et al. a bit more than GW Bush.
quote:I am finding this a fascinating discussion. I’m keep telling myself you guys aren’t foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government Bush haters.
I'd like to point out that the opponents of a Republican administration have just been accurately characterized as "anti-government." Man alive. The Bush presidency really does mark a sea change in American conservatism.
quote:Government officials have never been held more accountable than they are these days.
Is this a joke??? Padilla was taken into custody on May 8, 2002. This fact was kept secret until Ashcroft announced it on June 10, more than a month afterwards and already long past the maximum limit of one week that people can be held without charge according to the US Code.
Now that's accountability.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well that’s the perfect time to arrest a terrorist huh?
When there is probable cause to do so. See the fourth amendment.
quote:I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. I believe this is our main point of disagreement. The President is held more accountable to his actions than any judge or jury. Our system of representative government only works if you have a certain amount of faith in the people we have elected. I just happen to have a little more faith than some of you.
That's fine. If you think this, then get 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. Until then, the words of the Constitution are pretty darn clear on the subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Syria tortured him at our request because:
- He was held in a Syrian prison for over a year. This is not under dispute, it is a proven fact.
- The US sent him there. Also, not under dispute, we've admitted it.
- He said he was tortured while there. . . this one, I'll admit, you'd have to take his word for. I don't know that there's any way to prove it or not, although I haven't read through every article in that timeline. And a London based group, the Syrian Human Rights Committee, reported that he was being beaten and tortured. But for the sake of the arguement, let's go with "if he was tortured in Syria it was probably at our request" as opposed to "he was probably tortured in Syria at out request."
- Syria had no reason to arrest him, except that we asked them to.
- With no reason to arrest him, Syria certainly had no reason to torture him. . . unless we asked them to.
- If there was reasonable cause to believe he may be engaging in terrorist activites, why was he released? We've shown, with Padilla, that we are willing to hold someone indefinitely. Unless someone realized that they made a mistake, I think he would still be rotting in jail somewhere. In my opinion, it's a lot more likely that they realized this through repeated torture and questioning over more than a year and finding out that he really was who he said he was and didn't know anything than they just let him sit there for a year and then decided to let him go.
If you accept that it's okay to detain someone without charging or trying them, you've still got to get hung up on that point. . . why did they just let him go? Unless they were convinced that he wasn't a threat. How could they be convinced that he wasn't a threat? Well, they're a country is known to torture prisoners.
That's a summary of why I believe it's more likely than not that he was tortured in Syria at our request.
----
Thank you for being open-minded in this discussion. Your admission that we didn't handle this case well and that there is a possiblity that Maher Arar was tortured at our request is more than I expected when I started this conversation. I fully expected to be tilting at windmills.
Now, on a different matter. . . I don't think we can win the war against terrorism without sacrificing anything. I just have different ideas from you about what sacrifices are acceptable, and what sacrifices would actually do some good. I think that in the long run the sacrifice of our Consitution would do more harm than good.
And I don't think we can actually win the war on terrorism through conventional warfare. When the government was talking about the "hearts and minds" campaign, I believe we need to be waging that campaign on the entire world, by being less arrogant, less bullying, less selfish. We need to stop unilaterally breaking our own treaties with other countries, and stop infringing on other countries' sovereignty. And I'm not talking about Iraq.
Yes, as long as we're the richest, most privileged country in the world there will be those who look at us with envy and dislike. But not enough to be willing to kill themselves to strike a small blow to us. The terroristic attacks on this country cannot be justified by anything. But they can be understood, I think, better than we're doing now. I'm not saying I understand them well enough to explain them. I don't. But I think I understand well enough to believe that going blundering about killing people is just going to make all this worse in the long run.
So let's sacrifice our cheap oil prices and comply with the Kyoto treaty, for a start. Let's sacrifice a little machismo and reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile to a point where we can only distroy the entire world three or four times over. Let's sacrifice putting out own interests over those of citizens of other nations and stop propping up dictators in banana republics, particularlly those with records of human rights abuses. Let's sacrifice a little pride and try to understand why others feel as strongly towards us as they do. . . and from there, let's learn what other sacrifices we can make to make the world a better place for everyone. I believe that will lead to it being a safer place for us. And even if it didn't. . . it's the right thing to do.
