Slashdot Mirror
Bush Backed Spying On Americans
jb.hl.com writes "President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the U.S. without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported. The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S. When asked about the programme on U.S. TV, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"
That aside: Bad week for the Neocons.
First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore (not that we ever did, right? I mean, I'm sure the folks at those secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe were Geneva Convention poster boys). Then the PATRIOT act gets blocked so they have to go deal with those darn activist judges to get warrants again. Now, people are acting like the President can't override statute with an executive order! Next thing you know, people will actually want leaders who follow the Constitution. Heck, this keeps up and nobody'll want to be President of the United States anymore - we're just takin' all the fun out of it.
I personally look forward to the day when the GOP has something to do with, you know, conservatism again. "Spend responsibly" rolls off the tounge better than "constant wanton abuse of power". Still, at least it was just violation of the basic agreement that forms the basis of our government and not, you know, a blowjob. Otherwise the nation might have to sit through another impeachment.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
do something
lawfully != ethically
But is it still legal when the steps are combined? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Hmm...wasn't there another president who got in trouble for spying on other americans? Watershed...waterfall...waterbed...definitely water-something...
Oh yeah! Here it is!
And this is just the latest of Dubya and Company's shocking assaults against their own nation...sadly, an offence that would have been considered grounds for immediate impeachment (not to mention additional criminal prosecution) thirty years ago hardly raises an eyebrow today. Apparently, we're used to this sort of thing by now.
I'm pretty sure that this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they fought and died so that we might have a nation free from tyranny.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
He acted lawfully the same way that the mob boss doesn't actually "kill" someone, they just happen to know the guys that shot the victim. In the words of John Gotti, "It's good to have guns around ... but you don't want to carry a gun. You might get arrested."
stuff |
Oh, gee, if there's a *book* about it, then that makes it all better.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I think what she means is: "Since the president defines what is legal, then what the president does, is, by definition, legal." Very much in keeping with the administration's claims of "Presidential Infalibility".
I am not a crackpot.
How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account? There isn't a single person on death row or executed in the history of the USA who has who has ordered so many killings, kidnappings and tortures. His utter contempt for the constitution and human rights is the root of the many forms of his criminality. Ordering illegal spying on thousands of Americans should by itself be enough to get him impeached, tried and sentenced to life in prison, but on the scale of his other misdeeds it barely deserves mention.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Gonzales should be quickly tried and promptly executed as a deterrent to our future officials who might think that they can use power for their own purposes rather than as servants of the electorate. We need to put our so-called leaders in permanent mortal fear of even getting close to violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Until then, they will continue to think that they can rule us rather than represent us.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Just playing devils advocate for a moment (since it appears that Slashthink(TM) is in full force), but isn't this EXACTLY the type of thing that the Patriot Act made legal? I'm not saying that I like the Patriot Act, but it did get passed by a majority of the house and senate.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
(-1, Flamebait)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
how is anyone surprised?
BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.
And this guy broke the story.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
First of all, the news the article is relaying is a year old: the reporters witheld the information for a year for security reasons. Note they still released it after only removing "some" of the issues that the security people had with the article. Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program. Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic. Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers. The numbers that they recieved from those and several similar and related captures are the numbers that they've been monitering. Again, they've since limited their criteria even further. For an excellent view of the right-wing's side of the debate check out: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm
I'll cling to the principle that the government cannot intrude on my privacy for a very long time, and you deserve to lose yours for beliefs like that.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?
You don't think that didn't happen with the presidents "offical" aproval? Let's not get out of hand here.
But we already know what will happen, the Dems will take the presidents office in 2008 maybe and the same crap will be pulled but instead we'll just have the other half saving the same thing...
Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party. If we don't get motivated to throw another party into the mix and force parties to do more than lie and smile we're just going to have the same thing again and again, a new Waco, a new 9/11, a new Watergate, a new infringement somewhere somehow and the finger pointing will continue and so will business as usual.
