Cynical Nation

Great post! Part of the issue is this "Militarizing Mayberry" phenomenon in which local police use the new 'anti-terrorism' laws and money in fraudulent ways. In this case Mayberry is Ground Zero, but the issue is the same.

The Agitator Balko has been all over this subject for years now. I think the ACLU might pick this one up.

JMK will remind us that if we have nothing to hide, we should be happy when the SS whisks us away for some water-boarding, perform cavity seaches on our children, and ransack our homes.

Don't you want to be safe, Barry?

The above action had nothing to do with Homeland Security.

It was apparently a case of Police misconduct.

SUSPICION of terrorism IS a viable charge and the authorities (usually federal, rather than local) have every legal right to charge people based solely on reasonable suspicion - attending a Mosque where radical views have been espoused, giving to charitable organizations with indirect ties to terror groups are both examples of "reasonable suspicions," that have rightfully landed many Americans in jails pending disposition of whether they'll get a court trial or a military tribunal (American citizens charged with supporting terrorism CAN be given military tribunals) and many foreign nationals deportation, after a lengthy and somewhat uncomfortable interrogation.

None of what I've just described amounts to "police misconduct."

Not even close.

But JMK, I'm sure the policeman was suspicious of a foreign looking man taking pictures of a law officers vehicle. He had EVERY RIGHT to know what this foreign-looking man, holding a high-tech visual recording device that could possibly be mixed with Perrier to create a bomb and blow up a jumbo jet was up to. Water-boarding was definitely called for under The Bush Doctrine.

This fellow was, "released...without charges and (the police) returned his camera without apology about 20 minutes," because there was no charge associated with taking pictures of a police officer’s personal car...even one parked illegally.

He would have been rightfully charged with a crime had he violated NYC's laws against taking pictures in certain "sensitive" areas.

You could and most likely WOULD be detained for taking pictures within the NYC Subway system, near any reservoir, or power plant, etc...those laws are sensible...and I'm glad they have them and are enforcing them.

I'd suspect that a vast majority of New Yorkers feel the same way.

Admit it, JMK, you would be a lot more glad if Bush would give you a full cavity search with both hands on your shoulder. That's what you really want. We know that all of you wingnuts are in the closet.

I support increased enforcement powers because I perceive them to be to my benefit.

I've forced open thousands of doors, most for fires, some to gain access for police and EMS.

There used to be some crazy Civil Libertarians around NYC who'd sue over things like the Fire Dept forcing doors to give EMS access to people's apartments who'd called EMS, but then left for the hospital on their own.

Of course, in such cases, as with fires, the Fire Department is allowed to force entry without the teneant's permission - to ameliorate an emergency.

BUT, if we come across guns or contraband "in plain sight," we're duty bound to call in the police.

A few years ago we forced entry into an apartment for a water leak from that residennce impacting the entire building - the tenant (a single mother) was out and had left three young children alone.

We stopped the water leak and then called in BCW.

The 4th Amendment, like the First, is NOT sacrosanct....there are a lot of loopholes in both.

You're not free to engage in slander and defamation, nor are you entirely guaranteed sanctity even within your own home.

Like it or not - and it's primarily people who don't understand the vital reasons for such things as restrictions on taking pictures in "sensitive areas" - that oppose them, and almost always, like yourself, on fuzzy-headed, theoretical grounds.

In short, I don't want to probe your ass Barely, I just want to give those people responsible for such things, the ability to track phone calls, emails, etc made by any of us, to any suspect foreign portals, or our financial transactions with "charities" with ties to terror groups.

The concerns for the life & property of the greater number demand greater scrutiny of the suspicious few.

> BUT, if we come across guns or contraband "in plain sight," we're duty bound to call in the police.

JMK, I'm curious as to why you'd have to call in the police if you see guns in the residence. Note that I say "curious" rather than "surprised." One of the things that I always found remarkable when I watched "COPS" was how the cops would always dutifully seize any guns they found at the home of an arrestee without regard to whether they were legal or not.