I think that's what it comes down to for me. I don't want my government to do anything I would not be willing to personally do myself. If I thought it was necessary, I would kill to protect myself and my loved ones, so I'm not saying we need to dismantle the military or anything like that. But I do think we need to be upfront about what we're doing and why. And if we swear to uphold a set of laws -- such as the Constitution -- we need to do that, not try to find loopholes and exceptions.
quote:I’m keep telling myself you guys aren’t foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government Bush haters.
A few minutes reading on this board would make it clear that at least two of the people opposing you in this are most certainly not Bush haters.
quote:You’re just ‘protectors of liberty’ who think that we can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing anything.
I happen to be someone who believes quite strongly in our criminal justice system - who believes it can work to protect people while also safeguarding liberty and procedural protections.
As to "sacrifice," I note that YOU aren't sacrificing anything. You are expecting Mr. Padilla to sacrifice something: the very rights and protections you would desperately want if you were accused of something you didn't do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always wonder about people who think it's so terribly unfair that criminals get off because the police didn't read them their Miranda rights, why they think that's a mere technicality? And why should it be so terribly hard for police to simply remember to do that? I mean what? Are they just forgetting? It slips their minds? Why? Are the police so incompetant that they can't follow their own rules? If so, shouldn't we be retraining them or firing people and hiring others who can remember to obey the law? It's just not that hard!
And basic constitutional rights are not a technicality!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
1.) A person does not "get off" because of failure to read them Miranda rights. The person's statements are excluded based on the assumption that they are involuntary. Miranda is a prophylactic measure to protect the right against self-incrimination.
If the exclusion of the statement is enough for the person to get off, it means the police didn't have enough evidence prior to taking the suspect into custody to convict. (Note: this doesn't mean an arrest is improper.)
2.) It's more difficult than it seems at first blush to figure out when Miranda applies. Sure, when someone is arrested, it's clear the warning should be read. But there are many situations short of arrest where Miranda applies, and the line is fuzzy.
I worked on a couple dozen Miranda motions two summers ago, and all of them involved situations where the suspect was not under arrest. It's very judge-specific and I don't blame the police at all in those situations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What can we do to reverse this horrible business that's been going on in our country since 9/11/2001? It seems the cure for terrorism is worse than the disease. I want to know specific things I need to do to make it better. I voted against Bush both times.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
you know if a young teenager can build a nuclear reactor in his own backyard how hard can it be to construct a dirty bomb and iridiate the saudi oil fields? Like c'mon now, seems like to me that our "enememies" aren't trying hard enough.
Next the "War on Terror" can't be won any more then you could win a war on drugs, remember that you can't make an airport completely safe and even if you do the terrorists will just simply bomb other places that are crowded: porn shops, crack houses, titty bards and gang bangs, you know entertainment venues. You have to be realistic about terrorism remember that certain groups of people and I mean certain groups: Muslim fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists and just plain guys from Montana are going to make things in your country veeeery interesting for a long long time to come, angry men in combat fatgues talking to god on a two way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are going to provide you country with a great deal of entertainment. And there will be nothing you can do to stop it. The best you could possible hope for is that the war petters out and everyone forgets about it. Either that or one or two big cities go KA-BOOM!
IP: Logged |
A law would probably stop this, although there's some potential that it would be deemed within the sole purview of the executive.
But, if Congress were to come out unequivocally against this in a veto-proof fashion, it would likely end it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, there was an article in today's Globe and Mail about the detentions you mentioned earlier in the thread. Notably:
quote:Mr. Norris is trying to poke holes in CSIS's credibility and prove that its targets are treated in highly different ways depending on whether they are citizens or non-citizens.
He argues that while Mr. El Maati was apparently a target of security agencies, his Canadian citizenship insulated him from the security-certificate procedure. The procedure, which can be used only to jail non-citizens, uses the low threshold of "probable grounds" to identify terrorists.
While the Criminal Code can be used to prosecute Canadians for terrorism, such prosecutions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence heard in open court -- unlike security certificate cases.
quote: I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism.
Wow. It's rare to find someone who's openly a fascist nowadays. I think I know only three other people who'd admit to it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my concerns about the ATA and security certificate stuff is that permanent residents are not afforded any of the protections that citizens are (which is why security certificate detentions are possible). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms distinguishes between "everyone" and "every citizen of Canada," but the right "not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned" is an "everyone" right (section 9).
In my letter to the Prime Minister, I said that while the measures we've taken may not violate the letter of the Charter, they most certainly violate its spirit. I'm going to mail the letter to his office and to The Globe and Mail tomorrow.
------------
It amuses me slightly that the first sentence of the Charter is "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
It's true, of course, because of the whole Queen/Church thing. But still. It's interesting how religion's effects on the political sphere are different in Canada and America given that America has explicit and total separation of church and state while Canada does not.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In some ways, twink, it's like a mission statement: if you want to get a quick peek at what is not being done by an institution, check out the mission statement. Often she much protesteth.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms shouldn't be like that. The Charter should be representative of exactly how we live. I mean... it's the Charter.
And what about "peace, order, and good government," then? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've been disillusioned about my country in a number of ways over the last couple of years. I don't like it. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I trust the court system's checks on the actions of the rest of the government more than President Bush to protect Americans, period.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it came down to small arms combat on the Mall, nine people on the Supreme Court -- even if they're elderly -- could probably take out more terrorists than one middle-aged president. Unless he had a headband.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And don't forget that this would set a precedent for all future Presidents.
Those that would trust President Bush, would you have trusted President Clinton? How about Carter? Nixon? JFK? Taft? Harding? even Grant? These are all Presidents that were considered very untrustworthy at one point in their careers, or since.
Remember the Courts have a series of checks and balances to fix any errors that happen. Even if you trust completely the President, his actions go down a chain of bearocratic inefficancies until it reaches the FBI agent in the street.
You trust that President Bush would not allow or condone the tortures and disgusting practices that occured in Abu Graib. Good. But they happened anyway. Mistakes and disturbing practices could result from this practice when it descends to the level of weakest link in the chain of command.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I too would trust President Bush more than the court system to protect Americans from terrorism.
But that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? I mean it isn't the job of the court system to protect us from terrorism. I'd hope that this could be said of anyone who would be president.
In this specific case, I think New Orleans shows what happens when you trust President Bush to protect you. The response and recovery parts of his Homeland Security Department have been tested and found extremely lacking. The President and his administration seemed unconcerned.
I see no reason to think that the prevention side of the Homeland Security is doing any better. I've already posted on one reason why I think he can't be trusted to keep us protected.
President Bush's administration has pretty consistently shown that they are not people you can trust without some serious oversight. I fear that the strongest response they're going to have in the face of a terrorist attack is a bunch of excuses as to why it's not their fault that it happened.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well Mr. Squicky I thought that was implied in what I said. Just as the President has jobs aside from protecting us from terrorism, so does the court system...and you're right, the court system's job arguably isn't to protect us from terrorism.
I think you're both wrong about New Orleans and also leaving a lot unmentioned, but that's a different discussion. At any rate, my post wasn't exactly a post expressing confidence in or satisfaction with the Bush Administration.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The president's job is to devise initiatives, encourage follow-through, and raise public awareness of anti-terrorism measures. The legislation's job is to pass bills and create laws to enforce those initiatives. The judicial branch's job is to judge and punish people caught as a result of those initiatives.
Simplistic as heck, but there are clearly defined job descriptions and divisions of responsibility. In this administration, everything seems to be falling under the executive branch and favored members of the legislative branch. I simply can't see this as good.
I keep thinking of Heinlein's Future History, that described a period of craziness and irresponsibility in America that led to an elected religious tyranny.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In this specific case, I think New Orleans shows what happens when you trust President Bush to protect you. The response and recovery parts of his Homeland Security Department have been tested and found extremely lacking. The President and his administration seemed unconcerned.
You may want to do some research and find out who setup Homeland Security, who recommended it, who was against it, who wrote the policies for the new Dept before you start making these kinds of accusations. You might also look into LA Homeland Security dept and see what actions they took, or didn't take, or prevented from happening. Not that you still won't blame Bush for everything, but things are not the way you make the seem.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we're clear then DK, you are agreeing that the American people can't trust President Bush to keep them safe (edit: and the response to New Orleans is the response we can expect to a terrorist attack), yes?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have written to my congresswoman and my senators about this matter. I also think that letters to the editors of newspapers are in order since this came out late Friday and thus has gotten very little media attention.
