• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Professor who criticized Bush added to terrorist 'no-fly' list

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What does it take, these days, for the administration to slander you as a terrorist? Just disagreeing with President Bush is a good start. Walter F. Murphy, who is a one of the top constitutional scholars in the US, was added to the terrorist no-fly list for just that, criticizing the president.

Aside from his stance on Bush, along with a few other stances which are on the left, Murphy is on the right on many issues, is an avid right to lifer, is against Roe v. Wade, and supported the nomination of Alito to the US Supreme Court. He is also a decorated Korean War veteran, who also spent 19 years as a reservist after that war ended. So why is the administration branding him as a terrorist and putting him on a watch list? Oh thats right. According to President Bush, Murphy is either with him or with the terrorists. Apparently, so is 70% of the American people. Or just maybe, Bush is the terrorist.

Article is here.
 
That is pathetic.

It seems Americans who exercise their constitutional rights are now terrorists.
 

Since you're deeming President Bush a terrorist for this happening, is there any evidence that President Bush HIMSELF authorized this guy getting on a terrorist watch list?
 
Privacy is for people who have something to hide, guns are for killers, we should watch what we say so we don't cause any trouble, oh and... we should publicly endorse and finance (with tax breaks) religion.
 
reaganburch said:
Since you're deeming President Bush a terrorist for this happening, is there any evidence that President Bush HIMSELF authorized this guy getting on a terrorist watch list?
Click to expand...

Since Bush is the Chief Executive, the buck stops with him, especially since he personally pushed for the list that is now in place. Doesn't matter that others in his administration are abusing and politicizing that list. The fact is, it is happening, but unlike Truman, Bush doesn't like to think the buck stops with him, even though it does.
 
It's disgusting that there is no appeals process for those who are on the no-fly list. They are being punished without due process of law.
 

But don't you agree with the list in principle? And although the buck DOES stop with him, I don't want a micro-manager for a President... I don't think he should be responsible for the micro-minutae for EVERYTHING in the Government... I mean, is HE responsible for a 4th level manager at the Department of Interior, for example, lining the pockets of a buddy-vendor of his/hers by overspending on office supplies, paper clips, post-it notes, etc?
 
Kandahar said:
It's disgusting that there is no appeals process for those who are on the no-fly list. They are being punished without due process of law.
Click to expand...

Disgusting is too optimistic for me, I say its a shame. I don't know whats worse, this or the lack of outrage about this.

It seems to me more and more that Americans wouldn't pluck a hair for liberty.
 
Lachean said:
Privacy is for people who have something to hide, guns are for killers, we should watch what we say so we don't cause any trouble, oh and... we should publicly endorse and finance (with tax breaks) religion.
Click to expand...
The bold made me almost fly out of my chair..LOL...then I read the rest and saw the tongue firmly planted against the cheek...:lol:
 
What do you suggest? A bloody civil war? Bush STILL has enough supporters to stink things up.

No, our forefathers were smart enogh to build in protections from people like Bush with term limits.

But you're right, we should not wait for him to screw things up anymore than he already has. That's what they are trying real hard to do now in Washington. Keep him from digging our hole any deeper.

Be careful what you say or you might get on his list too.
 

Actually, they weren't. Term limits happened with an amendment to the Constitution after Roosevelt died. He was elected to 4 terms, and in his arrogance, tried to pack the Supreme Court.
 
Captain America said:
What do you suggest? A bloody civil war? Bush STILL has enough supporters to stink things up.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Captain America said:
No, our forefathers were smart enogh to build in protections from people like Bush with term limits.
Click to expand...

Some saw these checks and balances as not enough, and expected us to have many revolutions and civil wars.

Captain America said:
But you're right, we should not wait for him to screw things up anymore than he already has. That's what they are trying real hard to do now in Washington. Keep him from digging our hole any deeper.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thats why we should hold trials, ask questions, and never back down from their stone walling.

Captain America said:
Be careful what you say or you might get on his list too.
Click to expand...

Thats hardly a brave patriotic attitude.
 
reaganburch said:
But don't you agree with the list in principle?
Click to expand...

Only if it is made public, the people on the list are told exactly why they are on it, there are clear guidelines as to the reasons a person can be placed on the list, and an appeals process so that people can get their names removed.


Yes and no. I certainly wouldn't call that a national scandal that Bush should personally be condemned for, but yes, he would be responsible in the sense that he hired a Secretary of the Interior who was responsible for hiring someone who was responsible for hiring someone, etc. That kind of thing will inevitably happen under ANY president, no matter how effective of a manager he/she is, but that does not absolve him/her of responsibility.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, they weren't. Term limits happened with an amendment to the Constitution after Roosevelt died. He was elected to 4 terms, and in his arrogance, tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Term limits would be nice on Congress too. Unfortunantly, they would have to vote themselves out of a job. Don't see that happening.....ever.
 
WI Crippler said:
Term limits would be nice on Congress too. Unfortunantly, they would have to vote themselves out of a job. Don't see that happening.....ever.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, there is more than one way to skin a cat, or for that matter, amend the Constitution. The states can do it themselves, and force the issue in front of Congress by ratifying term limits themselves. It is more difficult, but it can be done. However, that would mean that people would actually have to pull away from their reality TV shows long enough to get involved.
 
Kandahar said:
Only if it is made public, the people on the list are told exactly why they are on it, there are clear guidelines as to the reasons a person can be placed on the list, and an appeals process so that people can get their names removed.
Click to expand...

Can't find any fault with this reasoning... I agree...



Again, I agree... to a point... responsible, perhaps... a terrorist? No, I think it's taking it TOO far, there IMO
 

Arkansas passed term limits on their Federal Goverment electee's; however, it was deemed unconstitutional... by whom? I cannot find whether it was our Supreme Court or SCOTUS... it was a bad idea; however, unless every state does it, it just leaves those states with term limits at a disadvantage...
 

So true....
 
is this any different than past presidents using the IRS on their opposition?
and while I think it is taking it too far, I also chuckled about it :3oops:

I mean, really, his flying has been inconvenienced. He is not in Gitmo....yet :lol:
 
So are the sins of our current politicians forgiven by the sins of our past politicians? Some people don't fly just for pleasure, so by doing this you can be affecting someone's livelihood as well. This isn't something the government is really meant to do, and the fact that it is being used for political purposes or to punish dissent should stir outrage. Not a "chuckle". Oh haha...look at how the government is interfering with our daily lives and using the power it granted itself in order to purposefully prevent people from flying...not because they actually presented a threat but because they dare say something bad about the government or its leaders. Yeah...that's real American there.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, they weren't. Term limits happened with an amendment to the Constitution after Roosevelt died. He was elected to 4 terms, and in his arrogance, tried to pack the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Were the powers that be then not our forefathers as well? Thanks for the input. I didn't realize term limits came about that recently. :3oops:
 
Captain America said:
Were the powers that be then not our forefathers as well? Thanks for the input. I didn't realize term limits came about that recently. :3oops:
Click to expand...
Yah, George Washington left after his 2nd term, but that only set a tradition of sorts among future Presidents, not a Constitutional requirement. I was surprised to learn that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…