[nvaughan3]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/922454.asp?vts=060520032025

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/922454.asp?vts=060520032025

With the rumors of an act to follow on the Patriot act flying about for months now, I understand your anger.

Why does this surprise you?

[Nicko]

The whole concept of that Patriot act freaks me out.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by vmarks:
With the rumors of an act to follow on the Patriot act flying about for months now, I understand your anger.

Why does this surprise you?

I'm miffed at the way he uses 9/11 victims as pawns in his game of rights-grabbing!

[thunderous_funker]

What a pleasure it is to find something to agree with you on!!

I like solidarity

Not only does he have the gall to use those victims in his transparant power-grab, he doesn't even wait for the ink to dry on the Inspector General's scathing review detailed DoJ abuses of the Patriot Act in detaining immigrants since 9/11.

May I suggest this rabid crusader is someone America is better off without?

Here's to hoping he finds himself a convenient scapegoat for an administration that needs to chop a few heads to regain some credibility.

[nvaughan3]

I dont think bush will hang him to dry. that's part of the reason I'm very unsure if I'm going to voting for bush in 2004. Not because there are any attractive democratic candidates-there arent-but I certainly wont hold his record on international security issues above my growing disdain on his domestic security polices.

[vmarks]

t-f, you, nvaughn, and I are in agreement. I occasionally update my blog site which has more or less disintegrated into an Ashcroft blog.

99% of the entries there discuss Mr. Ashcroft's actions or words.

I'm just suggesting that nvaughn could have seen this one coming for about three years.

[nvaughan3]

I've been seeing it coming for a while, I just got stirred up by it enough today on another forum that I felt a need to post.

[thunderous_funker]

Better late than never. Glad to have you join the struggle, nvaughn. Perhaps we can start with a conserted letter writing campaign to our various representatives?

Whatever we do, we can't let another "patriot" fiasco get passed in a power vaccuum like the last time.

Make your voices heard, people.

"I vote. And I want Ashcroft OUT!"

[nvaughan3]

Are there any senator with as much passion on this issue as ron paul is about getting the US out of the UN?

[Safari]

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." -Benjamin Franklin

[nvaughan3]

Thomas Jefferson actually said that, but good words.

[vmarks]

No, actually that was Franklin.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
~~ Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

Those who would trade a little temporary security for permanent freedom deserve neither. ~~ Benjamin Franklin

[Note: This sentence was often quoted in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's "Historical Review," 1759, appearing also in the body of the work. Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413. ]

"Thus the great and hazardous enterprise we have been engaged in is, God be praised, happily completed***. A few years of peace will improve, will restore and increase our strength; but our future will depend on our union and our virtue***. Let us, therefore, beware of being lulled into a dangerous security; and of being both enervated and impoverished by luxury; of being weakened by internal contentions and divisions***."

-Letter to Charles Thomson, from Paris, 1784, just after signing the Peace Treaty

[nvaughan3]

that's a different quote. he certainly derived it off of franklin's quote though.


edit: and I thought that was from a letter to Josiah Quincy, on Sept. 11, 1773?

[vmarks]

Read the second line.

Franklin loved these words. He said them at every opportunity, from 1755 through the end of his life.

It's his quote.

Jefferson uttered his paraphrase of it- but you see that the sentiment is Franklin's.

This is Franklin's signature line.

Yes, the paraphrase is mis-attributed above, you're right- but let's not ignore Mr. Franklin's association with the idea either.

[nvaughan3]

read my edit, but if you don't believe me you can type it into google. I was doing some personal research on this last week. I certainly know the words come from franklin, but that's besides the point.

[vmarks]

Of course, now we're quibbling over a quote, instead of a bill that I would love to see the text of, so I could go to my Representative about.


When PATRIOT was introduced, but had yet to be voted upon, I questioned this particular Representative and asked him what he was going to do about it. He said, and I quote

"We're going to give him a lot of this, but he isn't going to get everything he wants."

He voted yes. I fully intend to go back to him with the text of whatever new bill is introduced and ask exactly what part of not granting Mr. Ashcroft his every wish did my Representative mean?

[nvaughan3]

Good strategy. Did you speak to him personally or was that a canned response?

[vmarks]

I spoke to him personally.

First, in a small forum at my synagogue, where we had invited him to answer questions we put to him, and then in his office.

