>>>>>...is already dismantled. I don't see it having too many teeth left.
>>>>
>>>>I'm curious as to how you've reached that conclusion. It seems to be working just fine to me.
>>>
>>>"Seems" is the keyword.
>>
>>Well, then, back up what you're claiming. Prove me wrong. Arguing semantics is carrying water in a perforated bucket.
>
>Ok... it's Fryday, let's fry something.
>
>- Supreme Court getting involved into elections in a state, which is AFAIK, a strictly state matter; feds have no jurisdiction. How was this countered? No way.

Hmmm, I don't seem to recall that case. Link?

>- Signing statements. What has Congress done to assert its authority as the legislative body? Here we have a President who assumes the right to change the laws and the right to enforce them selectively. How was this checked?

That "right" doesn't exist. Much has been made of this non-issue.

>- The 911 commision had a very limited mandate

Uh, yeah. It's mandate was to investigate 9/11 and how we got there. Were you expecting something else?

>- several other commisions weren't even formed (regarding Plamegate, Downing Street minutes)

"Plamegate", in case you haven't noticed, is another non-issue.
>
>- Ethical committee rules were changed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37521-2004Dec30.html (didn't load here, but you can try)

Ethical committee rules are constantly being changed, by both sides. Is there a problem here? Those are, after all, the rules Congress has imposed on itself.

>- Other rules being changed to accomodate more corporate influence:
>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/19/federal_judges_new_ethics_guidelines_criticized_as_more_lax/

You're over-generalizing an odd interpretation of what's discussed in that article.

>- the President was caught lying several times and still isn't called in front of any commission. Remember what Clinton's impeachment was about?

"Caught lying?" That depends on what side of the political spectrum you play on. Regardless, Clinton lied under oath, which is a much more serious offense.

>- the President engages in outright illegal domestic spying program...

I don't believe that he does, and I've made my case for that here before. Regardless, that is an issue for the courts to determine, which they are in the process of.

>Enough?

No. But thanks for playing.

>(a) you can't know that, you aren't there. I was in a situation when I had to defend the West, and I know how it is when they give you hard time.

OK.

>(b) I did.

And that's my central point - you are the one making the argument. I haven't heard any Islamic fundamentalist making it.

>(c) inside the faith, yes - it's a matter of how much this faith is allowed into politics. We're talking about the people who'd want a separation of church and state, not those who believe that's the same. And these in favor of separation aren't helped by the attitudes of the US govt.

Again, I don't see any evidence of it. None of the issues or links you posted demonstrate it.

>Ergo, your assumptions are just assumptions.
Symantically, yes. However, what I've heard and read tells me that the fundamentalists don't base anything they do on what happens in the West, unless they can use it to further the jihad.

>We don't know what's going on there - but it's more reasonable to assume that some opposition to fundamentalists exists. Or else they wouldn't need to kill anyone, if everyone was on their side.

A strange place to end up discussing whether the US government's "allowance" of religion into politics influences Islamic fundamentalists. However, yes, I would hope there's some opposition within the Islamic world.