I'm with you JK, just say the word... I chalk a lot of this up to the passion of politics. Unfortunately passion seems to come strongest from the fringes, and the politicians are just playing to that. But it does bug the cr*p out of me that they and the media who cover them spend so much time on the wedge issues. Bush is not a war criminal spilling our blood for cheap oil and Kerry will not sign over control of the US military to the UN upon election but wow you get a lot of sources that say exactly those things.

I split with Bush over the same things as you, just a few more that you didn't mention. Government authority makes me nervous and Bush's tendency toward power solidification in the executive branch combined with his love of secrecy and loyalty strike me as a very dangerous combo. Torture the work of a few bad apples? Please, don't insult my intelligence. Especially when the memo's about whether and how far we have to abide by the Geneva conventions were all over the legal departments of the White House and Pentagon. How about the term "enemy combatant"? Nice when you can just make up a new term and give it the legal status you wish. The Patriot act. Rumsfeld's taking over the promotion to flag rank from the military. And on and on. It speaks to me of an administration that knows what's best for us and is willing to take the power, cloak it in secrecy, and make it happen.

Kerry the standard bearer for what I believe? Nope, and I won't be voting for him either. I will however be voting against Bush, so that's what I'm left with. (No, Nader doesn't count)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I won't be giving "the word" while John Kerry, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton holds the Democratic torch.

The GOP still seems 1000 times the guarantor liberty than those Democrats. But yes, this little-l libertarian is starting to feel some real discomfort.

I have to look pretty far down the Dem bench to see folks I might vote for: Evan Bayh, Harold Ford Jr. maybe? I wonder if a real libertarian could ascend to power in the Democratic party If they were to lose badly in '04. Who would it be? Would the grassroots support him/her?

Kerry will not literally "sign over" control of US power to the UN, but among his many (conflicting) statements are several that assert GWB should have done exactly that - figuratively, at least.

I'm really tiring of this "enemy combatant" criticism. What name would you propose for individual members of an extra-national organization that employs force against others for their own selfish purposes: Crip? Blood? Teamster? WTO protester? ELF? PETA? I have one name that covers them all - criminal. There is a proud liberal tradition of elevating the "legal status" of criminals. I have no problem with that as long as we can still agree on the definition of "crime" (and, I suppose, "punishment.") One act that absolutely isn't a crime is building a security wall to keep murderous neanderthaloid bastards from entering your town or neighborhood under any circumstances. (If I were building the wall I'd have it encircle the animals instead of the humans.)

Efforts to protect terrorists (suspected or actual) from the US military using judicial manuevers are merely extensions of the same bankrupt legal influences that enabled the terrorists in the first place. Anti-terror is a legal matter for the nations who spawn the sub-human progeny. When those nations legal procedures fail to protect citizens of other nations, it becomes a military matter for those other nations. See "Bush Doctrine."

I'm intrigued by your cryptic election preview. You "won't be voting" for Kerry, and "Nader doesn't count" but you "will however be voting against Bush." John 1 could argue that one can vote for Kerry, and, NOT vote for Kerry because it's actually a vote "against Bush." Well, THERE'S a "Plan for a Better America!"

The point about the term "enemy combatatant" is that you don't need a new term. They are either prisoners of war or criminals. Detain them as POW's or charge them with a crime, prosecute, and punish them accordingly. This end run around our constitution is also a crime. Power is divided among the three branches for good reasons, mucking about with that balance with "executive privilidge" is cr*p.

In fact, they are not POWs since they do not operate as uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state. The Geneva conventions were voluntarily entered into by the US and most other countries to protect their own soldiers from mistreatment by foreign armies. Other than Iraqi soldiers and, perhaps, Taliban fighters, the extra-national ideology driven mass murders our troops encounter on the battlefield do not represent a central organization that can be bargained with. They would kill us all for the "crime" of existing on earth, if they had the means. The only thing that prevents us from killing them on the spot is our own sense of mercy.

I'll let Washington Legal Foundation chief legal counsel respond to the constitutional issue:

Richard Samp: "The courts have long recognized that the Constitution places almost all foreign affairs and military issues into the hands of the Executive Branch and Congress. So the reason for granting deference is that courts are, under the Constitution, supposed to play a lesser role in foreign affairs issues than they play in criminal law issues."

This is from an excellent online chat Q&A dealing with the SCOTUS rulings on this issue, on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12017-2004Jun28.html

5205 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com