I'll be scheduling an appointment with his office.

[Lerkfish]

-

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Better late than never. Glad to have you join the struggle, nvaughn. Perhaps we can start with a conserted letter writing campaign to our various representatives?

Whatever we do, we can't let another "patriot" fiasco get passed in a power vaccuum like the last time.

Make your voices heard, people.

"I vote. And I want Ashcroft OUT!"

I certainly agree with the sentiment, but is there recourse for removing an official appointed by the president or preventing said official from being appointed again? I would certainly want to lend my support to any efforts to do so, but I'm not aware of a mechanism by which it would really be possible other than electing someone as president who will appoint someone new.

[MacGorilla]

Yowser. This man is sick.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I too, am glad on the one hand there is an issue we can all agree on, but on the other hand, I'd rather not have the issue in the first place to agree upon it in the second place.

Mark my words, though, this is the second prong of the three pronged initiative:

I hate prongs

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I too, am glad on the one hand there is an issue we can all agree on, but on the other hand, I'd rather not have the issue in the first place to agree upon it in the second place.

Mark my words, though, this is the second prong of the three pronged initiative:

prong one: control all three branches of the government

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa. Sure, now its "suspected" terrorists, but how long until its anyone who disagrees with the administration? without access to legal counsel, the outside world and being held indefinitely and executed without trial, the US will have the ability to "disappear" citizens who are vocally antiadministration, and there won't be any way to prevent it since it will all be done in secret, with no protections.

prong three: rubber stamp the middle east, and then the world, in the US image. with prongs one and two in place, prong three will proceed without interference.

I know I'm extrapolating a bit, but you have to admit, everything is heading in this direction.

slow down, cowboy.

Let's not make up conspiracy theories.

Let's go on what we've seen, what we think it violates, and what we want reversed.

We've seen that lawyer-client communications, once thought inviolable, is now monitored by the Feds.

We've seen that citizens in America, in non-military situations, have been labelled enemy combatants and stripped of their rights.

We've seen that our Government would prefer to lock people up indefinitely rather than adjudicate innocence or guilt, in a country where the very foundation of our system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

We've seen that in a country where we would rather let a guilty man go free than imprison an innocent, our Government has given in to fear, and would rather lock up anyone that scares them.

Certainly, on this last point, there are plenty of people, citizens and government alike, that will say, "But we have to, to avoid another catastrophe!" - The truth is, no we don't. We have to accept that another incident can happen, and that we value freedom and justice more. That one person wrongly detained for longer than 48 hours, and one innocent person imprisoned while guilty people go free, is so repugnant to us, that the current law cannot stand.

For either the law falls, or American justice and Freedom fall. Take your pick, there is no in-between, no balance- Freedom and justice are what make American ideals worth having.

Patrick Henry heard the chains of tyranny rattling- do you?

Mike Hawash does- Mike is an Intel employee, who is charged with the Federal Crime of Guilt By Association. Mike's lucky- he at least has been charged.

I began this post by asking Lerk to slow down, and back away from the conspiracy theories. I realize that someone else may well ask me to do the same- but I'm going on what we've seen and can document within our country, and not predicting the future.

Let's undo the damage we've seen done before we go off half-cocked on future assaults on the Freedom that makes America great.

[Nicko]

From what I have seen/read these proposed policies all seem to be reactionary in nature and do little in the way of solving the root causes. If the terrorist's goal is to limit people's freedom, things like the Patriot act contribute to that goal. Its both ironic and alarming. Luckly these things aren't written in stone yet and can be changed. Of course, I'm just a Canadian, so its not like anyone has to listen to what I say...

[OreoCookie]

The `War On Terror' (I hate that word, it means all and nothing; fight Al Quaeda, ok, fight Iraq, mmmh, ok, but who is Terror?) has been misused from the very beginning. Domestically, many crimes that are now considered `terrorist acts' (but are `usual' crimes) allow enhanced rights for law enforcement people (tapping lines, use of cryptography is a crime, etc.).

This is seriously heading towards the wrong direction: a combination of diminishing personal rights and growing rights for the government and corporations (like the RIAA).

Like vmarks said, there will be no way to prevent another 9/11, make the security as tight as you wish (just take a look at Israel). You would give up everything you pretend to fight for.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I certainly agree with the sentiment, but is there recourse for removing an official appointed by the president or preventing said official from being appointed again? I would certainly want to lend my support to any efforts to do so, but I'm not aware of a mechanism by which it would really be possible other than electing someone as president who will appoint someone new.