You don't seriously think a Democrat is any more forthright than a Republican? Hell, they feed off each other and at the same time use each other as crutches. They know and accept this business deal. They know people accept them as the only game in town.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Um, his book looks like it's about the CIA. TFA is about the NSA. This is a new and different way in which the government has been infringing the rights of people.
Anyhow, why would it matter if he had written about it in his book. Wonton abuse of power is still news worthy, even if it is reported multiple times.
If this is true, it only shows how corrupt our laws have become. No serious person could think that Jefferson, Franklin and the other Constitution authors would ever think it's OK for a president to do something like this.
I'm not certain what you mean by "less kind intent".
No Democrat would deny Senator Lieberman the right to say or do anything that he likes; but if he's going to insist on taking a position contrary to what the majority of his party believes in, he will not get the support of, or access to, the resouces of the party - plain and simple.
The Republicans coined a term for this kind of politician as they also have a few mavericks who refuse to toe the party line...they call 'em RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We have a DINO in Mr. Lieberman.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
At some point the question becomes: which of Bush's TLAs is not illegally spying on us?
is that people seem to forget that the previous president was nearly impeached for lying about a blowjob in the oval office.
Where are the calls to impeach Bush over his bloody lies?
Lieberman is more than a Democrat, he's a Jewish democrat, and if you've heard the rhetoric coming out of Iran (from their president no less) directed towards Israel, you'll understand why he's behind our military's occupation of that region.
Personally I think that's crap and indicative of the Democratic Party's utter lack of courage and direction. The only thing more disturbing than this administration's rampant abuse of authority, as evidenced yet again by our sitting President ordering wiretaps without court orders, is the Democrats' failure to capitalize on this malfeasance, politically or otherwise. They seem perfectly content to sit back and wait for polls to tell them what to say, when any rational set of humman beings would have stood up long ago and put an end to this nonsense. I mean if you can't stand up to a dope like George Bush, who can you stand up to?
What a mess.
Apparently you drunk the kool aide and I assume you voted for the SOB. You don't "have" to support a President that is abusing power. We here back in 1776 call in a democracsy and people have the right to support who they want not who they are told they have to support. I support the country and I support the troops. I do not support Bush and I do not support the war. Bush is a facist that makes jokes about how much easier it'd be if it was a dictatorship. Not sure how much easier he wants it given he gets pretty much everything he wants as it is. Haliburton and others are raping this country and Bush and his cronies are holding us down while we are gang rapped. Our rights have been taken away and yet studies have shown we aren't really any safer. Making us safer was never the issue. This is about power and robbing us blind. He deserves to be impeached. They impeached Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife. Bush is breaking laws that affect us all and has killed tens of thousands of people doing it, over two thousand americans. He's killed nearly as many americans as the terrorist and the war is still going on. What standard do you have for impeachment? "Well first they have to be a Democart" apparently. I'm not a Democrat, I don't like either party. Just how much lying cheating and stealing can go on before we do impeach him? He was making a case for invading Iran until some one pointed out to him that we don't have any troops to spare. If we really did get attacked now we'd be in a desperate situation. All our forces are aimed at Iraq. They've even been pulling them out of Europe to support the war. He says we'll pull out 30,000 this year. Well he sent 15,000 more last summer and the fighting hasn't slowed. Welcome to Viet Nam II the sequel. Funny a lot of us saw it coming. Wonder why he didn't?
Where are Dubya's defenders now?
Waiting for the retraction in the NYT in a couple of weeks.
Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party.
Yes, because this holy "third party" will be so far detached from the two parties we currently have that none of this bullshit will go on, right? Oooh, you are thinking that we're going to get rid of ALL of those in office that are part of the "two party" system and replace them *all* with members from the "third party".
Technically, the New-aged GOP is exactly that, a "third party" that no one has ever seen in America before. One where ignorance, blatant disregard for everything the US stands for, and religious beliefs take precedence over everything else.
BTW -- I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't know what to call myself now.
