Political Cartoons

A better title would be "hypochondriac", since Liberals seem to believe their Civil Liberties are being violated somehow, when they're not. Perhaps they should stop being such whiny pansies and try looking at countries where civil liberties are REALLY being violated, now and in the past.

Goddamn pansies.

From:

This from a party that has done nothing but whine ever since they took control of all three branches of goverment? In addition, while you may not mind that the goverment feels it's ok to ignore the constution, it doesn't make it right nor does it make it right anywhere else. We are supposed to be an example to the world of the best, not looking elsewhere and saying "wow it sucks there so it's ok to let things slide here." It's that additude that get's us D students as Commanders in Chief.

While I give you half a point for your Schwarzeneggeresque attempt at the "girly man" approach, it somewhat worked for him because of his background as an action star. You, on the otherhand, would only be cast as the vilian's somewhat dimwitted henchman used for comic relief so once again, like Paris Hilton trying to do a crossword, you fail. Thanks for playing.

From:

It's that additude that get's us D students as Commanders in Chief.

As opposed to Kerry, who did worse than Bush in college?

And LOL at you calling Republicans the whiners...good fucking lord that's hilarious. I guess defending yourself against baseless accusations = whining.

Prime case of BDS.

From:

As opposed to Gore who was an excelent student.

Both men had very rough freshman years, something that isn't uncommon. The diffrence is, while Kerry pulled his grades up, Bush did not. It should also be noted that Kerry earned top grades at Naval Candidate School and was chosen to give his Senior class oration and then go on to serve his country in Vietnam before entering Law School.

Bush, on the other hand, was a cheerleader, a lousy student at business school and notably had more than a few buisness failures.

As far as the whining comment, it seems like all I hear is "WAHHH THEY ARE BURNING THE FLAG!!!WAHHHHH THEY WANT THE GAYS TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS..WAHHHH THEY ARE KILLING CHIRSTMAS!!!!WHAHHH THEY ARE PICKING ON ABRAMOFF!!" so yes, for having all three branches of power, you guys are a bunch of big, fat whiners.

From:

pentha.livejournal.com

Also, the "WAHHH WE ARE BEING OPRESSED BY THE EVIL LIBERAL MEDIA" is no less whiny.

From:

More like Liberals are trying to change things to meet their socialist views, and Republicans are swatting them on the noses with a rolled up newspaper and telling them they can't...I guess that's whining now.

From:

More like the Repulbican party is suggesting useless amendments while the rest of the country wants them to focus on some real issues and then whining when they can't figure out why they won't pass.

You really should take your head out of your ass and enjoy the summer while we have it.

From:

Real issues like legalizing gay marriage and cutting and running from Iraq? I guess if you can't get what you want from the people voting on it, you can always go to your activist judges and circumvent the system that way.

Fuck the summer, I like fall better. All I do is work all day, and chill in my AC cooled house.

From:

You mean the same activist judges who gave W the presidency? I guess you can circumvent the system and overide the will of the people.

From:

lol moonie

From:

If you mean the Unifcation Church, then, once again, you are way the fuck off base. You probably didn't have a clue what that term ment but just threw it out there because it sounded like a good idea at the time. Because I'm a nice guy, here's where the term comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonie

Now you know what it really means for when you don't have any more valid arguments and have to resort to insults.

Have a nice day.

From:

MOONBAT

From:

Nice try dumbass.

From:

goumindong.livejournal.com

Have you read the decision?

(deleted comment)

From:

It's because he wouldn't know what a real issue was if it fell on his head and started quacking like a duck.

(deleted comment)

From:

Yeah but he was a cheerleader at YALE. Those guys suck beyond belief. Believe me, I've seen them in action.

From:

Evidently you aren't of the opinion that:

"putting hundreds of American citizens and legal residents into prison camps on foreign soil:
Without evidence or trial,
Without access to legal counsel,
Without ethnically sensitive meals,
Without special treatment of religiously sensitive items,
Without consideration of age or gender,
In brutal conditions often without sufficient protection from the elements"*

is not a civil liberties violation.