He can fired.

While I do think that realistically, Ashcroft is too near and dear to Bush's heart to feel the heat, but then again it depends on the heat. If enough pressure is brought to bear (especially from Bush loyalists rather than the usual dissenters), they'll dump him in a second to save the administration.

The timing is critical. After the next election is too late. Make the administration wonder if they want to go through the next campaign cycle with a liability like Ashcroft. They aren't going to want to defend him and detract from Dubya's re-election bid.

The time is now.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:

Like vmarks said, there will be no way to prevent another 9/11, make the security as tight as you wish (just take a look at Israel). You would give up everything you pretend to fight for.

Actually, while Israel is tighter than I would care to see in the US, Israel has done pretty well, with regard to freedom within Israel proper - Of course, there are the ill effects of commerce with those in the West Bank who used to travel into Israel proper for work, but that's not applicable to this discussion-

The Patriot Act has severe effects on American Citizens living within America.

This is one area where the Israelis did it better than America, even though the commonplace security practices there are undesirable as a goal.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Powerbook]

Wow. Where were the thinking critics after September 11th? Cooking in patriotic soup, covered with flags?
At last! Turn your ship around!


PB.

[MacGorilla]

John Ashcroft and the Terrorism alert thing both remind me of what Grand Moff Tarkin said about the Death Star: "Fear will keep them line."

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I dont see anything wrong with looking at a situation and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion if unchecked.

I"m making a point, and this is how I choose to make it. If you find what I've posted bizarre, then you would also find what I posted 9 months ago bizarre, yet everything I said then has come to pass, in spite of my worst fears.

My point is that although this is a "conspiracy theory" at the moment, if we are not careful, it will end up being reality. And frankly, I don't see a great effort being expended by anyone to forestall the logical conclusion of the state of affairs.

I appreciate you trying to tell me how to post, but I'd appreciate it more if you'd try to see the point I'm making and see where I"m coming from. Instead of pointing fingers at ME and saying I"m a looney, I want you to think about what WILL happen eventually if we do absolutely nothing to stop it. THAT would be lunacy, not this harmless conspiracy theory.

No. no, Lerk- you know me better than to tell you how to post.

You might agree with me that taking everything to their logical conclusions if unchecked is not always a good indicator of what will come to pass.

I only said that if we want to stop this freight train, we need to stop it based on what we can show has taken place already, not on one of many possible logical outcomes, no matter how far-fetched.

(vmarks wanders off to polish Lerk's crystal ball- the prognostications Lerk made using it in the past year have not been as accurate as he claims.)

[Lerkfish]

-

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Actually, while Israel is tighter than I would care to see in the US, Israel has done pretty well, with regard to freedom within Israel proper - Of course, there are the ill effects of commerce with those in the West Bank who used to travel into Israel proper for work, but that's not applicable to this discussion-

The Patriot Act has severe effects on American Citizens living within America.

This is one area where the Israelis did it better than America, even though the commonplace security practices there are undesirable as a goal.

Well, that is my point: even the best security in the world cannot prevent terrorist attacks. (I didn't mean to bring up the whole issue here again, there are other threads for that; I have merely used it as an illustration of my point.)

In the US, more people are dying from obesity than from terrorist attacks. Yet, the focus is so much on that, instead of things that cost much more lives ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
He can fired.

While I do think that realistically, Ashcroft is too near and dear to Bush's heart to feel the heat, but then again it depends on the heat. If enough pressure is brought to bear (especially from Bush loyalists rather than the usual dissenters), they'll dump him in a second to save the administration.

The timing is critical. After the next election is too late. Make the administration wonder if they want to go through the next campaign cycle with a liability like Ashcroft. They aren't going to want to defend him and detract from Dubya's re-election bid.

The time is now.

Do it like Schr�der did it in Germany: Our Minister Of Justice (corresponds to Attorney General in US) was just not reappointed (due to a `scandal' two weeks before the elections were held).

Just don't reappoint that bastard. I don't mean to distract the thread here, but Rumsfeld is the equivalent of Ashcroft (at least for allies from old Europe and other parts of the world). We are increasingly alienated by US foreign policies.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No. no, Lerk- you know me better than to tell you how to post.

