The fact that we don’t demand anything from the Saudi gov’t or take any action with them is sickening. They institutionalized Wahabism hundreds of years ago (forgot how long), and allowed parallels systems to emerge. Now it’s spilled out into our way of life, and there’s nothing we can do about it because we need their oil–every President has had to endure the relationship.

I’m not in despair about the situation, I just see the global scene as full of gray areas, where each nation has to achieve the best for itself. And unfortunately, our gov’t is also guilty of acting for the ends without much concern for the means, especially during the Cold War.

But it doesn’t change my mind about what has to be done–we cannot allow our country to be infiltrated, and we can’t allow native-born Americans to go along with that hatred either. Take a look at David Horowitz’s book “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.”

The President is the CINC and would still maintain control, but me thinks someone has been watching “The Seige.”

Also, as a nod to trekkies, the USS Enterprise (how free market-y) has always defended democracy — past, present & future. Read the Barbary link in #101 and see if you see shades of Archer/Kirk/Picard

I do not choose to join your “hate corporations mantra,” but the global economy is a fact and throwing marshmallows and fingernail clippings at it won’t change it one iota.

The economic interdependence on the globe really leaves no room for sore losers or whiners unless you can find an island mentality somewhere and move.

Even New Zealand which labors mightily under its island mentality leans more and more on Australia for investment, health care, food stuffs and more.

Sure, lets get energy independent tomorrow. Those same hated corporations are crazy at work trying to figure out the alternatives because the obvious billions in the solution really, really interests them. All over the world clever minds are working on the problem.

Now back to business, radical Islam wants to stop this and all progress. That is the battle at hand.

May I suggest you deal with the true & valid points first before going off on another tangent?

To summarize, you said targeting the Islamic religion is unconstitutional.

I pointed out that the constitutuion did not stop us from banning polygamy. In effect, we forced a religion to get into line. I for one, question the need to ban polygamy from a consititutional & Christian POV, nevertheless I can deal with it because it is the law that we arrived at. So be it.

The problem with islam is NOT polygamy, but that a major Islamic denomination advocates killing or imposing dhimmitude on the rest of the world. IOW, a couple hundred million radicals want to kill or subdue 6 billion people. And you’re shocked that some think it better to destroy “2 billion” before they destroy the rest? Man, where is your sense of perspective!?!

As La Shawn pointed out, your habit of clinging to the constitution we hold dear only when it suits you is nauseating.

IOW, do you mean to tell me that you wholeheartedly support the Klan’s religious right to put their foot on your neck?

I didn’t think so, so why do you use a silly strawman in Nate?

The Enslavement of the black man was a tenet of a significant portion of Southern White Christians. Yet we saw fit to use the force of law to divorce the KKK of that article of faith.

The submission to the authority of King George was an article of faith for some of our early forefathers until the charge of treason divorced them of that notion.

But as DS pointed out, sometimes this power to affect/modify a religion can be misused. Where the former points are examples of righteous anger/authority – you do recall the God-given authority by which governments rule, do you not [Romans 8]?

The example of the Branch Davidians would qualify as an abuse of that power. The Clintonistas subversively fired a shot across the bow of Christianity by violently crushing the BDs. I would hope of course that you know the BDs weren’t really Christians, nevertheless, the prevailing secular wisdom does associate the BDs as Christian.

Bottomline, our country has always acted with force — justly or unjustly but with full authority — whenever it perceives an internal rot that threatens the fabric of society.

Now, restate your case. While you’re at it, keep in mind the founding lesson of our POTUS Jefferson & Barbary (yes Virginia, unilaterally dealing with terrorists is not a new thang, nor is conducting war w/o input from Congress):
http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/06/06a.htm

The Constitution does not mention martial law. But Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge.

Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held.

Since the President is Constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief, he can act as the military authority if martial law is declared.

Congress passed a law suspending Habeas Corpus so Lincoln could deal with spies and those aiding the South.

Roosevelt had similar powers during WWII. That is why we talk about the war-time powers of the President.

It is not politically feasible for a President to declare martial law without the backing of the Congress. (He does have some ability to act immediately under the Federal Emergency Management Act.)

If Congress would declare war on radical Islam, the President could move against the three million or so Muslims within the United States to sort out who is who and what is going on.

Short of an act of Congress, the President must piece-meal a program together by such means as the much, much misrepresented Patriot Act.

I hope this helps a bit. (I should caution that martial law can be very restrictive. You may call it a near dictatorship and not be too far off the mark,)

There is a real problem with that approach. They are not just in Syria, but in France, Germany, the Carribean, Latin America, the Phillipines, Canada…

>>>Exxon Mobil (XOM), the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, said Thursday that first-quarter earnings soared 44% from last year, due mainly to strong crude and natural gas prices.
The company said it will boost its share repurchase rate by $1 billion in the second quarter…
Net income surged to $7.86 billion, or $1.22 a share, from $5.44 billion, or 83 cents, a year ago. Excluding a $460 million gain on the sale of Exxon’s stake in China Petroleum and Chemical, the company earned $1.15 a share in the latest quarter.
Revenue climbed to $82.05 billion from $67.60 billion last year.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2005-04-28-exxonmobil_x.htm

With THAT much money to be made, you can rest assure that there is NO Saudi dictator oppressive enough to keep American corporate interests from lobbying politicians over. The same thing can be said for the gum arabic industry in the slave state of Sudan, where heinous acts are given lip-service. Gum arabic is not as lucrative as oil, but to the industries it affects, such as soft-drinks, newspaper and magazine, etc. it is invaluable, and therefore, not subject to any sanctions over such trivial things as slavery or genocide.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:XEJE31QQV9oJ:www.american.edu/ted/gumarab.htm+%22gum+arabic%22,+Sudan+sanctions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It goes down the line. If you find an raw material, or natural resource somewhere in the world worth something, you can guarantee that there’s some American corporation trying to exploit it.
What does this mean to the war on terrorism?
Well, IMHO, the LESS dependence we have on foreign resources of any kind (including LABOR), the less we’ll be in bed with dictators, despots, and oppressive regimes that supply them. The less we allign with those riff-raff, the higher our moral high ground will be. Alternative energy resources should be at the FOREFRONT of US Domestic policy, but as you can see, there are BILLIONS of reasons why corporate lobbyists are against that sort of thing. But think about it…if we had maintained the CAFE standards for our vehicles endorsed during the ‘energy crisis” of the 1970’s, we’d have our dependency on Saudi oil seriously cut right now. Yet we continue to feed the beast…no conservation–bigger vehicles with far lower fuel efficiency, no car pooling, and no sacrifices. We’re funding the very enemies we’ve allegedly declared war upon.

http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues6.html

I don’t want to declare something as “unwinnable”, but look at the situation we’re in. How many American companies have significant Saudi ownership? How much investment does middle eastern countries have in our markets? What kind of pain can the middle east inflict upon us with production caps or, heaven forbid, another EMBARGO? There are other markets in the Far East like China who have increased their demand for oil, so the Saudis have alternatives to just us.
We’ve allowed greed to put ourselves in a position where we can’t demand ANYTHING.

Summing up:
1-Get energy independent so we don’t owe anything to the people who harbor terrorism.

2-Keep our American Corporations from putting our politicians in bed with thugs who oppress their own people, causing them to hate us too.

3-Sacrifice instant gratification for the greater long term benefit of our nation.

–Cobra

Here is some info on martial law:

The President of the United States now has broader powers to declare martial law, which activates FEMA’s extraordinary powers. Martial law can be declared during time of increased tension overseas, economic problems within the United States, such as a depression, civil unrest, such as demonstrations or scenes like the Los Angeles riots, and in a drug crisis… Under emergency plans already in existence, the power exists to suspend the Constitution and turn over the reigns of government to FEMA and appointing military commanders to run state and local governments. FEMA then would have the right to order the detention of anyone whom there is reasonable ground to believe…will engage in, or probably conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage. The plan also authorized the establishment of concentration camps for detaining the accused, but no trial.

Source: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/FEMA.html

I think once you they declare martial law, ALL rights are suspended and the President is no longer in charge of the country. Just something to think about.

I agree with your comment.

I mentioned amendments to the Constitution and martial law for a particular reason: the latter denotes a temporary suspension of the former. To make it more long lasting, the Constitution would have to be amended. In short, it would be a very serious matter and a wholesale change in the structure of our government.

And, personally, I would fight against it.

I would fight against it because, if the translations of bin Laden are to be believed, he intended for the freedoms in this country to be abridged because, if I remember the translation correctly, we as a people have “too much freedom”.

If my government decides that the best way to go after terrorist cells is to break down the doors of mosques where known radicals hang out, well…

The problem is busting down the doors of mosques where they believe radicals hang out and they are wrong. Or, to violate the rights, under U.S. laws, of those in their search for radicals.

I think the U.S. government was wrong when Randy Weaver’s wife was killed and I believe the U.S. government was wrong in Waco.

As leader of this country, if left up to me, if another attack occurred and it could be proven to be done by those internally, I would probably call for a limited martial law, focused on immigrants, with a sunset to protect the long standing rights of U.S. citizens. I know I would definitely close geographic and air borders.