*Source (http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/710522.html?thread=12804730#t12804730)

From:

American citizens, or suspected terrorists?

I guess some people don't know the difference.

From:

I guess you aren't aware that those two groups are not mutually exclusive.

From:

hikarugenji.livejournal.com

I don't think the Constitution knows the difference too, or maybe I just missed the section -- can you show me where it says the Bill of Rights does not apply to a citizen if he is suspected of terrorism?

From:

weswilson

If trying to catch people who would hurt americans is more important than civil liberties, why don't we just repeal the search and siezure part of the bill of rights? I mean, what makes terrorism so much worse than murder? Why don't we just wiretap whoever we suspect of murder without warrants? Why don't we just give cops all the power they want to do whatever they want?

From:

shadowfox24.livejournal.com

Only you could screw up cut-n-paste.

From:

Cntl-C, Cntl-V. Nope, I got it.

From:

Oooh, I see what I've done. I put your comment in the link, rather than lib_seamus's. My apologies. You'll have to forgive - they're similar.

From:

shadowfox24.livejournal.com

No problem, complaint withdrawn.

From:

sid-dslaci.livejournal.com

You and I have different definitions of civil liberties. Despite your contention, monitoring private communications absent a warrant is a flagrant violation.

And, to paraphrase Charlton Heston in a different context: you can take my due process of law when you tear it from my cold, dead hands! You'd better believe my 4th Amendment rights are as important to me as the 2nd Amendement is to many conservatives.

(deleted comment)

From:

I hear ya on that one

(deleted comment)

From:

I don't see why we should have to change an "American hero" to fit the rest of the world's opinion.

(deleted comment)

From:

Oh okay, I heard through the grapevine that's probably the main reason as well. Though I think if you really wanted too you could just edit it for overseas just as easy.

From:

studmuff.livejournal.com

I highly doubt "secrecy" can be used anymore.

From:

Good. The press have a ~~right~~ responsibility to expose government.

From:

Actually, some of those secrets being exposed should lead to being slammed in federal penitentary for treason.

From:

Which secrets are those that Congress may make a law abridging the freedom of the press?

From:

*face-palm*

Look up the laws on slandering and libel. Free speech, right? Well, no. Releasing military secrets in an unauthorizesd tends to have consequences, something liberals want to avoid at all costs...just see any newspaper. They clutch their precious "news" badge, and think that somehow makes them special, which they are not. They are under the same onus of honor as any other citizen to not propagate damaging secrets. And while you may *think* the US gov't is being all jackassery about things, I suggest you read history or current events in places where liberty really is restricted.

In short, take your stupidity and come back when you've gotten rid of it.

From:

We're not talking about libel. Libel is a tortious injury and is cause for seeking economic restitution under common law. We're talking about government secrets. They're not in the same ballpark. They're not even the same sport.

I am familiar with the history of this country and some other places in the world where rights are violated. That natural rights are violated elsewhere to a higher degree than in America is no reason not to be upset about rights violations at home.

From:

All coexistance is a violation of people's rights in some fashion.

From:

So, which secrets are those that Congress may make a law abridging the freedom of the press, now that we know that libel is not free speech, but a tortious violation of individual rights.

From:

madmethod.livejournal.com

Look up the laws on slandering and libel. Free speech, right?

Both of those involve untrue or misleading statements that are intentionally damaging. Neither applies here.

They clutch their precious "news" badge, and think that somehow makes them special, which they are not. They are under the same onus of honor as any other citizen to not propagate damaging secrets.

In the 1971 Supreme Court decision (New York Times v. United States 403 US 713) the court upheld the Times right to publish leaked Pentagon Papers, even when the government claimed it would have an adverse affect on national security. Justice Stewart said in a 1974 speech that the 1st amendment's primary purpose was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches". He certainly felt that the press was "somehow special".

From:

goumindong.livejournal.com

As an addendum to the other commenets here.

The constitutional law is fairly clear(Pending the McDermott case, which may or may not challenge the status quo). It is not illegal to publish documents gathered illegaly, even if you know they were gathered illegaly, so long as you did not have any hand in it.