You might agree with me that taking everything to their logical conclusions if unchecked is not always a good indicator of what will come to pass.

I only said that if we want to stop this freight train, we need to stop it based on what we can show has taken place already, not on one of many possible logical outcomes, no matter how far-fetched.

(vmarks wanders off to polish Lerk's crystal ball- the prognostications Lerk made using it in the past year have not been as accurate as he claims.)

I don't have any problems with extrapolations, as long as they are based on facts and if the extrapolations are reasonable. You have to take a look at the possible impact of a policy to fully judge it.

According to what I have heard about PATRIOT 2 (the name itself ) people can be held indefinitely without being accused of any crime, effectively reversing the upheld standard `innocent until proven guilty'. Then one should think of the `unlawful combattants' in Cuba -- this could happen at home, too. The standards the US Constitution (and every other Western Constitution for that matter) has set need to be upheld by any means necessary. It is not acceptable that those standards are undermined just because of `convenience'. That is why we need to set standards that are applicable to anyone: why can the `unlawful combattants' be held in Cuba without a fair trial?
You might say that this is an entirely different issue. Nope, it's not. The reason is that the current Administration is heading towards that direction for Americans, too. It's easier if the ones accused are `evil' of some sort. But even someone that is guilty deserves a fair trial, a lawyer that defends him/her, and so on. It's easier to take it from the ones that do not enjoy the full scope of protection from the USC. I don't like this general direction and will do anything to protect my rights here. I don't think much of restricting certain rights that are IMHO inanlienable. Much of it has to do the way the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) is written. Many rights apply (technically) to every human being.

To restate the core message: take a look at the general direction and think about why some rights shouldn't apply for non-Americans. Not just because you are generous enough to grant these rights to non-Americans, but because you might be next to lose these rights.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Do it like Schr�der did it in Germany: Our Minister Of Justice (corresponds to Attorney General in US) was just not reappointed (due to a `scandal' two weeks before the elections were held).

Just don't reappoint that bastard. I don't mean to distract the thread here, but Rumsfeld is the equivalent of Ashcroft (at least for allies from old Europe and other parts of the world). We are increasingly alienated by US foreign policies.

US Cabinet officers are appointed by the president, and confirmed by the senate. Once that process is complete, they serve at the pleasure of the president. There are no fixed terms, so there is no "reappointment." They either are fired, impeached (very rare), retire, or are replaced by a new incoming president. (Note an exception: CIA Director Tenet was appointed by Clinton and now serves in the Bush Administration. The CIA Director isn't technically a cabinet officer, but functions much as one).

AFAIK, both Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are trusted by Bush. That probably means they will stay in office for a while longer. But they probably won't be in office as long as Bush. Historically, most cabinet officers serve for shorter periods than the president. Those positions are exhausting and people burn out.

There are exceptions - Clinton's AG Janet Reno (also a very controversial AG) lasted the full two terms. But that was quite unusual. Even officers like Reagan's defense secretary Weinberger, and Secretary of State Schulz only served for about 6 or 7 of the 8 years.

In any case, changing out the personalities of people like Rumsfeld wouldn't significantly change US foreign policy. The style might change, but the substance would be the same, because the latter is controlled by the president, the political climate, and the large number of less visible people who serve in an administration. No likely replacement is going to suddenly start seeing things like the European left (or even the right), and American interests aren't going to magically change. So when they do retire, you will just find a new personality to fixate on and blame for a disagreement that is much deeper than one appointed officeholder.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, that is my point: even the best security in the world cannot prevent terrorist attacks. (I didn't mean to bring up the whole issue here again, there are other threads for that; I have merely used it as an illustration of my point.)

In the US, more people are dying from obesity than from terrorist attacks. Yet, the focus is so much on that, instead of things that cost much more lives ...

There's a difference.

Arguably, obesity is the result of things which the obese person is responsible for, e.g. their diet, their exercise regimen, their own mental and physical health. It is not the government's response to prevent obesity - it's up to the free will of individuals.

Terrorist attacks are imposed on people who have no control over preventing them.

[Buck_Naked]

Come on people!!!!!!!!!!!
We have had Democracy for over 200 years.
Isn't about time for a change?????
Not like we were realy using our rights anyways

Ask yourself this.
Do you want the AG of this country to be someone
who lost an Election to a CORPSE

F-ing Ashcroft is PISSING on the Flag and what it stands for.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Of course, now we're quibbling over a quote, instead of a bill that I would love to see the text of, so I could go to my Representative about.

Here is a link to a pdf found through wired magazine site several months ago...
(look for: Patriot2text.pdf)

scary shizit...

[vmarks]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
Here is a link to a pdf found through wired magazine site several months ago...
(look for: Patriot2text.pdf)

scary shizit...

That was actually withdrawn under sharp criticism.

What I want to see is the new one, which AFAICT has yet to be released or leaked.

[macvillage.net]

Wow... you *must* all be terrorists.


IMHO don't mind it a bit. Who cares? Why care? How is this a big deal?

1. To many people to monitor all at once. The US perhaps has the resource to monitor a few thousand... that doesn't even cover half of the convicted pediophiles in the population. Forget about murderers and terrorists.

So why do you think your so special, and they are going to spend hundreds of thousands to read your email? What is so special about you?

2. Who cares? They admit they were doing this all through the cold war. It's nothing new. Just now they are being honest about it. Most on this forum grew up with this going on.


Everyone thinks they are special for some reason. Like the government is going to spend their little resources on listinging to someone talk to their wife.

There are hundreds of thousands of people suspected of crimes like rape, muder, child abuse, terrorism, fraud....

Is everyone in this thread guilty of one of the above? (Yea, I know a few most likely are if you play the odds, but I'm just trying to make a point).

You people need to find a cause. Perhaps hunger, AIDS, rich kids with tenis elbow, pick something that your efforts would benefit someone.

YOUR NOT SPECIAL... GET OVER IT.

Some people have too much self esteem.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Wow... you *must* all be terrorists.


IMHO don't mind it a bit. Who cares? Why care? How is this a big deal?

1. To many people to monitor all at once. The US perhaps has the resource to monitor a few thousand... that doesn't even cover half of the convicted pediophiles in the population. Forget about murderers and terrorists.

So why do you think your so special, and they are going to spend hundreds of thousands to read your email? What is so special about you?

2. Who cares? They admit they were doing this all through the cold war. It's nothing new. Just now they are being honest about it. Most on this forum grew up with this going on.


Everyone thinks they are special for some reason. Like the government is going to spend their little resources on listinging to someone talk to their wife.

There are hundreds of thousands of people suspected of crimes like rape, muder, child abuse, terrorism, fraud....

Is everyone in this thread guilty of one of the above? (Yea, I know a few most likely are if you play the odds, but I'm just trying to make a point).

You people need to find a cause. Perhaps hunger, AIDS, rich kids with tenis elbow, pick something that your efforts would benefit someone.

YOUR NOT SPECIAL... GET OVER IT.

Some people have too much self esteem.

Take a look at the Soveit Union during the hight of the KGB and then try and say that the average citizen honest has nothing to fear because the government can't possibly keep tabs on everyone.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Wow... you *must* all be terrorists.

....

YOUR NOT SPECIAL... GET OVER IT.

Some people have too much self esteem.

Hehe your're funny. I don't know about you, but I'm special.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Take a look at the Soveit Union during the hight of the KGB and then try and say that the average citizen honest has nothing to fear because the government can't possibly keep tabs on everyone.

That was corruption thanks to Stalin. That's a political-government fault, and completely off topic since there are about 10k laws, regulations etcc. that would need to change before that sinareo becomes even a remote possibility.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That was corruption thanks to Stalin. That's a political-government fault, and completely off topic since there are about 10k laws, regulations etcc. that would need to change before that sinareo becomes even a remote possibility.

Or your branded as a terrorist or "Unlawful Combatant"

[PJW]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

1. To many people to monitor all at once. The US perhaps has the resource to monitor a few thousand... that doesn't even cover half of the convicted pediophiles in the population. Forget about murderers and terrorists.

How do you know what resources the US has? Do you have actual proof to back this up, or are you just talking out of your ass?

2. Who cares? They admit they were doing this all through the cold war. It's nothing new. Just now they are being honest about it. Most on this forum grew up with this going on.

...

Since they did it before, doesn't that stand as a good reason that we shouldn't allow them to do it yet AGAIN? Or should we let them go ahead and do it again because they're being honest about it?

This "I don't care" attitude is American apathy at its finest. People don't care about voting, people don't care about what goes on in the government, and people don't care about something that threatens some of the principles that this country was founded on.

"Patriot Act? Screw it! Turn on the playoffs, I'm starting to hear myself think!"

With the kind of attitude that I see from a lot of Americans regarding this and other issues, it makes me wonder if we even deserve to have a democracy anymore.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PJW:


How do you know what resources the US has? Do you have actual proof to back this up, or are you just talking out of your ass?

[/B]

...

Since they did it before, doesn't that stand as a good reason that we shouldn't allow them to do it yet AGAIN? Or should we let them go ahead and do it again because they're being honest about it?

This "I don't care" attitude is American apathy at its finest. People don't care about voting, people don't care about what goes on in the government, and people don't care about something that threatens some of the principles that this country was founded on.

"Patriot Act? Screw it! Turn on the playoffs, I'm starting to hear myself think!"

With the kind of attitude that I see from a lot of Americans regarding this and other issues, it makes me wonder if we even deserve to have a democracy anymore. [/B]

Most states don't know where most of their convicted peidophiles are. Most states don't know where convicted rapists are. Most don't know where convicted murderers are.

Most can't even keep track of kids in foster homes! There are hundreds of kids in the US that are technically "missing" since the US can't find them! NJ recently learned this the hard way.


Now if the excuse for not doing this right on a state and federal level is that they don't have the capabilities...

how is it that a making the laws less restrictive is going to increase their capacity?

How can they possiby gain enough resources to undertake this task?


You should really go find a productive cause to worry about. If this is the worst problem in society... then I have been asleep for to long. Child mosestation, rape, slave labor (those forced to work for pennies and threatened... occasionally found), there are so many other things.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Most states don't know where most of their convicted peidophiles are. Most states don't know where convicted rapists are. Most don't know where convicted murderers are.

Most can't even keep track of kids in foster homes! There are hundreds of kids in the US that are technically "missing" since the US can't find them! NJ recently learned this the hard way.


Now if the excuse for not doing this right on a state and federal level is that they don't have the capabilities...

how is it that a making the laws less restrictive is going to increase their capacity?

How can they possiby gain enough resources to undertake this task?


You should really go find a productive cause to worry about. If this is the worst problem in society... then I have been asleep for to long. Child mosestation, rape, slave labor (those forced to work for pennies and threatened... occasionally found), there are so many other things.

Is this because it's impossible to do these things, or because the relevant programs don't have a high enough priority to get the funding they need? You can be damned sure that there would be plenty of funding going towards the type of programs we're talking about here. When talking about "national security" price really doesn't seem to be much of an option.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
US Cabinet officers are appointed by the president, and confirmed by the senate. Once that process is complete, they serve at the pleasure of the president. There are no fixed terms, so there is no "reappointment." They either are fired, impeached (very rare), retire, or are replaced by a new incoming president. (Note an exception: CIA Director Tenet was appointed by Clinton and now serves in the Bush Administration. The CIA Director isn't technically a cabinet officer, but functions much as one).

AFAIK, both Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are trusted by Bush. That probably means they will stay in office for a while longer. But they probably won't be in office as long as Bush. Historically, most cabinet officers serve for shorter periods than the president. Those positions are exhausting and people burn out.

There are exceptions - Clinton's AG Janet Reno (also a very controversial AG) lasted the full two terms. But that was quite unusual. Even officers like Reagan's defense secretary Weinberger, and Secretary of State Schulz only served for about 6 or 7 of the 8 years.

In any case, changing out the personalities of people like Rumsfeld wouldn't significantly change US foreign policy. The style might change, but the substance would be the same, because the latter is controlled by the president, the political climate, and the large number of less visible people who serve in an administration. No likely replacement is going to suddenly start seeing things like the European left (or even the right), and American interests aren't going to magically change. So when they do retire, you will just find a new personality to fixate on and blame for a disagreement that is much deeper than one appointed officeholder.

Well, I didn't mean to dive into `technicalities', I was just pointing out a convenient point in time if Bush decides to replace some people in the Administration. If Bush decides to replace him (for whatever reason), then he would probably hurt his campaign by eliminating him before the election. (Note: this is just a strategical discussion, I am not implying that Bush actually plans to do so.)

This was all I wanted to say.