TOO LATE. We already live in that world.
if you've heard the rhetoric coming out of Iran (from their president no less) directed towards Israel, you'll understand why he's behind our military's occupation of that region.
Lemme see, the Iranian President has claimed that the Holocaust never happened. It was entirely made up by the media to gain support the Jews. He also states that Israel should be wiped off the map and moved to Europe or Alaska. In short, the guy is nuts.
A commentator wrote an article in the Chicago Sun Times this morning that pretty well covered how it's going to go down:
1. The US has used up its "attack bad country" card for the time being, so they won't do anything.
2. Israel will take the threat seriously and bomb the hell out of Iran's caches of missiles and nuclear weapons facilities.
3. The UN will make more pointless resolutions condemning Israel.
Sound about right?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Bush had his mind made up to go into Iraq from day one, all he needed was a convenient excuse like 9/11, so his people could shape the intelligence to rationalize the invasion. He's spent years justifying the invasion, and now he finally says it's his fault that we went to war for a bullshit reason?
He let New Orleans drown, bungled the rescue/recovery, tried to blame everyone else, and then finally approves $3.1B to rebuild and repair the levees.
This week he's been the 'close the barn door after the horse has gotten out' president. But don't be fooled, he's not mending his ways. With the GOP being rocked by scandal after scandal, things are looking grim for Republicans in the 2006 elections-- and they know it. From now until election day there's going to be a tremendous snow job loosed on the people of this country to distract them from Plamegate, DeLay, etc, in the hopes that they'll just go to the polls and blindly vote Republican again.
Does that somehow make the actions less wrong?
A guy has information that is new, shocking, and reveals a blatant violation of the constitution, and just because he's also an author of an up-coming book he shouldn't come forward with it?
I think the implication is not that he fabricated the information, but rather that if honesty and integrity in the executive branch was his single motivating factor, he would have yelled it immediately, not sat on it while he wrote a book. Quite obviously, he felt the information was important enough to have some monetary value, but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.
No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so.
Not trolling here, but prove it, bring it to a court of law and prove it. Nothing is unconstitutional until the USSC says so or it is specifically defined in the Constitution.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Yeah, Martin Luther King wasn't doing a thing illegal. He didn't have anything to worry about from the FBI's surveillance, because the government has always acted in a proper and lawful manner.
The principle here is that the United States constitution should be inviolable. It's a pretty good framework. It guarantees a few nice things like freedom of speech and religion, a fair trial by jury with the burden of proof on the prosecution if you are accused of a crime, and the prohibition of cruel or excessive punishment if you are convicted of that crime.
Freedom from warrantless searches got put in there too. It did not get put there for no reason-surveillance of what you are doing, whether it's a search of your home or interception of your communications, is a violation of your basic rights. Sometimes it is called for due to probable cause that you have committed a crime. In that case, you go to a judge, and that judge reviews your evidence. If (s)he decides that you are correct and the search is called for, a warrant will be issued. That's the purpose of judicial review-an impartial judge must approve acts via due process of law that would normally be a direct violation of your rights, such as requiring you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, or conducting searches and surveillance.
I do not -just- oppose these measures on the grounds that I don't want to be watched even -when- I have nothing to hide, although that's most certainly part of it. I oppose it on the grounds that those Constitutional guarantees are the very reason that America is referred to as the "land of the free"-and every time one gets subverted, that becomes less true. That is a reason. If you don't care, that is your right. But don't expect those of us who -do- happen to like our freedom to stand by and watch while it's chipped away piece by piece.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I'm against Bush as much as anyone else.. but CHB simply is not a reputable source.
Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you."
Lalala
Ah, a lefty mouthpiece reports it... So it must be true, right? The libs are letting their hatred for Bush blur the line between reality and fantasy. These kooks are the GOPs best friends.
Shut the smurf up mothersmurfer!
