David Reinhard Needs A Reasonable Definition of War
David Reinhard has got to get a better FAX machine. He's a few days late on presenting the Republican counter-attack on Judge Taylors' decision that came out a week ago. Even the New York Times got there first - questioning the quality of her legal reasoning - and you know how they sit on stories. Of course, it is hilarious that the quote Reinhard holds up for ridicule is the same one the Oregonian featured on its front page, but no matter. The Reinhard position is that giving the President these search powers falls under the Constitution. It's all about what the definition of "unreasonable" is. Of course, the Republican argument for these government intrusions into our private lives, is that we are at war. This also triggers the special circumstances of the War Powers Act. Okay, so how about a reasonable definition of war? After all, we're told we'll be in this one for the rest of our lifetimes. That means these special powers for the President will be virtually permanent. So what makes it a war? Who is it against? What country are we fighting here? Don't you see that once we start declaring war on religions or terrorist cells, there's no end to it? Do we have to lose our rights forever because of the war on obesity? How about the war on poverty? Everyone still refers to Iraq as the Iraq War but what we are doing there is an occupation. The mission might not have been accomplished but the nation state is ours. That's why we're building 14 permanent military bases and a gigantic embassy complex. We intend to stay and run it for a long, long time. Terrorism is real, but this war on terror is a legalistic marketing device, designed to trigger the War Powers act. If we're going to say it is constitutional to give the President the right to override our laws based on being at war, we better have a good definition of war. I would suggest that it include an opponent that was also a nation state. Not just some group. These blustery boomers throwing out their chests and saying, "We're in World War 3", might be helping to compensate for their own feelings of worthlessness, but they sound ridiculous. Did we worry about a doomsday scenario with the Soviet Union for decades, just to have these frat-boy clowns hype a world war? It's shameful, and the scariest part is they can make a real World War 3 happen. So I'm asking David Reinhard what his definition of war is? Could, for example, we lose our rights because of President Bush's war on the English language? The problem with wars against shadowy groups is that they never really end. There's no ceremony like on the USS Missouri after the Japanese surrendered. If there isn't a specific country that we are fighting, than these war powers shouldn't kick in. Remember, Iraq has already lasted longer than World War 2, and now they're asking us to cede these special powers to the President for the rest of our lives. That's unreasonable. That's tantamount to changing our form of government. If this so-called war never ends - the only thing that ends is America.
THE WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE RULING