In NYC, the law mandates that even registered guns be stored safely and not left out where children could gain easy access.

Where I worked (the Morrisania section of the South Bronx) the vast majority of guns were unregistered.

I suppose the IC's (Incident Commander's) job is on the line in such events. If the Fire Department's IC failed to notify authorities and EMS included that in their reports, that would be a big problem for the Fire Department's IC.

At one fire, we were pulling ceilings and found a lot of cash hidden in the celing - police were called in and it was turned over to them.

If that money belonged to anyone they could just go to the Station House and claim it...unless it could be proven stolen (banks record serial numbers of stolen bills) or shown to be garnered from illegal activity.

In NYC firefighters are Peace Officers and can write summons and effect arrests, though both are rare instances - we generally hate writing summonses unless someone's blocking a hydrant at an emergency or parking within the area that impedes the rigs leaving or entering the firehouse.

There have been a few cases of firefighters chasing down muggers and purse snatchers and holding them for police, but those too are usually rare occurances.

When entry is gained into an apartment for and EMS call (a reported medical emergency), the entry team does make a cursory sweep of the apartment to make sure no one's fallen unconscious anywhere in the house, but unless something like a gun or a stash of drugs is left right out in the open, in plain sight, they're generally not looking for those things.

In the case of egregious actions, like someone leaving small children at home alone, or a someone assaulting his/her spouse, we're supposed to call in the proper authorities...for the former, because so many kids have been killed in fires started when they're left home alone and in the latter because of the City's much tougher stance on domestic abuse over the past few years.

Barry, for the record, I still struggle with that Libertarian side of my nature that says we're all better off with minimal government intrusion...I do think people should be free to self-destruct (smoke, eat fatty foods, fail to exercise, not wear seat belts in cars or safety helmetson bikes, etc)..but we have all those things and they have all withstood court scrutiny.

So have random DUI checks and street corner "stop & frisks."

For that matter, so has "operation Eschelon" - the NSA's formerly secret wiretapping program. Tapping calls/emails FROM suspect foreign portals INTO the U.S. has been upheld by four federal courts including the FISA court as coming under the umbrella "collecting foreign intelligence."

The expansion of that program (post-9/11) to include calls/emails FROM the U.S. TO suspect foreign portals is still being considered by the courts.

I support it, as much as I supported Clinton's use U.S. military resources on domestic soil immediately after the 1995 Murrah Building bombing. Clinton used dozens of Army Intel linguists to decipher calls and emails made to & from suspect foreign nationals, most of those intercepts being domestic-to-domestic correspondences.

If seat belt and bike helmet laws, designed to save only ONE life are Constitutional intrusions, then compromising the privacy rights of suspected terrorists who could take thousands of lives with a single act, MUST also pass contemporary Constitutional muster, such as it is.

This should be obvious to everyone, but it seems it is a point that needs making. Of course if everyone operates properly then there is no need for due process or the protections offered to SUSPECTS by the law. There is, in fact, no need for the presumption of innocence, the golden thread that runs throughout the whole of common law, if the police arrested only guilty people and never did anything improper. However, it is abuses that were hinted at and attempted in this story that make due process necessary. Police are human beings, not inerrant gods, and their supervisors are likewise. The law itself is our only legitimate protection. We cannot have laws that strip away fundamental protections such as habeas corpus, the right to be represented by counsel, to confront one's accusers, etc. unless we want to see many innocent people carted off to jail never to be heard from again, just as the police in the story threatened to do.

One would have to be pretty stupid to argue against that position.

JMK and the neocons don't see any need to coddle suspects. If any dumbass with a badge decides you committed a crime, some waterboarding and isolation in a secret Bulgarian prison will get the truth out of you.

I wonder how super-duper this will seem when President Hillary Clinton starts rounding up her detractors, who simply disappear. Who needs judges, lawyers, and courts? Just kick down the doors of your political opponents and see what they are up to this week. Maybe toss a couple of rocks of crack into their headquarters while you are at it, and POOF! they all disappear!

The truly amusing part of it is that NY cops have been caught committing armed robberies, selling drugs, and working for the mob over and over and over.

These are the people JMK trusts. It is OK with him if they are free to break into his home and strip search his children.

JMK and the neocons don't see any need to coddle suspects. If any dumbass with a badge decides you committed a crime, some waterboarding and isolation in a secret Bulgarian prison will get the truth out of you.

I wonder how super-duper this will seem when President Hillary Clinton starts rounding up her detractors, who simply disappear. Who needs judges, lawyers, and courts? Just kick down the doors of your political opponents and see what they are up to this week. Maybe toss a couple of rocks of crack into their headquarters while you are at it, and POOF! they all disappear!

The truly amusing part of it is that NY cops have been caught committing armed robberies, selling drugs, and working for the mob over and over and over.

These are the people JMK trusts. It is OK with him if they are free to break into his home and strip search his children.

Lowering the standard to "reasonable suspicion" DOES NOT undercut habeas corpis, nor are "illegal combatants or ANY "foreign nationals guaranteed the Constitutional Rights such as "the right to counsel," or the right to ":confront one's accusers."

In fact, like POWs, "illegal combatants can be detained and confined until "the end of hostilities between the nations involved."

The NSA has used the Eschelon program from the late 1980s through today.

Bill Clinton used it correctly in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing while focusing on two suspect foreign nationals (a Jordanian and a Palestinian), both of whom the FBI and the McVeigh jury believed were directly involved in that attack.

The Eschelon program made a tremendous amount of domestic-to-domestic communications between Dr Ahmed and Mr Abdul available to the scores of Army Intel linguists that Clinton had assigned to that domestic task force.

Eschelon also brought down rogue FBI agent Robert Hansen and CIA traitor Aldrich Ames.

Eschelon remains an invauable program.

"This should be obvious to everyone, but it seems it is a point that needs making. Of course if everyone operates properly then there is no need for due process or the protections offered to SUSPECTS by the law..." (DBK)
"I've forced open thousands of doors, most for fires, some to gain access for police and EMS.

"There used to be some crazy Civil Libertarians around NYC who'd sue over things like the Fire Dept forcing doors to give EMS access to people's apartments who'd called EMS, but then left for the hospital on their own.

"Of course, in such cases, as with fires, the Fire Department is allowed to force entry without the teneant's permission - to ameliorate an emergency.

"BUT, if we come across guns or contraband "in plain sight," we're duty bound to call in the police.

"A few years ago we forced entry into an apartment for a water leak from that residennce impacting the entire building - the tenant (a single mother) was out and had left three young children alone.

"We stopped the water leak and then called in BCW.

"The 4th Amendment, like the First, is NOT sacrosanct....there are a lot of loopholes in both..." that endorses ANYTHING not upheld by our courts and the U.S. Constitution.

A person calling in an emergency gives First Responders the right & responsibility to effect entry (force the door, if necessary) should they not be available to answer it after such a call is placed.

The "in plain sight" rule, mandates that those First Responders call in the proper authorities whenever they see something "in plain sight" that violates the law. Yes, there is room for "small judgments," while one could probably overlook a small (personal) amount of contraband without much of a problem, overlooking more egregious violations (large amounts of contraband, guns, etc) is probably inadvisable...and even the "allowable" judgment calls are solely at the discretion of the IC on the scene as it's his/her career on the line.

That is all completely in keeping with American Constitutional values and its all been upheld by numerous courts, as those ill-fated Civil Libertarians have found out over time.

Moreover, though I don't expect Bailey to either be able to understand, nor make any kind of effective, coherant argument supporting his disdain for such things as the Patriot Act and increased police powers relative to terror suspects, I have a much greater respect for your ability to state your case.

I believe you have failed to do that here and that's why I'm curious as to what grounds you oppose the detaining and confining of both "illegal combatants" and terror suspects (unconventional warriors/soldiers) until the cessation of all hostilities between radical Islam and the West.

There are, of course, a myriad reasons, in my view, why terrorism CANNOT be dealt with as a criminal act.

For one, it's, especially when state sponsored, a clear act of unconventional warfare and for another, unlike any other crime, it puts the public safety of entire cities, entire sectors of the nation's economy at extreme risk.

For that reason alone, both the tools which law enforcement and the military are able to bring to bear and the consequences/punishments for such actions should be (again, in my view) far more severe than they are for ANY kind of conventional "crime."

The reason being that terrorism is far more than a mere "crime."

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

-- Liberal Benjamin Franklin

Again, that is NOT an argument Barely, for you haven't addressed (1) why you think it's wrong for First Responders to have to force entry when there is no answer after a medical emergency call has been placed, (2) why the "in plain sight" rule shouldn't apply to them and (3) why terrorism a/k/a "unconventional warfare" should be treated as a mere "crime."

In short you haven't made any kind of argument for your position.

Tsk, tsk -- your argument was that the "suspicion" of a police officer is good enough to allow for searching without a warrant, imprisonment without charge or representation, and nice expedient forms of torture to get to the truth.

Bush isn't fighting terrorism, he is warring for profit is what was a non-terrorist country, creating terrorists.

The Repugs WANT terrorists. They NEED terrorists. Bush doesn't care about Osama Bin Laden, he just doesn't think about him all that much, you know.

Bush turned over Afganistan to the U.N. After all the screaming and shouting on the wingnut side when Clinton suggested having our troops under U.N. control, there is DEAD SILENCE when Bush actually does it.

Would you please quote the exact entry where I said (or implied) "the "suspicion" of a police officer is good enough to allow for searching without a warrant, imprisonment without charge or representation, and nice expedient forms of torture to get to the truth," please?

As that would be very helpful to me, for I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Is that from another thread? I don't think so, cause I've looked. Or is it merely your misinterpretation of what I wrote?

(1) You or I can already be arrested on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion."

(2) Warrants are often granted on "reasonable suspicion," as well.

(3) Those are not new developments.

(4) The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are NOT American citizens, so they don't have the Constitutional rights Americans do.

(5) Illegal Combatants (like POWs) CAN be held without charge and without access to counsel until after the cessation of hostilities between the warring nations...according to the Geneva Accords.

(6) Once again, coercive techniques have NOT been defined as torture by any American court, to date.

That probably comes as much of a shock to you as the fact that the police CAN and are encouraged to lie, manipulate, threaten and cajole admissions of guilt from hapless defendants.

As to your last point, I believe you mean NATO, NOT the UN, as the Afghanistan theater is now under NATO (not UN) control.

The number of UN "Peacekeeping operations" dropped when US support became constrained by Presidential Decision Directive 25 that established specific and more restrictive criteria for US involvement.

Don't worry, Presidential Directive 25 remains in effect.
"NATO is now in control of security for all of Afghanistan.

"The U.S.-led coalition Thursday formally turned over control of eastern Afghanistan to NATO.

With 12,000 soldiers, the U.S. will be the biggest contingent in the 33,000-strong NATO force.

Eikenberry said the United States "maintains its full commitment to Afghanistan."

Thousands more American forces involved with tracking al-Qaida terrorists or air operations will remain outside NATO control."

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/10011121/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news
"With about 12,000 troops, the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the more than 31,000-strong NATO mission. Britain has 5,200 troops and Germany has 2,750 troops here.
Eikenberry will remain the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with administrative and legal responsibility for all American forces, including those led by NATO.

Eikenberry will continue to lead some 8,000 U.S. troops functioning outside NATO who are tracking al-Qaida terrorists, helping train Afghan security forces and doing reconstruction work."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_NATO?SITE=DEWIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Sorry, I meant to say that wingnuts squawked endlessly when Clinton proposed putting U.S. troops under NATO control.

Here's a great example of "supporting the president during wartime, Repug style" ... hmmm, were they giving aid to the enemy, were they against the troops?