I'm as much a Bush hater as anyone else.. and I loved Clinton, but his administration supported things like ECHELON, DMCA, and the Clipper Chip. That doesn't mean that all Democrats are anti-privacy, of course.. and the triangulation wing of the Democratic party is going out of style.
When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
Did he really say that? Has it been reported by anyone other than Doug Thompson? Who is Doug Thompson, anyway? I'd actually like to pass this around to some people, but I need to know that it's for real.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Hint: It's in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that often the government will block anyone from taking it to court if they haven't actually been affected. The people who are affected probably don't know it or if they do, are in prison without access to the courts.
...or until we abolish winner-take-all politics. Instead of districting our states and having each district pick a winning politician, an alternative would be to have everyone in the state vote amongst the same group of politicians and pick the top-ranked politicians from each state. In other words, if a state currently has 30 districts and 100 people run for congress, you pick the top 30 from that 100. This opens the door for 3rd parties and alternative viewpoints to have representation. Once 3rd parties begin to take hold of more local offices, they will begin to have enough sway to take hold of higher offices like the Senate or the Presidency.
Some medieval mathematician was trying to figure out the relationship between regular shapes and circles. He saw that every time you added a side to a regular shape it came closer to approximating a circle. A triangle becomes a square becomes a pentagon becomes a hexagon and so forth, until you reach an n-sided shape that is very very close to being a circle as perceived by the eye. Then the mathematician realized that contrary to becoming more like a circle, by adding sides he was in fact moving further away from approximating a circle: a circle has no sides, whereas he was moving towards more and more and more sides.
What's needed is not a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, n-th party. What's needed is no parties. Parties are essentially money-laundering organizations. What's money-laundering? "To conceal the source of money as by channeling it through an intermediary." That's their function: concealing the big money interests purchasing votes in Congress and purchasing influence throughout the government. Adding more parties just adds more avenues for the corrupt to practice their quasi-legitimized venality.
What need to happen is not some goofball third party candidate. We need to see politicians get put in jail. In significant numbers. Set up an FBI whiteroom and have a group of Mormon agents set up sting operations. Prosecute the hell out of them with independent prosecutors. It's the only way to scare them straight.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Yeah using the IRS to silence whitewater critics is soooo white knight.
Thanks for playing. Don't forget your gift basket on the way out.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Sorry, no. Previous Presidents ordered the NSA not to spy on Americans because they took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constititution" Presumably that includes obeying it, since the Office of the Presidency only has power by virtue of it. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
A person's communications are his effects, even if they are not papers. Paper was the only external data recording and transmission medium available to the Founders. They would surely have included electronic communications today.
said the holocaust never happened
:P
Not quite. He called it a myth, claiming that not nearly as many people were killed as is commonly claimed (which is a common position to take in Iran). Not that Ahmadinejad isn't a rather disturbing character. It shows how poorly the "Domino Theory" for the middle east went, when someone like Khatami was replaced by someone like Ahmadinejad. The guy is frightening even to many Iranian hardliners because he's a follower of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a supporter of the Hojjatieh movement with close ties to the Haqqani theological school. The movement is based on the goal of bringing about the return of the 12th Imam by creating chaos on Earth, and was used by the Shah to try to wipe out the Bahai faith. I sincerely hope that he's not a member of the Hojjatieh movement. At least Ahmadinejad has stressed the importance of development and justice to bring about the Imam's return.
What a disturbing inverse-domino-theory this turned out to be
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
I do think that we're more ripe for a third party now than we have been for a very long time given the division within the GOP; but I don't think it's going to happen. The stigma that comes from starting a 3rd party in this country is one of being a crackpot. Also, the money and support machines that are our 2 popular parties make it too easy to get help with your campaign compared to the do-it-yourself approach that starting a successful third party would require.
While I agree in general that the Democratic party is just as guilty as the GOP regarding dirty tricks and corruption, etc., I think the current administration takes the all-out hands-down prize-winning cake for being corrupt and for abusing power. I would think so if they were Dems or libertarians or pastafarians. They have made such a mockery of our system of government that it is insulting to those of us who lead law-abiding lives.
As for 2008, unless things change I don't see a Democratic president. Their front-runner is Hillary, who is one of the most divisive and polarizing figures in American politics. Whether that's earned or not is rather irrelevant. She's going to have to do some serious image work between now and then to make a realistic show of it in the 2008 election. There are better, more presidential and electable people who could make a run for it who haven't announced, don't have any money or both. Bill Richardson(gov. NM) strikes me as one who could make a serious challenge if the party supported him.
On the GOP side they are only suffering from having too deep a bench. Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Bill Frist (though current legal troubles may end that), Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, and even Condi Rice are all being bantered about as being serious potential candidates. Personally, I think Condi would be more divisive than Hillary, and I think all the others are going to have a tough time competing with either Rudy or Sen. McCain.
But the Democrats are in a serious hurt as far as the '08 presidential race goes. They're in a better position for the mid-terms coming up; but even that could get jacked up if they don't start doing some serious strategy work and putting forth some real candidates.
The Republicans have put them in this spot by stealing their lines. The GOP is now the party of the God-fearing folk. They are now the party of the little man, protecting said peasant from the tyranny of the Ivy Leage Elitist, etc. There has been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to come up with a message. The truth is, they need to take their message back from the people who stole it if they are to have any election successes in the near term.
Personally, I'd be okay with either Rudy or McCain. The rest in my earlier list turn my stomach; but so does Hillary. It's a tough time to be a centrist and to watch the GOP turning ultra-conservative, and the Dems put Hillary out as the answer. Fortunately, the two most moderate GOP frontrunners are still in fact running in front. I hope it stays that way.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I used to despair because no one on either side of the political fence could see that both parties are equally fascist. By concentrating all their energies on proving the other side wrong, by treating their liberty like some bullshit football game, they completely miss the fact that no politician on either side gives a fuck about anything other than personal gain.
This used to upset me, but I've changed my mind since then. Every dipshit statement from every dipshit wing nut convinces me a little bit more that you assholes are getting exactly what you've earned. You people don't deserve freedom.
Actually, I seem to recall that there were several very serious and prominant instances of questionable constitutional rights violations by the federal government under Clinton.
Stop accepting their groupthink. Stop being a Democrat or a Republican and start being a human being.
---
Wait, isn't that the crux of Sadam Hussein's legal defense? "I have not violated the laws of my country. I am the president. Whatever I say IS the law!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
No different than how the left view the second amendment, or how they feel they can control society through judicial or jury activism (subversion of democracy through the court system). Their hero, FDR, had Japanese-Americans interned during WWII and also had domestic spies during that time of crisis. I am concerned about civil liberties too, which is why I think that we should get rid of the overwhelming one sided left-leaning voice in the mainstream news media, on college campuses, and in hollywood. After all, how is this really helpful to civil liberty? P.C. seems to be a left-wing creation. How is making people fearful of how they talk helpful to civil liberty? They turn everyone into little fascists, then complain about the government when their guy isn't in power.
That'd be +1 Funny, except when you step back and remember that the Republican majority in Congress represents a minority of the voters in this nation. Hats off to redistricting!
Yet another impeachment count if the Democrats can find the spine to win the 2006 elections.
If you're not concerned about the president creating a US KGB, then you're a fascist and you don't deserve to be an American. You're an American hater because you hate the Constitution of the United States.
Flying flags does not represent patriotism. Nor does sporting yellow magnetic stickers made in China. Belief and upholding the CONSTITUTION makes you an American.
GW Bush is NOT an American. He is a demonic usurpur. He'd be far more comfortable living in Saudia Arabia.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Republicans and Democrats aren't the same, and we don't need a third party. We just need a government that gives a shit about civil rights.
I never really understood this aspect of the American political system, perhaps it is because I am Canadian, and I have so many parties to choose from - especially in the upcoming election we are about to have...
If you are in the U.S. it seems to me that you can choose either the left, or the right. There is no middle ground. Indeed, the terminology in the states only supports "left" or "right" no "up, down" or anything else. It is my feeling that a whole host of problems result from this aspect of the system. Yes, I am biased, but IMO, the 2 party system is horrifically broken. IIRC there were other parties in the U.S. earlier, I think that the Moose party was one, but I have not looked into U.S. political history in some time.
I guess I just feel that if I had a choice of Repulican, or Democrat, and I did not like either I would not even bother to vote. To me, it represents a lack of choice, and therefore a lack of freedom. But then again, I live in a society that has multiple party freedom.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
And not a single one of those done without daddy's friends or connections.
I love it when people say that our troops are "fighting for our freedom". I thought the terrorists were supposed to be the ones affecting our freedom, but it turns out its our government instead. Too bad the troops are in Iraq helping the Iraqis get their freedom while we slowly lose ours.
Can I bum a sig?
> Welcome to Viet Nam II the sequel. Funny a lot of us saw it coming. Wonder why he didn't?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps he did? There's a lot of money to be made in war, especially a war against a concept.
War on "terror"... how do you win? When you take over terror and govern it?
"faulty intelligence"
I would like to present a new term "Faulty judgement".
Which in my opinion is more acurate. There wasn't anything wrong with the intellegence. People conviently forget the organizations questioning the "intelligence" before the war because they wern't mainstream news outlets which were all busy being a mouthpiece for the administration. The Powell speech before the UN just proves this. It didn't convince anyone at the UN because all the "intelligence" they presented was either hearsay, or renderings of what "could be". Not a single hard fact in the whole thing. In fact I didn't see a single hard fact during the whole "discussion" supporting the white houses position. On the other hand, there was quite a lot of hard evidence that there wern't any weapons, and the logical problems with the "give us your weapons, or we will attack you" argument was a joke. I saw and read letters from numerious _EXPERTS_ saying things like weapon x Sadam had during GF1 has a shelf life of x years, and has long since become inert, and other similar testimonies. Where were these guys on the news? Being covered up thats where.
Hello people... the article mentions that the CIA and the Executive branch informed the Legislative branch this was happening. They were informed that phone number and email addresses collected during an arrest could be used to find ties to others. According to the article the information had to be acted on quickly. It worked. Others were ferreted out and arrested.
Anyone ever hear of FISA? Since the calls and email were international communications, it is within the purview of the CIA to intercept them.
The article also mentions that the government still has to get warrants for domestic taps.
If you don't like it... get FISA repealed!
I have to admire, though, the way Bush has managed to run roughshod over just about every conservative ideal there is while still managing to keep a sizable percentage of the country fiercely loyal to him.
I could go on, but as I said, why bother? Anyone who doesn't already see the darkness is never going to be swayed by words.
And before you say it: No, I'm not particularly left-leaning. I think conservatism has a lot of good things to offer. If only it were actually being practiced.
I quite realize that in this particular forum most of the sentiment can be summed up in one phrase: "I have rights and the government violates them. End of story." There are a lot of thoughtful comments that expand on this, but that's the general idea.
But it reminds me of an old Bill Cosby joke popular on one of his LP (!!) records I think in the sixties. It's about the "rules of warfare" Cosby style, which is that the rules are decided by a coin toss. The winner of the coin toss gets to decide the rule. (For the purposes of this joke there's only one rule per conflict. Hit "agree" to continue.) In one of several skits the Colonials in the War of Independence win the coin toss against Great Britain, so the Colonists decide the rule. It is this:
"The colonists can go anywhere they want to, wear whatever they want, shoot from behind trees and run away anywhere. The British must wear red and march in a straight line."
As I remember, it got quite a laugh. There was another one about Custer where the Indians won the coin toss. You get the idea.
Now we're involved in a struggle against people who want to destroy as many of us as possible. If Kerry had won, they would still want to destroy us. If some sort of socialist party rose to power, they would still want to destroy us. This is not a "Bush thing" and if you think so, I gotta tell ya, you're crazy. yes, you with long hair and the smirk on your face who drives a Prius and recycles like a good boy. You are a target, fella. Got it so far? Okay.
