"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Gosh, blatham .... your "historical" account neglected to include any Democrats or liberals who stated Saddam had WMD. Wonder why? Surely you aren't exhibiting any .... <gasp> ... bias.
Or perhaps the liberal website you culled that from didn't provide them for you?
Is it possible that you made it through a law degree with no mandatory course in logic? (serious question)
To suggest that it matters at all whether these quotes were to be found on a left-leaning website or a right-leaning blog or on the walls of an outhouse is a Fallacy of Relevance. Please tell me that I do not need to clarify how this is different from analysis/opinion/commentary?
You are tested for your logical abilities in the LSAT entrance test, and in every final examination throughout law school. Why don't you give it a shot?
The fact that you took these quotes from a left-leaning website further illustrates the hypocrisy you demonstrate every time you have ever criticized me for posting a primarily conservative view, or accused me of only visiting conservative websites. You have never given any indication that you visit anything but liberal sites.
Quote:That doesn't answer the question. Did your program of studies in law not mandate at least one course in formal logic? I don't ask this with the intention of being insulting, I'm actually curious. You've made precisely the same error again (relevance) in what you say immediately below.You are tested for your logical abilities in the LSAT entrance test, and in every final examination throughout law school. Why don't you give it a shot?
Tico wrote:The fact that you took these quotes from a left-leaning website further illustrates the hypocrisy you demonstrate every time you have ever criticized me for posting a primarily conservative view, or accused me of only visiting conservative websites. You have never given any indication that you visit anything but liberal sites.
I've never criticized you for posting only conservative views. I have criticized you regarding posting and reading (apparently) from a very small and select group of sources which have as their raison d'etre NOT a balanced coverage or analysis of political issues but rather the forwarding of a single doctrinaire ideology (as evidenced by their own mission statements or by statements of their founders/owners). There is no comparable site from which I post or which I read (even Salon, which you find least palatable, has an archive of columns written for their site by David Horowitz. A comparable converse example might be Townhall including a series of columns by Noam Chomsky - and we both know what the chances of that are, absolute zero).
But let's put your charge to a real world test. Are you up for a risk? Say, a hundred bucks? I'll go back and find the last fifty links I have provided and the last fifty links you have provided. I'll wager you off the top of my head that my links point to (at least) four X the range of sources demonstrated by your links.
Whose Law Will Govern In Iraq? (Daniel Schorr, The Christian Science Monitor, Aug 5, 2005)
In Islamic Iran the veil for women is prescribed. In secular Turkey it is proscribed. The framers of the Iraqi constitution have been trying to navigate between the two. Humam Hammoudi, chairman of the constitutional convention, himself a Shiite Arab, says, "There is no article to impose the veil and also there is none to prevent it." This is a kind of constitutional double-talk that only disguises the deeper conflict over whether majority rule will, under whatever disguise, end up as religious rule. Iraq's interim charter contains compromise language describing Islam as "one main source" of Iraqi law. In the current draft for the new constitution, Islam is described as "the only source of law." There are provisions allowing individuals to decide matters like divorce and inheritance by religious law if they so choose. One can imagine the pressures on those who choose civil law. For the devout, there is no option but the application of religious law. Sharia (Islamic law) is part of their religion. Trying to abolish civil law could well lead to civil war. A theoretical solution would be a federal system, allowing different systems in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. But that would reinforce the tendency among the Shiites to be drawn to the magnet of Iran, which has already tried to exert influence in the area. The Sunni Muslims appear to be ready to resist what would in effect be a partition of Iraq. So Iraq is threatened with having a constitutional crisis even before it has a constitution. And if the outcome is some form of Islamic state, then one would have to ask whether America invested so much of its blood and treasure only to replace a radical secular Saddam Hussein with another ayatollah-ruled Islamic state.
Seems like Iraq is developing a Constitution somewhat akin to the US's. Church dogma is taking over both countries.
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment XIX (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I did answer the question. Did you ever take a course in reading comprehension in your studies? (Ok, I'll admit, I had the intention of being a little insulting when I wrote that.)
There is no "logic" course in law school that I'm aware of.
Yes, I'm sure you read Salon.com for its archive of David Horowitz columns.
Seriously, I would be surprised if your last 50 links have the range of my links. After all, my last link was to starregistry.com. I'm willing to make a gentleman's wager in this regard.
Mathias Döpfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, published November, 2004 ~~~ in DIE WELT, a Geman daily newspaper, against the alleged timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Döpfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 300 000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush. ~~~
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement...
