"ordered a side-by-side review of American and British counterterrorism laws as a first step toward determining whether further changes in American law are warranted."

et al - And can some tell me what rights we have lost? You keep talking about them, but when I ask, no one tells me. I'm getting real concerned that maybe you're just crying wolf.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions. FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

And can some tell me what rights we have lost?

"That he should be carried back to the Tower of London and from thence drawn on a hurdle through the City of London to Tyburn there to be hanged till he should be half dead; that then he should be cut down alive, his privy parts cut off, his belly ripped, his bowels burnt, his four quarters set up over four gates of the City, and his head upon London Bridge."

when the Attorney General wants merely to compare and, perhaps, recommend some laws be written, passed by Congress, signed by the President and then withstand a challenge all the way to the SC, you cry like babies

Johnny - Time for you to be polite, dummy. The Left is keeping you steamed up about stuff that isn't true.

She's very educated, and dresses well, but she needs to drop some acid.< On second thought, it's probably too late for that. Once [he] got a vision of what [he] had done to the world, [he'd] probably jump out of a window.

Of all the sins that the Neocons have committed, of all their deeds and misdeeds, of all their devious misconduct, there is one act of theirs that by far surpasses all the rest of their acts of omission and commission. ... ...when I look around the Muslim world, the ground reality instantly gives high voltage shocks to the liberal secular in me. I find that the only forces resisting the neocons' ghoulish empire-building excursions are none other than the very radical forces I so despised thus far.

I saw the eventual decimation of the Soviet forces by those resistance fighters and the fateful demise of the Soviet Union, as the world knew it, as a result of that.

I find that the only forces resisting the neocons' ghoulish empire-building excursions are none other than the very radical forces I so despised thus far.

SDI was criticized for potentially disrupting the strategic doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD postulated that intentional nuclear attack was inhibited by the certain ensuing mutual self-destruction. Even if a nuclear first strike destroyed many of the opponent's weapons, sufficient nuclear missiles would survive to render a devastating counter-strike at the attacker. The criticism was that SDI could have potentially allowed an attacker to survive the lighter counter-strike, thus encouraging a first strike by the side having SDI. Another destabilizing scenario was countries being tempted to strike first before SDI was deployed, thereby avoiding a disadvantaged nuclear posture. Ronald Reagan responded that SDI would be given to the Soviet Union to prevent the imbalance from occurring.[28] How and whether this massive technology transfer would have happened was often debated. A complication of the MAD argument was that MAD only covered intentional nuclear attacks by a rational opponent with similar values, not accidental launches, rogue launches, or launches by non-state entities.

While SDI was a disagreement, the Reykjavik Summit led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which some have claimed was an outgrowth of Gorbachev's fear of SDI. Opponents of the program say that Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms were the cause of the USSR's collapse and that SDI was an unrealistic and expensive program. Furthermore, some believed that Gorbachev's opposition to SDI was intended to encourage the United States to pursue ABM defense at great economic expense. To quote Gorbachev, "But I think that I am even helping the president [Reagan] with SDI. After all, your people say that if Gorbachev attacks SDI and space weapons so much, it means the idea deserves more respect. They even say that if it were not for me, no one would listen to the idea at all. And some even claim that I want to drag the United States into unnecessary expenditures with this."[28]

And he obviously has no sense of history. For that we can thank the Left's many complaints and nasty comments about the country that has saved the world.

Posted by Jondee August 17, 2006 07:37 PM ppj - "Western Civilisation", which Im suprised you can spell,....

The Soviets fell because they reached the point that,with our annoucemnet of Star Wars, MAD could no longer protect them, and they couldn't keep up, so they effectively surrendered, having lost the arms race.

et al - All you want to do is argue about SDI. That is like someone arguing over the popcorn at a showing of "Gone With The Wind." Meaningless