But we tend to put our government between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand "they" are expected and held accountable for being prescient about everything. They KNEW about 9/11. (Some bright souls even say they DID 9/11.) But they didn't save those innocent lives, therefore they failed. It was an "intelligence failure." (I don't disagree with this, by the way. It quite clearly was an intelligence failure. All the dots: no lines.
But they must be prescient only within certain narrowly defined guidelines, and always with a warrant. So, we have a group of people who have a suitcase atomic bomb in a New York City apartment. If it goes off, it will kill several million people and disrupt the economy of the entire world for decades. So we kind of know it's there. We've got lots of dots and very few lines. What do we do?
Well, we catch a guy. But he has RIGHTS!!! All we can do is politely ask him if he wouldn't mind telling us all about that little bomb, where it is, and how to disarm it, and, of course, we'll wait right here while he discusses it with his lawyer, furnish him with all the information and how we found out through the 'discovery' process and make sure he has plenty of money for his defense.
Now, somehow we find out where this little suitcase is, kind of generally, but not specifically enough to know the details, like for a warrant. But these guys have RIGHTS!!!! So we call them up and tell them we know about their little bomb, and we'll be over to see it next Thursday or so. We just didn't want to violate their rights by sneaking around spying on them, and, oh, by the way, that giraffe that wandered by your apartment yesterday? That's an atomic-bomb sniffing giraffe, just in case you see him again.
This is asymmetrical warfare folks. Group hugs don't cut it. If we insist our government wears red and walks in a straight line, we lose.
As someone who has studies WWII in a great deal of depth, I would agree that the Holocaust *as we generally think of it* is a product of late war and post war propaganda. Furthermore, this has generally been exacerbated by research by Jewish scholars who are primarily interested in the experiences of their relatives. Not that this scholarship is incorrect-- it is just incomplete and people assume that the limited point of view (i.e. the Jewish experience in the camps) is the entire view. The real horrors of the work and death camps take shape only when the full scope of what happened there become known and parallels are drawn to the kinder, gentler genocides that were being quietly perpetrated in this country, in Canada, in the UK and elsewhere.
I am not one to speculate on figures-- what do the numbers matter anyway? What difference does it make if it were five hunderd thousand, six million, or fifteen million? The horrors of the death camps were systematic and independant of the number of those that lost their lives there.
The concentration camps were an integral part of the Nazi political machine. They were used to threaten those they wanted to join the party. They were used to get rid of dissidents. They were used to suppress any possible alternative political voice and so every nationalist organization unafilliated with the Nazis was generally banned by Himmler (examples included the Guido von List Gesselshaft, the Armanenshaft, and many others, some of which have survived to this day). Such bans were in effect regardless of whether the group opposed the Nazis or not. Indeed, I believe that the strategy was to use ethnic minorities (most notably Jews and Gypsies) as examples which could be used to threaten or intimidate the other citizens of the Reich into fearful loyalty to the Nazi party. In many ways, this is more horrifying than if it were simply a matter of racial hatred.
We should not forget so easily that genocidal programs were in effect in the US, and that some of the same ethnic groups that were targetted in the Third Reich were targetted here (most notably the Roma/Gypsies), mostly through forced sterilization. Such practices were common in the US, Canada, and the UK. Sure we didn't kill these people in mass numbers, but this doesn't make these actions any less evil. Similarly, a large number of techniques were employed to destroy the Native Americans as a cohesive social unit. These incldued some forced sterilizations, but also systematic attacks on native languages and culture. The institutional focus on the destruction of native languages and culture have remained in effect in this country through at least the early Clinton years (I do not know if anything has changed since 1994-- I believe it has but I have seen no concrete evidence that this is true).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Whether or not the Iraqis gained anything from the US prosecuting the consequence for the Iraqi government's violation of the Cease Fire is not the point of our involvement in the country. We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire. A Cease Fire that was brought about by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq-a pure invasion of conquest. They, the Iraqi government was told that "dire consequences" would result from violating the Cease Fire. Every government involved in the liberation of Kuwait signed off on it. Since everyone knows that the UN is a toothless old corruption dog, everyone knew that the US or another nation with the will to act would be required to put teeth into the agreement. Teeth that bite, as Saddam Hussein found out. That said. I truly hope that the Iraqi people can directly benefit from the current involvement of the US. And perhaps they will. However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US. The US would have pulled out long ago had the terrorists not fired up their machine of violence. I think it would have been a mistake to pull out, but that is what they would have done.
While I'm glad you're paying attention, the right to bribe a police officer, judge, juror, or any other public official is not free speech, nor should it be. Why should bribing a Senator/Congressman be?
With respect to private property, not sure if you're talking about the recent eminent domain ruling, but absolutely agree there. I was real sorry to see that one, and I hope the SC will have the good sense to reverse itself shortly.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Since the primary objective would be to wipe out the nuclear weapons, the nuclear part is intended to be removed from the equation. The Israeli backup plan probably includes something like "nuke them first"
FYI, we (western civilization) are already fucked. Interestingly enough, going to war with Iraq to rid Saddam was the correct thing to do. We need allies in the Middle East, and we are long over due for it. Fact is, Iran planned on building nuclear weapons long before the Bush and Clinton administrations. Such a fact is even obvious given Iran is setting on one of the world largest oil reserves for domestic energy...let alone the thousands of centrifuges need to make hexafluoride for enriched uranium production.
Basically, if we do nothing, Iran WILL make nuclear weapons and sell them to Islamic fanatics. This is a tactic called "war via proxy". Thus, all the finger pointing goes to terrorists when in fact they are supported by countries like Iran. On the other hand, if the nuclear sites get taken out, it will only embolden the enemy and create a spike in fanatical recruits thus. As for what's left of the sites, nuclear material can still be recovered to make crude fission bombs and/or dirty bombs.
I hate to say it, but we are LIVING in WW3. This is not a war between nations. This is a war between western civilization and religious zealots who refuse to adapt in an ever-changing world. Because they are too far back in culture to adapt, they would rather bring us down than adapt themselves.
Want to know what's really sad? I don't think this could have ever been prevented regardless what actions we could have taken in the past. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Life is not for the lazy.
... because somewhere between 500 and a couple of thousand people with possible / likely connections to terrorists didn't (allegedly) have all of the needed paperwork for proper surveillance filled out by the government?
Paperwork? Paperwork? Paperwork?! That "paperwork" you casually mention is the rule of law that separates us from the land of police-state Do-As-You-Please. There's a difference between being accused of a crime and convicted of one; no matter what the crime, it is never sensible to treat the former group as the latter.
I'm aghast. Are you bloody serious? By you, arresting and holding someone with neither charges nor a warrant is just a paperwork problem? Look at what you've become! If standing behind your president means a casual dismissal of the thin but so, so vital line separating us from rule-by-Kingly fiat... shouldn't that set off some kind of warning sign?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Tell that to Ted Kennedy.
--ryan.
Don't say, "don't quote me," because if no one quotes you, you probably haven't said a thing worth saying.
Horray crypto! Unfortunatly though, the catch 22 of using it to encrypt the content of your communications COULD be that it causes your communications to be flagged by monitors as "interesting". if you have not taken steps to send this encrypted (and now flaggged) content anonomously, you very well may be visited by the "wiretap fairy". Add to this scenerio, your business, finacial, ISP, library, and pr0n subacription recoords will likely be subpoenoed under the (un)Patriot Act" so the monitors can determine if youv'e checked out a book on anthrax, downoaded devient midgit pr0n, and/or made any cash withhdraws or deposits in your account. Even an innocent person could be swept up and sent to Gitmo under this scenerio.