MoralDK: Are you sure you actually want a "president"? Perhaps a king, kaiser, or emperor might be more of what you are looking for. They aren't hampered by courts, congress or the constitution.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Simplistic as heck, but there are clearly defined job descriptions and divisions of responsibility. In this administration, everything seems to be falling under the executive branch and favored members of the legislative branch. I simply can't see this as good.
I agree. It really bothers me how as the decades go on, the federal government keeps grabbing more and more power, and the executive branch of the federal government keeps grabbing more and more of that power.
Even if I thought that everything that GWB did with that power was 100% correct, it would still be a horrible idea. No matter what your political persuasion is, eventually you're going to have a president you hate using/abusing that power.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I am saying that it was not President Bush's idea to set up Homeland Security. He was against it. That idea came from the 9/11 Commission. The policies were set forth by Congress. The biggest failures came not from his Homeland Security dept, as you put it, it came from LA Homeland Security dept, the Governor, and Mayor. NO was a complete disaster at the local and state levels. Do a little reading and you can find this out for yourself. Why didn't NO follow it's own evacuation plan? They have one, a pretty reasonable one and it was never implemented. Why? Is that Bush's fault too? Why did the Governor wait so long to tell people to evacuate? Bush urged her to do so, yet she waited? Why did she withhold food and water from the evacuees at the Superdome? I would agree that the corrupt politicians in NO cannot keep NO safe in any kind of crisis
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, all questions of fault (of which there's plenty of on all levels) aside, what you are saying is that the President is unable to keep people safe and that this type of severely deficient response is likely in the event of a terrorist attack.
There's this enormous difference between responsibility and blame and people just don't seem to get it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed there is MrSquicky. We do get that you want to blame Bush for this when most of the blame is properly placed at lower levels of government
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, we aren't talking about NO or Homeland Security (at least I'm not). There were problems and screwups all up and down the ladder on that one, from the people who could leave and didn't to the mayor and governor and the state and federal FEMAs and Congress and the president, and I've talked about that at length elsewhere.
What concerns me here and now is the trend for more and more power to be rested in a single branch of the government without accompanying balances or means of accountability. You don't share my opinion of Mr. Bush and that's fine. So next term say a Democrat wins. Will you still prefer a president with that kind of power?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is people are screaming that Bush didn't do enough, which implies he needs more power and be able to wield it faster which goes against the same people yelling he has too much power. I have the same concerns as you, Chris, which is why I want the honest answers as to who did or did not do what they were supposed to. Blaming Bush for not acting quickly enough means that Bush should have been able to declare the immediate evacuation of the whole region and use the military to do it, which is a terrible idea! It was the local and state's responsibility to get the people out of harm's way and if they couldn't do it using all of their resources, then ask the federal level for assistance.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I don't think you do get it. The President and his administration has explicitly and repeatedly made the claims that they can and will keep people safe. However, their assumption of this responsibility was tested by the New Orleans situation, which has clearly shown that they did not live up to the responsibilty that they've been touting. Which suggests that there is nothing to stop the aftermath of a terrorist attack (the very thing that they've been claiming they were the best for) from being a similar frooforall.
You don't seem to be disputing this, just saying that it's not their fault, which is exactly the response that I said I'm afraid that is the best they have.
Responsibility is primarily about acting before something occurs to prevent it from happening or at least ameliorating its effects. It is practically infinite and attachs proportionally to power. It is often very nebulous in large part as it pertains at least as much to actions not taken as to actions taken.
My complaint here isn't that the Bush adminstration is to blame (although they clearly are along with a whole bunch of other people) but that they've claimed to assume responsibilty without actually doing a good job of taking on this responsibility and that, because of this, there is no reason to trust that the overall response to something like a terrorist attack is going to be any better than the response to New Orleans.
The people who died preventible deaths or suffered other things that didn't need to happen don't really care who is directly to blame for this. They just didn't want these things to happen. The President both by position and by his own claims bears the responsibility of preventing these thigns from happening but has proved unequal to the task.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The Charter should be representative of exactly how we live. I mean... it's the Charter. 
