Excellent question. Since you don't want my personal answer I see what I can dig up regarding the administrations position on this.<br><br>Thank you =) I actually will be interested to see what you can find, as I have searched and can find no official stand on this issue. (Not that there isn't one - just that I didn't find it) ...<br><br>First, what freedoms were you enjoying before the act that you aren't enjoying now?<br><br>Well, the most glaring is enjoying the right not to have the Executive suspend Habeas Corpus by merely assigning a designation of "unlawful combatant" to whomever it sees fit - especially to US citizens detained in this country. Not to mention a variety of infringements on rights to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure issues. Fortunately, the Judicial is looking at at least some of these, and we'll see what transpires - but the history on deference to the Executive on extraordinary powers during times of "war" does not make me hopeful ...<br><br>Second, you really thought you were enjoying the full freedoms guaranteed by the Consitiution before the act?<br><br>Touché. But I will say we were certainly enjoying more of them than now.<br><br>=)<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

There you go, jumping to conclusions. Lord lord lord!<br><br>See. It's a pretty easy thing to do.<br><br>

this thread is a joke. after running out of fact to defend their side, they just start talk about the meaning of the words and stuff. that leads nowhere.<br><br>

It leads to obscuring the point<br>to the point of killing it when ever <br>someone wants to change the subject.<br>'Straining at gnats' is a LAWYERS Trick<br>It's an effective tactic, ...however I often <br>question the motive of those that employ it.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>

Again, actually no. I didn't "jump to a consulsion". I arrived at a valid one after reading and applying your statements then asking the source if my conslusion was correct. "Jumping to a conclusion" means that a person has not gone through the step of supporting the conslusion with facts and analysis.<br>The two things are as different as "Mission Accomplished" and "War Over"<br><br>Dean Davis

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>this thread is a joke.<p><hr></blockquote><p>…and how! <br><br>Here, let me add my infinte wisdom.<br><br> iraszl, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah personal attack blah<br>, blah blah blah blah opinion , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <p><hr></blockquote><p>fact , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah nonsense , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah liberal , blah blah blah blah <br>broom stick , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah defensive<br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah …<br><br>oh the humanity of it all. Do you ever feel like you are watching a syndicated talk show?<br><br>

"blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah blah"<br><br>Wow, Cherry. I normally use a translator to make sense of your posts, but this time you can through clear as a bell. <br><br>"You're off the edge of the map, mate! Here there be monsters!"

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Well, I didn't reply at first because I thought it would just fade away, but it didn't and it hasn't. Then I thought I would just reply to the specifics, like numbers of broomstick comments made, and I would just leave the rest of the very subjective comments untouched.<p><hr></blockquote><p>But you didn't do that. After rightly trying to correct me on my bad thread following you went on with this...<br>"Along the same line, saying "mission accomplished" in a speech to the active military in Iraq would cause one to believe the fighting is over."<br><br>This was after I had posted my argument the the speech clearly makes the point that "Mission Accomplished" does not mean "War Over" or even fighting over. Your one-liner is patently false.<br><br>So, since the speech is very clear that the was is not over then the only way to conclude that the war is over by looking at the banner "Mission Accomplished" is only if you have not listened to the speech. And for some one to twice argue that that the "Mission Accomplished" banner equaled the message of war over even after being shown it's not reasonable to conclude that if you read the speech its easy to then conclude that the poster has no desire to re-examine that assumption. And if one is unwilling to re-examine their conclusions by doing further research then I think it's valid to say "It seems as if you'd like to have your politics in sound bytes, spoon fed to you so you wouldn't really have to think or analyize what is being said." Because it did seem that way. But, I did not imply that you were an idiot but if you want to infer that, well, I can't help that. And I did say it aloud in the forum. Why, because this is an open and public forum and I treat it as if we were all standing in a room having this discussion. And that is something I would have said to you personally at the same point in the conversation even with many other people participating.<br><br>Also the one-liner style posts don't tick me off I just think they usualy are a poor attempt to make a point without any foundation and many times the points are incorrect. I usually don't find them very clever. Your two posts were perfect examples of that.<br><br>Typically such one-liners are left unchallenged. More unfortunatly you tried to use one to counter one of my posts. So, I'm not going to let it stand on its own. I know some people seemed to be getting anoyed that I'm actually challening others to defend their opionons and I'm actually defending mine. But there is something compelling in this discussion because I see that those who claimed to have dropped out still feel the need to read and post.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You see, I would just as easily conclude that you do analyze, but that your conclusions appear twisted and wrong.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's the difference between simply feeling your conclusions are correct and not coming to a correct conclusion by using the best evidence at hand. Everyone is allowed to feel anything they want but feeling a conclusion is correct doesn't de facto make it correct. So if someone would like to say my posts "appear" twisted and wrong they'll need to come up with something a little more than "I just feel that way". Come up with real reason why they "are" twisted and wrong.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis

Sometimes it's difficult to not personally attack. But when someone invites it by continually portraying a mis-guided superior attitude it does make it easier. So here's a good attempt...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Here, let me add my infinte wisdom.<br><br>iraszl, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah<br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah<br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah<br>, blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah personal attack blah<br>, blah blah blah blah opinion , blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah <p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, that does appear to sum up all your wisdom.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis

BACK ON TOPIC/From CNN.com:<br><br>RE: U.S. Denial of Berg's Detention (talk about "straining at gnats"!)<br><br>"I think some of the confusion emanates from the fact that a number of the detention facilities throughout the country, there are American MPs who play a support role there," Senor added. "But it doesn't detract from the fact it's still an Iraqi facility, and I think once we do a little more investigating we can hope to provide more clarity.<br><br>Berg's father Michael Berg said Thursday that State Department officials told him his son was being held by the U.S. military.<br><br>State Department officials said Thursday that they were later told the information they passed to Berg's family in e-mails -- information they attributed to the Coalition Provisional Authority -- was incorrect."<br><br>Last night Foxnews was trying to link the kid to Al Qaeda, citing his school email account (in Oklahoma!) was at some point (but not at the same time) used by Z. Massoui. <br><br>Fox News = SLEAZE.<br><br>If you step back from the emotional arguments here, I think that the fact that there isn't a "clear picture" of what happened here speaks volumes.<br><br>The truth in it's purest form needs no interpretation. Something isn't right about this story, from the government's perspective.<br><br>CNN LINK<br><br>