Message to Racicot
Carl didn't say it, but you are starting to betray just how UGLY you are. Yuck!
Temporarily at My Life as a Spam Blog
Is your confidence in the economy increasing?
28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
BLITZER: Some of these questions are now before the U.S. Supreme Court, as you well know, Donna Newman. What is your suspicion why this information is being made public today?
NEWMAN: I don't speculate on government's motives. I leave that to the press to do. But one only has to look at the history in this case to understand that whenever the government has felt pressure, that what they are doing in their strategy in terrorism, they come forth to help themselves.
For example, they would not let me see Mr. Padilla or my co-counsel ... see Mr. Padilla. And then when they had to file their Supreme Court brief, all of a sudden they said, for some strange reason national security is not a problem and you can see him.
So every step of the way, the history of this case demonstrates when the government has been pushed against the wall they come forth with something. This, however, while they say it is very damning, it sounds so much like an opening statement that it's really surprising that Mr. Comey has said it in this way.
But we all know that admissions, in fact, lately we have found from prisoners, it has been all over the news, that their admissions have been under coercion. I'm not saying that's here. I don't know. And that's the problem in this case. The counsel has been kept in the dark, the counsel has not been told of the facts, the counsel has not been allowed to really have full access to the client, and that the system is being tried to be turned up on his head.
The Justice Department, under pressure to explain its indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant
The Supreme Court is deciding whether the war on terrorism gives the government power to seize Americans such as Padilla and hold them without charges for as long as it takes to ensure they are not a danger to United States. Comey denied the timing of the disclosure was an attempt to influence the court.
"We have decided to release this information to help people understand why we are doing what we are doing in the war on terror and to help people understand the nature of the threat we face," he said.
Since you deprived him of his civil liberties in the first place, you've got to keep depriving him of his civil liberties because all the good info you got from him would be inadmissible because you got it by violating the Bill of Rights?
If Mr. Padilla is as dangerous as they say, why not simply have a trial and then the -- with a verdict and certainly the sentence which can be quite severe, such as life, and that's what he would be facing, if he were tried and he was convicted, he would not be a danger.
BLITZER: All right.
NEWMAN: So our system works. And they have to have confidence in it. I have confidence in it. I have seen it work. I believe in it. And I think -- people have told me that that makes me more patriotic. I believe that that makes us all patriotic because we believe that in the end justice will be done when the system is used properly, not when it has been evaded and avoided.
So we must ask ourselves:
How many human lives are a proper price to pay for the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Would you say removing Hussein would be worth it if a million people — Americans and Iraqis — had to die to achieve it?
If the answer is no, let's try a lower price. How about 100,000?
If that's too many, how about 10,000 lives being snuffed out to remove one man from power?
The Relevant Question
Let's make is simpler. Rather than throwing numbers around, let's ask just one question:
Would removing Hussein be worth it if the cost were just one human life — but that life was yours?
Would you be willing to die to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?
If the answer is no, then anything you have to say about the world being a better place now — about collateral damage — about the glory of soldiers sacrificing their lives for their country — is meaningless. You're not willing to pay the price. You're like so many people who believe various government programs are wonderful — provided someone else pays for them.
Everyone who has died so far in Iraq had a life that meant as much to him as your life means to you. But now that life is gone, done, finished, nevermore.
By supporting the war in Iraq, you have supported the idea that it's okay to kill people — other people.
But until you're willing to volunteer to be one of those killed, your words don't carry any weight.