The Truth Leaks Out About Kosovo

Phyllis Schlafly
conservative political activist

November 24, 1999
The embarrassing truth is starting to come out that the Clinton Administration lied to us about Kosovo atrocities which were supposed to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia. In five months of investigation and exhumation of the dead in Kosovo, United Nations war crimes investigators have found only 2,108 bodies.

Before the bombing, Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen repeatedly tossed out figures of 100,000 dead, and the State Department even claimed that up to 500,000 Kosovars were feared dead. Clinton claimed that his bombing prevented Milosevic from "deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide."

The chief prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunal, Carla Del Ponte, can confirm only the 2,108 figure. That's what she reported to the UN Security Council.

Pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who led a Spanish forensic team looking for bodies, found only 187, mostly in individual graves. He calculated that "the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can't be blamed on anyone in particular."

The British, who seem to be more interested in getting to the truth than Congress, are pressuring Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to answer claims that Tony Blair's government misled the public over the scale of deaths in order to justify NATO's bombing of Belgrade. Alice Mahon, the Labor MP who chairs the Balkans committee, said that the Kosovo deaths were tragic but did not justify the killing of Belgrade civilians by NATO's bombing.

Lacking a constitutional or national security basis for his Yugoslav adventure, Clinton relied wholly on the humanitarian argument. That rationale has fallen apart because the numbers of Milosevic's crimes in Kososo were so grossly inflated, the indiscriminate damage done by the Clinton/NATO bombing raids was so vast, and all the people he said he was helping are far worse off than before the bombing started.

The Clinton/NATO bombing was carried on for 78 days with total disregard for human life. The bombs killed thousands of innocent civilians and even destroyed hospitals and schools.

The Clinton/NATO bombing decimated Yugoslavia's economic infrastructure and created an environmental nightmare. Not only are water and power systems destroyed, but the lifeline of the region, the Danube River, is polluted and largely impassable because of destroyed bridges.

Repeated air strikes on the Serbian town of Pancevo enveloped the area in clouds of black smoke and flames for ten days and unleashed tons of chemicals into the air, water and soil. The fish, produce and water are all contaminated.

What was advertised as an air war against Yugoslavia's military capabilities was really a war directed against the Serbian people. Dropping cluster bombs from 15,000 feet and firing missiles from many miles away guaranteed "mistakes" and "collateral damage" and prove that the targets were civilian as well as military.

U.S. Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Michael Short admitted that the goal was to break the will of the Serbs and make them so miserable that they would force Milosevic to pull out of Kosovo. Estimates of the cost to rebuild the damage range up to $100 billion, but the costs in human misery are incalculable.

The situation in Kosovo, the province Clinton was supposed to be protecting, is even worse. The danger from unexploded British and American cluster bombs and mines is at alarming levels, according to international aid agencies.

Before the bombing began, there was no humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. It was only after the U.S. and NATO air strikes began that the Serbs started to expel Albanians from Kosovo.

The NATO "peacekeeping" force in Kosovo is completely unable to restrain the revenge-seeking Albanians who are beating and murdering the Serbs (even targeting grandmothers) and burning their homes and churches. More Serb civilians have been slaughtered in Kosovo than ethnic Albanians before the bombing began.

The daily violence continues even though there are now more NATO troops in Kosovo than Serbs. According to Human Rights Watch, 164,000 Serb civilians have been driven out of Kosovo.

The Clinton-Albright policy is based on the absurd fantasy that America and NATO can force the Serbs and Albanians to live together in a multiethnic society. Neither side wants that, and the attempt to impose our will means that U.S. troops will play the costly roles of global cop and social worker indefinitely.

The only people happy about the Yugoslavia debacle are the globalists who want America to be perpetually engaged in foreign conflicts. In a speech to the Canadian Parliament, Czech leader Vaclav Havel praised the Yugoslav war as "an important precedent for the future," saying that "state sovereignty must inevitably dissolve" and nation-states will be transformed into "civil administrative units."

When Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on October 21, he described Clinton's foreign policy as grounded in the policy of "engagement." America will now be "engaged" in Yugoslavia for the rest of our lives.

"Sorry, I meant to say that wingnuts squawked endlessly when Clinton proposed putting U.S. troops under NATO control." (BH)
"(U.S. Lieutenant General) Eikenberry will continue to lead some 8,000 U.S. troops functioning outside NATO who are tracking al-Qaida terrorists, helping train Afghan security forces and doing reconstruction work."

Oh, then I was right both times, the wingnuts also screamed when Clinton put Kosovo troops under NATO control.

Did you notice how the conservative traitors were attacking our troops back then? Did you notice how they undermined our president in a time of war?

Hypocrites to the end, and the end is in one month.

Conservatives were right to bash Clinton over placing U.S. troops in blue helmets under UN control.

Bush hasn't done that.

He HAS let NATO take control of the Eastern part of Afghanistan, while Lieutenant General Eikenberry leads U.S. troops in the hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

So, you were wrong in implying that Conservatives who opposed Clinton's putting U.S. troops under UN control weren't right to do so, and you were also wrong to infer that the same thing is being done today in Afghanistan.

Ouch!

How's it feel to be wrong...AGAIN?!

No, I was right that wingnuts attacked Clinton for wanting to put troops under NATO control, and I was right that Chimp is putting our troops under that very same NATO control.

I merely typed UN when I meant NATO.

The attack on Clinton was over "U.S. troops wearing the blue helmets of the UN forces and put under UN control," there was, aside from Schafly, little opposition to U.S. troops serving in NATO forces.

There's a HUGE difference between the two.

Besides, as I said, the U.S. Special Forces searching out Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are under the control of Lieutenant General Eikenberry.

The Eastern portion of Afghanistan has rightfully been put under NATO control. It's about time our allies "bucked up," and helped out.

Oh, I see. Shafly was the only one, and I just happened to find the only one right at the top of my first Google search. I'm sure if I looked harder, I would find that Republicans were very supportive of the president and troops "at war" and did not critisize nor condemn the action at all.

Bush has "cut and run" from Afghanistan.

THE controversy of the Clinton administration was over placing proud, brave American troops in powedr blue helmets and under UN control.

That was it.

And that abomination has been dealt with; "The number of UN "Peacekeeping operations" dropped when US support became constrained by Presidential Decision Directive 25 that established specific and more restrictive criteria for US involvement."

As I said, don't worry, Presidential Directive 25 remains in effect.

Hey!

Thanks once again, for abandoning your initial falacious and wrong-headed argument against First Responders having to notify the proper authorities over violations they encounter while responding to unrelated emergencies.

I'm happy you abandoned that insipid tack and didn't travel any furhter down that pot hole laden road.

Straw Man Argument, JMK.

Look it up, all the smart people already know about it, so you look silly.

Presidential Directive 25 effectively ended U.S. forces being placed under UN control.

That did NOT end U.S. forces in Europe, in many instances, serving as part of joint U.S.-NATO missions under NATO administration (control).

If you can find a reasonable way to compare the two, would you do that, please?

I've tried for the last couple of days and couldn't.

NATO is an organization comprised of our European allies, an organization that was set up by America after WW II.

The UN is NOT a collection of our allies and is NOT an organization that shares many joint objectives with America. In fact, more often than not, the UN and the U.S. are at odds.

Presidential directive 25 came about due to the rightful outrage by ALL Americans, across the political spectrum, against U.S. troops serving under UN control wearing those hideous powder blue helmets - even I couldn't make that look good.

If Presidential Directive 25 has been violated, send me an email with the proof. I'll forward that to the NSA. I have a brother who works there.

If this President violated that Directive without appropriately superceding it (he hasn't superceded or countermanded Directive 25 to date), THAT"Bush has "cut and run" from Afghanistan," when that is clearly NOT the case.

The facts are; ""With about 12,000 troops, the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the more than 31,000-strong NATO mission. Britain has 5,200 troops and Germany has 2,750 troops here.
Eikenberry will remain the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with administrative and legal responsibility for all American forces, including those led by NATO.

Lieutenant General Eikenberry will continue to lead some 8,000 U.S. troops functioning outside NATO who are tracking al-Qaida terrorists, helping train Afghan security forces and doing reconstruction work."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_NATO?SITE=DEWIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Again, IF Directive 25 can be shown to have been violated, that is without a doubt, an impeachable offense.

That remains the law of the land and no President can violate that and countermand such directives retroactively.

I said UN when I meant NATO, and posted an article that made it obvious I was talking about NATO. You are just being a Grammar Tard.

Bush has cut and run from Afghanistan. Bush cut and ran from Vietnam, like a coward, hiding behind daddy.

Bush lied to get us into Iraq, and it had nothing to do with the alleged War on Terrorism, that he doesn't even take seriously.

Doesn't matter though. Soon he will be completely powerless without his rubber stamp legislature.

Again, the ONLY real controversy surrounding Bill Clinton's misuse of the U.S. military was in his placing them under UN command and in those funky powder blue UN helmets.

WE WON!

That's to say, "the people of America" WON that fight, as it forced the drafting of Presidential Directive 25 which severely limits the way a President can use American troops.

U.S. troops served under NATO commands long before Clinton and have obviously done so since.

But, U.S. troops have not served under UN control since Presidential Directive 25 was issued.

If Bush were to place U.S. troops under UN command, he could and would be impeached.

The facts on Afghanistan are;

The facts are; "With about 12,000 troops, the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the more than 31,000-strong NATO mission. Britain has 5,200 troops and Germany has 2,750 troops here.

Lt. General Eikenberry will remain the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with administrative and legal responsibility for all American forces, including those led by NATO.

Lieutenant General Eikenberry will continue to lead some 8,000 U.S. troops functioning outside NATO who are tracking al-Qaida terrorists, helping train Afghan security forces and doing reconstruction work."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_NATO?SITE=DEWIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I'll keep on pointing out those facts that prove you wrong, yet again, until they sink in...or unless you can somehow prove that they aren't the facts.

Deal?

The facts are that Afganistan is not under control, Iraq is lost to civil war with no end in sight, and Bush abused the military system in ways that Clinton never dreamed of, using National Guard troops as regular army in a foreign war, forced redeployment, and just the general abuse of our forces while cutting their benefits at the same time.

Bush hates America and the military.

NATO is in command in Iraq, except for the group of soldiers looking for a man that Bush "just doesn't really think about" anymore.

LOL!

Repugs did not support the troops, they spit on the troops when Clinton was president. Repugs hated America when Clinton was president.

Hypocrite.

You claimed U.S. troops were under foreign control in Afghanistan, but the facts say otherwise.

In fact, even the article you posted from Schafly, didn't express outrage over any NATO control in the Balkans at all, but about the misrepresentations that drew us into that conflict.

There are always such misrepresentations, in ALL conflicts.

"NATO is in command in Iraq (you mean Afghanistan, right?), except for the group of soldiers looking for a man that Bush "just doesn't really think about" anymore."

Of course, even that's NOT true.

"Lt. General Eikenberry will remain the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with administrative and legal responsibility for all American forces, including those led by NATO."

You also claimed, "Bush has cut and run in Afghanistan, and again, THAT is simply not the case either.

I'm merely correcting the many factual errors you make.

Bush is a cut and run, tax and spend, LIBERAL.

This is all you need to know about Afghanistan;

"With about 12,000 troops, the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the more than 31,000-strong NATO mission. Britain has 5,200 troops and Germany has 2,750 troops here.

Lt. General Eikenberry will remain the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with administrative and legal responsibility for all American forces, including those led by NATO.

Lieutenant General Eikenberry will continue to lead some 8,000 U.S. troops functioning outside NATO who are tracking al-Qaida terrorists, helping train Afghan security forces and doing reconstruction work."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_NATO?SITE=DEWIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT