charliep@polaris.UUCP (Charlie Perkins) (11/21/85)
=========
I recently received something in the mail that contained some
pretty discomforting assertions about some recent actions taken
by our fearless leader. Among them were:
-- He has authorized the CIA, for the first time in history,
to conduct covert activities INSIDE the U.S.
-- The FBI's National Crime Information Center is now keeping
track of people who are "anti-authority" or
"anti-law enforcement". Does that include peaceful
non-cooperation?
-- Similarly, there is a proposal to keep track of those who
are "suspected" of "associating" with terrorists
-- Americans returning from Nicaragua are having their personal
belongings seized arbitrarily (i.e, no grounds for suspicion)?
-- In a historic move, the executive branch is itself initiating
legal action in the Supreme Court to try to get the
legal interpretations it wants instead of trying to persuade
Congress to do something. (This case concerns abortions).
My questions are:
-- Is this really happening, or am I getting misinformed?
-- If it IS happening, why don't all those conservatives out
there who love R.R. get upset about it?? Are these really
the sorts of tactics that must be pursued to keep us free?
-- Is there any hope of ever returning the Executive branch to
the role of putting CURRENT laws into effect, instead of trying
to legislate, judge, and enforce whatever it wants?
--
Charlie Perkins, IBM T.J. Watson Research philabs!polaris!charliep,
perk%YKTVMX.BITNET@berkeley, perk.yktvmx.ibm@csnet-relayscott@hou2g.UUCP (The Brennan Monster) (11/25/85)
While I have no evidence or information on the matter (You may ask, then, why this is going to net.politics :-)), it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Reagan is/has been doing all those things. Now for some perspective: How many of you realize that Lincoln, when he was president, was just as bad (Second plug for "Lincoln" by Gore Vidal)? He suspended Habeas Corpus capriciously, jailing political opponents and dissenting "gentlemen of the press" at will. The reason he gave for fighting the South was not slavery, but that the Constitution did NOT give the states the power to secede. It never seemed to bother him that in the process of rectifying things he ran roughshod over the very Constitution he claimed he was upholding. This is not to say Ronnie Raygun should be excused for anything he did. But I've noticed an intolerance for any kind of president in recent years. People expect perfect presidents. The problem is we haven't had ANY! Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/02/85)
> How many of you realize that Lincoln, when he was president, was > just as bad (Second plug for "Lincoln" by Gore Vidal)? He suspended > Habeas Corpus capriciously, jailing political opponents and dissenting > "gentlemen of the press" at will. > > ihnp4!hou2g!scott Not to mention the introduction of both the draft and an income tax... Baba
andrews@yale.ARPA (Thomas O. Andrews) (12/04/85)
In article <723@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (The Brennan Monster) writes: > >This is not to say Ronnie Raygun should be excused for anything he did. >But I've noticed an intolerance for any kind of president in recent years. > >People expect perfect presidents. The problem is we haven't had ANY! > > Scott J. Berry > ihnp4!hou2g!scott It's not that people expect perfect presidents; the people of the United States are just exercising their rights by expressing their grievances. No president can please everybody, but those who are displeased better well complain, or nothing will be done to solve the problems. -- Thomas Andrews andrews-thomas@yale