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
Iraq draft constitution fails to protect religious, human rights, USCIRF says
By Staff
Jul 28, 2005
Celebration & concern
A female officer’s celebration during a police graduation ceremony may seem incongruous to Iraq’s draft constitution, which, according to a U.S. panel, restricts women’s rights and fails to mention freedom of religion. by U.S. Army Spc. Ben Brody
WASHINGTON (BP)--Drafts of Iraq’s permanent constitution are a retreat from the religious and human rights protections in its transitional charter, the United States Commission on International Freedom has noted.
The draft constitution, which Iraqi legislators are scheduled to complete Aug. 15, fails to mention freedom of religion and does not guarantee freedom of conscience, the nonpartisan panel said. In its current form, the charter also restricts women’s rights and Iraq’s human rights responsibilities to those issues that do not conflict with Islamic law, according to the USCIRF.
“If these drafts become law, Iraq’s new democracy risks being crippled from the outset,” USCIRF Chairman Michael Cromartie said July 26 in a letter to Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Iraq. “Fundamental rights of the individual to debate and dissent from state-imposed religious orthodoxies would be curtailed, and the threat of discrimination would hang over all Iraqis, including members of religious minorities, non-religious individuals and women.
“The principle that Islam can coexist with guarantees protecting freedom of thought, conscience and religion must form the centerpiece of U.S. engagement on Iraq’s permanent constitution,” Cromartie said. “Constitutional protection of equality and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief is not ‘un-Islamic.’”
The United States should quickly discuss these issues with the Iraqis, Cromartie wrote. The U.S. government, he said, should urge Iraq to abide by the human rights obligations it has agreed to in international treaties, encourage the constitutional drafting committee to talk to experts on human rights and call on the Iraqi government to seek insight from ethnic and religious minorities, such as the Christian Chaldo-Assyrians.
The drafting committee for Iraq’s constitution acknowledged July 27 that Islam would play a major role in the new charter. While the interim constitution portrays Islam as a major origin of Iraqi law, drafters of the permanent constitution are considering labeling Islam as the sole principal source of legislation, according to The Washington Post.
The committee agrees no law will contradict Islam, members said, The Post reported. A panelist also told reporters an as yet unformed constitutional court will determine if laws conflict with the religion, according to The Post.
Iraqi citizens are to vote on the constitution in October
cicerone imposter wrote:Seems like Iraq is developing a Constitution somewhat akin to the US's. Church dogma is taking over both countries.
I've not read any of the Iraqi Constitution drafts. Have you?
If you have, what in the Iraqi Constitution drafts do you think are akin to the following in the US Constitution?
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment XIX (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In particular, she expressed concern over the proposal to make it a crime to say something seen as "condoning, glorifying or justifying" terrorism in Britain or other countries. It was so broad, she said, that it could wind up targeting moderates critical of politicians.
I'm willing to make a gentleman's wager in this regard.
Seriously, I would be surprised if your last 50 links have the range of my links. After all, my last link was to starregistry.com. I'm willing to make a gentleman's wager in this regard.
...
Bush has imposed restrictions on stem cell research based on his religious beliefs. That restriction is imposed on all Americans regardless of religion.
The US Constitution isn't the same problem for us as the Iraqi Constitution may become for the Iraqis.
I cannot find any US Constitutional provision which grants either the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary the power to impose restrictions on stem cell or any other biological research that does not kill, maim or injure the born.
Nor can I find any US Constitutional provision which grants either the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary the power to impose restrictions on what a person can voluntarily choose to imbibe or expel from one's own body.
Nor can I find any US Constitutional provision which grants either the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary the power to tax any individual dollar of income differently than any other individual dollar of income.
Nor can I find any US Constitutional provision which grants either the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary the power to transfer dollars from those who have more to those who have less.
Nor can I find any US Constitutional provision which grants either the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary the power to take propety owned by one person or group and transfer it to another person or group because it will thereby generate more tax revenue for the governing authority.
Nor can I find any US Constitutional provision which grants either the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary the power to finance, equip, design, or specify curiculum or teaching procedures for the education of the public. However, whatever education a state does choose to provide must be uniformly provided for all residents of that state that choose that education provided by that state.
Whichever branch of the federal government that exercises any such powers is violating their oath of office to support the US Constitution and is thereby violating the "supreme Law of the Land."
So, we in the US have a problem enforcing the laws that limit governmental powers. In plain talk, our problem -- unlike the current Iraqi problem -- is not what the law is. Our problem is making our government obey the law.
Bush also took action as the president in an attempt to overrule wishes of Teri Schiavo and her husband to not be kept alive artificially, but took the case to the Supreme Court. It made an attempt to take away the rights of the spouse based on Bush's religious belief.
Teri's husband freely admitted he and his wife never discussed her wishes on this matter before or after she was injured, so no one actually knew what her wishes were. Consequently, it came down to whose wishes shall be enforced: Teri's husband's wishes or Teri's parents' wishes.
The Congress and the President wished one more complete examination of Teri's condition to determine if she were in fact irrecoverably brain dead. The Judiciary decided, based on curent state law, that Teri's husband's wishes should prevail. Nothing unconstitutional about the powers any of the three branch of our govenment exercised on this matter.
Bush initiated funding for religious' organizations which was probably based on his support of christianity in the US. Until his presidency, America enjoyed the separation of church and state.
It's Bush's christian dogma. You betcha!
The Constitution in general and the 1st Amendment in particular say nothing about the "separation of church and state." That provision (e.g., prohibiting religious icons, artifacts, and other religious art objects, but not all art objects from being located on tax supported property) was unlawfully legislated by the Judiciary. The 1st Amendment says only: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
However, providing federal tax dollars to religious organizations to support a religious function (e.g., charity) is tantamount to establishing that religious function and is therefore in effect unlawfully establishing a religion.
So again, we in the US have a problem enforcing the laws that limit governmental powers. In plain talk, our problem -- unlike the current Iraqi problem -- is not what the law is. Our problem is making our government obey the law.
National Review Online
August 02, 2005
Turkey turns away from the rule of law.
By Michael Rubin
On June 8, 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan visited President Bush in the White House. Among the topics the two discussed were freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Speaking from the Oval Office <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/print/20050608-1.html> , Bush declared Turkey’s democracy to be “an important example for the people of the broader Middle East.”
Turkey remains an important ally of the United States despite recent bilateral tensions over the Iraq war and its aftermath. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have valued Turkey not only as a strategic military partner in the Cold War but also, in recent decades, as a democratic outpost in a region of dictatorships. The central tenet of Turkey’s democratic evolution has been an emphasis upon the rule of law.
Since his Justice and Development party (better known by its Turkish acronym, the AKP), swept to power in November 2002, Erdoğan has traveled the globe, burnishing his image as a statesman. In frequent media appearances, he has sought to ensure both the United States and European Union that the AKP respects Turkish democracy and has no desire to erode the secular agenda upon which the Turkish republic was built. He has said he has abandoned the excesses of the now-banned Islamist Welfare party to which he belonged while mayor of Istanbul (1994-1998).
The fact that Erdoğan feels he needs to reassure Turks and foreigners alike stems from the ideological dichotomy between AKP parliamentarians and the Turkish public. While many AKP members are Islamist, most Turks are not. As in any country, citizens of Turkey range from secular to traditional in their religious practice. Many religious Turks enjoy the freedom to practice their faith, even as they embrace separation of mosque and state.
Erdoğan’s outreach also reflects the reality that his electoral mandate is less solid than statistics reflect. The AKP’s consolidation of parliamentary control reflected not the Turkish public’s endorsement for the AKP’s religious philosophy, but rather a general disdain for the inability of feuding establishment parties to root out corruption. The AKP catapulted its reputation for honesty into electoral power. The failure of many establishment parties to surpass the ten-percent threshold needed to take seats in parliament amplified the AKP’s 34-percent vote into two thirds of the parliamentary seats.
During his first three and a half years in power, Erdoğan has pursued an ambitious agenda of economic stabilization, social change, and an overhaul of foreign policy. While welcoming investment from the United States and Europe, he has emphasized economic and political outreach to the Arab world.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Saudi businessmen have shifted <http://www.meforum.org/article/684> billions out of more tightly regulated U.S. bank accounts into Turkey. Prior to entering Turkish politics, AKP Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül worked <http://www.abdullahgul.gen.tr/EN/main.asp> eight years at the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The AKP has apparently used the influx of green money to underwrite some economic reforms. On July 14, 2005, the Turkish daily Milliyet reported that Arab states established approximately 200 companies in Turkey since 2003. The Dubai Islamic Bank opened a one-billion-dollar line of credit for investments in Turkey. In the first six months of 2004 alone, the share of Middle East-based companies in the Turkish economy increased 50 percent.
Erdoğan’s political success has waned, though. Despite assurances that he respects Turkey’s separation of mosque and state, the AKP has introduced a number of bills which would have blurred the distinction between religion and state, or boosted the power of religious segments of society. Erdoğan’s social agenda has floundered. The Turkish judiciary has warned against or stuck down attempts to equate religious qualifications with those of secular curriculums in university admissions. Mustafa Bumin, chief judge of the constitutional court, warned on April 25, 2005, that the AKP’s proposal to lift the headscarf ban at universities and state institutions would violate the constitution.
In recent months, with its popularity starting to wane amid foreign-policy setbacks on the European front and signs that inflation may soon resume, the AKP has signaled increasing frustration with the democratic process. In May, for example, AKP member and Parliamentary Speaker Bülent Arinç warned <http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=12297> that the AKP might abolish the constitutional court if its judges continued to hamper AKP legislation with questions of constitutionality. While Arinç was criticized for his bluster, Erdoğan has taken a quieter tact: He has pushed a bill to lower the mandatory retirement age of judges, in effecting purging the judiciary of 4,000 of its older, independent technocrats in order to replace them with younger followers of his own party.
Judges have reacted with alarm. On June 6, 2005, Milliyet reported a statement by elected members of the supreme court of judges that “the new changes and arrangements made in the Judges and Public Prosecutor’s Law…is aiming to influence the judicial power.”
Rule of law is at the heart of democracy. Turkish civil society is beginning to voice concern about Erdoğan’s political arrogance and his disdain for both free press and judicial independence. Over the past several months, Erdoğan has launched a series of lawsuits against Turkish political cartoonists who criticized him and his party. Last month, the head of the Lawyer’s Association criticized Erdoğan’s government for intervening in the judicial system to satisfy Islamists. On July 3, 2005, Hürriyet and Milliyet, both establishment papers, criticized government interference in the judiciary.
At times, Erdoğan’s abuse of the judiciary appears to be the result of a dangerous combination of vendetta and impatience with the compromises inherent in democracy. His conflict with the Süzer Group provides one important example. While mayor of Istanbul, Erdoğan clashed with Mustafa Süzer, a Turkish businessman whose holdings include the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Istanbul, Turkish franchise rights to both Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken, and the Kent Bank.
As mayor, Erdoğan chafed at Süzer’s unabashed pro-Americanism. While president of the Foreign Trade Association, Süzer increased U.S.-Turkish trade 350 percent. When Erdoğan demanded Süzer tear down the Süzer Tower which Erdoğan said was four stories too high, Süzer refused. The grudge has continued. In November 2004, Erdoğan rescinded participation in a financial conference when he learned that the meeting would take place in the Süzer Tower.
Erdoğan has used his powers to advance the vendetta at the expense of the rule of law. During the 2001 financial crisis in Turkey, the left-leaning government of Democratic Left-party Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit seized several banks, including the Kent Bank, in effect freezing the assets of the Süzer Group and several other conglomerates. When Erdoğan assumed power, he sought to exploit the situation. After appointing a member of his party to head the Saving Deposit Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu, TMSF) which regulates banking matters in Turkey, he had the TMSF sell Kent Bank to a political ally. The Turkish supreme court, though, ruled in December 2003, both that the government’s seizure of Kent Bank and its subsequent sale was illegal. The judiciary subsequently ordered Erdoğan’s government to unfreeze Süzer’s assets and return the bank. More than a year and a half later, Erdoğan’s government refuses to comply with the court order.
Süzer is one example of many. In recent months, the Turkish press has reported that former President Süleyman Demirel, upset with both the direction which the AKP seeks to take Turkey and the relative impotence of the opposition, has begun to build a political coalition to rival the AKP. In response, the AKP’s government has moved to seize the assets of Demirel’s brother. Asked to comment on the government’s legal proceedings, Süleyman Demirel was blunt: “This is illegal, a kind of occupation of our companies,” he told the Tercüman Gazete on June 28, 2005.
In a democracy, politics subordinates itself to the rule of law. While sitting with Bush at the White House, Erdoğan told the assembled press, “Turkey is open to any new investment as a county now of stability and security.” Increasingly, though, his actions do not justify his rhetoric. The best path to stability and security is through the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
— Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute <http://www.aei.org/> is editor of the Middle East Quarterly <http://www.meforum.org/meq/> .