There may be civil liability involved with publication, but no criminal liability. As well, publishing is generally protected further when it involes established press instutitions, government actions, and especialy government malefecence.

The possibilities of the McDermott case are pretty chilling. A run down. A couple in Florida accidentally(yes, it actualy was an accident) intercepted a phone call between Newt Gingrich and members of the House Ethics Committee. Recognizing who it was, the couple made an audio cassette recording. This is illegal(recording someone without their consent). The couple gave the tape to Rep McDermott(D, Washington), and he published it(released it to the press). McDermott knew it was obtained illegaly, and was not the final publisher, he only transported the info, but had no hand in gathering it. Republicans prosecuted.

The kicker? The tape was of Gingrich and the House Ethics conspiring to evade an ethics ruling against Gingrich.

From:

liblegal.livejournal.com

Apparently outing an active CIA agent is not as serious. Why is it that all the righties are so up in arms about newspapers publishing secrets that, at least arguably, are germain to the peoples right to know. but say nothing about disclosing the name of a CIA operative for purely political reasons?
As a criminal defense lawyer who over the last 25 years has watched the 4th ammendment reduced to shreds, I wonder why these same people don't yell and scream that because of a (false) reading of the 2nd ammendment, we don't keep records of gun sales...EVEN IF THEY ARE BAUGHT BY TERROISTS!!! I guess that part of the Bill of Rights is more important to protecting our liberties than the parts that require judicial oversight of searches, ability to have a fair trial and the right to be present and represented by a lawyer when the government is trying you for a crime.......I JUST DON'T GET IT

From:

sid-dslaci.livejournal.com

What's lost in these arguments is the root issue: an agency of the government must not be able to break the law, and prevent consequences, by making exposure of their felonious activity also illegal. Need to keep things classified? Great, I'm with you, I'm all for it. Until you start breaking the law.

This nation was built on the principle that the people, through the institutions of a representative republic, can govern themselves. If this nation needs to take actions to protect itself, we are capable of making those actions legal while remaining secret (as the FISA law has successfully demonstrated). If FISA is inadequate today, the Executive may do what the Constitution has always permitted: ask Congress for a legislative solution.

What he cannot legally do is say "It doesn't matter if this is legal or not, because it's secret and you can't know about it or tell anyone." This is the worst kind of circular logic.

From:

I agree with you in principle. I'm very much in favor of checks and balances. "For each security measure a check"

We have a system wherein Congress should be evaluating the performance: if we can't trust Congress, who can we trust? We elected Congress as people to hold in trust laws and balances of the keeping safe of the country. They know the secrets that are generated, and they provide the voice of the people in making laws and keeping an eye over the secrets. I don't care if I know every detail of every NSA program; I simply care that Congress or an appropriate subcommittee thereof is provided with oversight and observation for the purposes of maintaining the balances.

From:

sid-dslaci.livejournal.com

I agree exactly with this, though the point I'm making is the other leg of the checks and balances picture: where investigations within our borders are concerned, the judiciary is responsible for overseeing and providing restraint upon the executive. Granted, I do feel some concern that Congress of late has been profoundly lax in their oversight duties.

Just to wander off the point because I've had these two thoughts rolling around in my head together... One observation that's often made is the need for quick action when an immediate danger is present. The existence of the 72-hour clause in FISA has been discussed at length, but there's another out that seems to have been ignored, and that's the presidential pardon.

This applies to illegal surveillance but even more directly to torture, I think, because it grants the good guy the ability to make that judgement, and make it in good conscience... do I *really* think this guy I'm interrogating knows something of urgent, life-or-death value? Like many, I have no problem with torture when it's demonstrably necessary to save lives now, the problem I have is a structure wherein torture is used routinely and in many, many cases where it's later determined that the subject was clearly innocent and no probable cause ever existed.

Rather than offer a morally questionable blanket green light, I'd like to see the boss say, look, the decision is in your hands. You as an american patriots must decide if it's your moral obligation to torture this subject to save the loves of others, and if you make that decision in good faith on good knowledge, I've got your back, I'll pardon you.

sorry for my off-topic monologue, just has been rattling around my brain and needed to be set in writing :)

From: