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.'"

Comments

Palpatine loses one

[beforewisdom]

Palpatine loses one:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10496539/

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Kafka_Canada]

Jeez, as soon as a Democrat stops marching in complete lock-step with the Party, all the little rats really turn on him, eh?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[slash-tard]

Probably more a reference to looks than actions.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Kafka_Canada]

All right, fair enough. Although most people who've been comparing Lieberman to evil dictators lately have had a less kind intent.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Kafka_Canada]

Looks like you're right (I figured it was a bit of both). There've been simliar occurences, e.g. Judy Miller, or most other comments on Joe Lieberman.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[the arbiter]

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.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[TallMatthew]

Jeez, as soon as a Democrat stops marching in complete lock-step with the Party, all the little rats really turn on him, eh?

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.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[dabigpaybackski]

Funny, I don't see any mention of Senator Lieberman in that article...

Oh shit. I am so glad I am not the only person to notice the physical (and ideological) similarity.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[AKAImBatman]

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?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[MarkGriz]

"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."

Yes. God forbid a politician think for him or her self, instead of doing what they are told.
It's politicians like Lieberman (not that I'm a big fan) and McCain who stand up for what they believe in *despite* party affiliation that keeps me from losing respect for the political process entirely.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Echnin]

And why was he elected in the first place? because of US military activity and Bush ridiculing the country. Reported on Fox, nonetheless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160070,00.html :

Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you."

Re:Palpatine loses one

[the arbiter]

Please read my post, since you failed to before responding.

I never said that an independent politician was a bad thing. All that I'm saying is that if a politician chooses to cross the will of the majority of their party, they cannot expect that party to continue to support them. Both parties do this.

Frankly, I'd like to see political parties abolished here. They are destroying America. Blue vs. Gray all over again. You'd think we'd have learned from what happened 140+ years ago.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

said the holocaust never happened

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 :P

Re:Palpatine loses one

[killjoe]

I didn't know Lieberman was for occupation of the entire reigon. Personally I have the very odd opionion that US senators should be looking out for the interests of the US not some other country. I don't give a shit if the Iranian president has said bad things about israel. Israel has hundreds of nucklear weapons and a top notch military and is basically immune to any UN resolution because we can block it. They can do whatever they want and do, see a 20 year occupation of millions of people for an example.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[mikapc]

Yes it does, I'm happy to find someone who has a similar point of view. UN is worthless, US is in the Dog House, and Israel is going to have to fight their own wars. That shouldn't be a problem as that tiny nation fended off attacks from multiple nations at once.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[susano_otter]

I think it's a matter of patience.

The domino theory in this case is that a stable democratic regime in Iraq will spread to neighboring regions.

Since a stable democratic regime has not yet been firmly established in Iraq, it's a little early to discuss the success of the domino effect.

Meanwhile, it's natural to expect that factions opposed to the spread of stable democratic regimes will take advantage of this transitional period to do whatever is in their power to prevent the plan from succeeding. For example, perpetrating violent attacks against Iraqi civilians and security forces on a regular basis. Or appointing hard-liners to positions of power in the hopes that their policies will stem the tide (and possibly have a direct influence on the plan).

Re:Palpatine loses one

[ClosedSource]

Actually McCain is walking a fine line between doing what he thinks is right while not making it impossible to get his party's nomination for President. Given the tricks the Bush campaign did to him in the past, when McCain says he supports the President it's 100% political.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

physical resemblance

Come on, now, what could make you think that?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Guppy06]

"Israel will take the threat seriously and bomb the hell out of Iran's caches of missiles and nuclear weapons facilities."

But if they fly over Iraq on their way to Iran without getting shot down, the US gets dragged into it more than usual.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[AKAImBatman]

But if they fly over Iraq on their way to Iran without getting shot down, the US gets dragged into it more than usual.

Most countries have agreements about allowing flyovers of friendly territories. The US would just say that Israel worked out something with the Iraqi government, and feign complete innocence.

Either that, or the Israelis will be flying F-22 stealth fighters with full radar jamming and supercruise capability. In which case you'd never even see them coming.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[ortcutt]

So, he had to occupy a country which wasn't a threat to the US, Iraq, so that he could keep an eye on another country, Iran. That makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the US was already in plenty of other places in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Afghanistan, ...

Re:Palpatine loses one

[MarkGriz]

My reply wasn't necessarily directed exactly toward you, but more of a commentary on the fact thar Republicans have such a term as RINO.
Though you did apply a similar term to Lieberman.

And I'm with you on the political parties issue, though I doubt elminating them entirely will do the trick. Most Americans
wouldn't be able to choose a candidate if they weren't neatly compartmentalized.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

appointing hardliners

I suggest you start with a refresher course on Iran, namely it's government structure (the president is elected, once every four years. It's the chief of state that is appointed (Khamenei). The chief of state in Iran has the role of the president in the US, while the president in Iran has the roles of the heads of the House and the Senate in the US). The electoral trends had been moving more moderate back before the invasion of Iraq, culminating in the election of the very moderate** Khatami and an overwhelmingly moderate legislature. Look at it now :P

** - Moderate in Iran generally means on almost everything we would see as moderate (social reform, democratization, freer trade and better international relations, etc) except the nuclear program. The country's nuclear program is actually something that most hard-liners and even most anti-government youth in Iran agree on - most see it as a double standard that other nations should be allowed nuclear tech but have it forbidden to them, and want to show the world that they're smart enough to develop it. It's highly popular in the country.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

A commentator wrote an article in the Chicago Sun Times this morning that pretty well covered how it's going to go down:

I sort of disagree with this. Obviously if we can't achieve a lasting victory in Iraq, the last thing we want to do is put more troops into Iran and/or Syria. Of course, Iran and Syria know this, so the last thing they want is for us to get a lasting victory in Iraq... So Iran and Syria are using Iraq and its indigenous resistance as a proxy war to keep the US tied down in Iraq and unable to move against them. It is well thought out and we are in serious trouble there as a result.we can't do anything militarily against Iran without making things worse for us.

As for Israel, I am not sure that they have a free hand. We have something called antiboycott laws in this country to prevent US companies from refusing to do business with Israeli companies under these sorts of circumstances, but unofficial boycotts, especially in the EU can cause considerable damage. During the destruction of a part of the Jenin refugee camp a few years ago, such boycotts from the governments of Britain, France, Germany, and Scandinavia sent the Israeli economy to its lowest level in history. So Israel doesn't really have a free hand without major EU countries' blessing in this regard either due in large part to the dependence that they have on the EU for their export markets (mostly small arms and security equipment).

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Kafka_Canada]

I'm sure you have a hard time relating this to your lonely life, but the U.S. has allies, whom it can help protect, as it did with various of its European allies several times over the last century. When there's a nutcase in the neighborhood like Ahmadinejad working away on WMD, it's wise to take the shit out, especially if it's threatening an ally of yours.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Guppy06]

"The US would just say that Israel worked out something with the Iraqi government, and feign complete innocence."

You're humorously short-sighted. If an Israeli attack hits Iran from Iraqi airspace, Iran will cross the border into Iraq.

"Either that, or the Israelis will be flying F-22 stealth fighters with full radar jamming and supercruise capability. In which case you'd never even see them coming."

Stuff blows up. People look up, see planes flying south by southwest. Iranians put 2 and 2 together, invade Iraq.

Heck, that's even worse: it allows the Iranians to assume the planes were US forces.

(By the way, if you're jamming radar, you are the exact opposite of stealth.)

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

How did that post have anything to do with mine? Did you even catch onto the nation of reference which has:

  * 200-400 nuclear weapons, most mated to delivery systems
  * Threated Iraq
  * Threatens Iran

But, lets take the bait anyways. So, the Iraqis gained immensely from our invasion, eh? True. They gained this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[geminidomino]

I don't care if he's Libertarian. He's a fundamentalist

Not that I'm saying he is or isn't either, but those two seem rather contradictory...

Re:Palpatine loses one

[decsnake]

So Iran and Syria are using Iraq and its indigenous resistance as a proxy war to keep the US tied down in Iraq and unable to move against them. It is well thought out and we are in serious trouble there as a result.

gosh, does this ring a bell with anyone? if dubya hadn't spent the entire duration of the vietnam war stoned, he might notice the parallels

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Kafka_Canada]

How did that post have anything to do with mine? Did you even catch onto the nation of reference which has

And I wrote:

You're right -- it takes a retard. Arabs (other than a psychotic despot and his hanger-on thugs) gained by far the most from America's liberation of Iraq, and it's the millions of oppressed Iranian youths who would benefit most from a removal of their illegitimate trolls.

I.e., the "nation of reference" that didn't merely threaten Iraq and threaten Iran but invaded Iraq, made things inconceivably better by doing that supposedly odious thing. Pay the fuck attention.

Anybody can put together a list of links to articles by pacifist morons, but that doesn't really say anything about Iraqis' experience after the invasion. In short, millions of people gained their liberty, and hundreds of thousands avoided the fate that the invasion prevented, hacked and raped and slaughtered by Saddam and his ass-headed thugs.

When you're saying that it's odious to threaten (let alone invade) a country like Baathist Iraq or the current Iran, it sadly reflects that you've somehow taken a serious wrong turn: these jackals terrorize and kill millions of people, literally, and for some reason you still don't get that these monsters are not legitimate heads of countries with rights and all that. You may feel that you're standing up for something nice and peaceful, but you're really just falsely ascribing legitimacy to some of history's most brutal psychopaths.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

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).

Re:Palpatine loses one

[KCRWreck]

Point of information: Lieberman joined his fellow Democrats today and voted against cutting off debate on the renewal of the Patriot Act provisions. As far as being a "Democrat in name only", Lieberman is nowhere near as bad as Zell Miller was.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

I would imagine Israel is a bit more concerned with carrying on existing than with maintaining European trade ties.

Right. Because Iran might, say, annex Israel?

But peace is possible there. Isreal has peace trieties with two of its four neighbors, and these countries have not been historic friends of Israel. Indeed Jordan and Egypt have more of a history of conflict with Israel than Syria or Lebannon. So these treaties were negotiated in order to end wars. Perhaps one day Israel will give back Golan just as they gave back Sinai (to Egypt) in exchange for a lasting peace with Syria. As the conflict with Lebannon usually has Syrian involvement, perhaps that would lead to peace on the Northern border as well.

The reason why you don't have peace on Israel's Northern border is because quite simply Israel sees no need for it. They don't really need peace with Syria. Indeed it seems better for them if they don't have it. After all, if they want to launch an air strike against, say, Iran, they don't want to risk a peace treaty with Jordan, so they can just fly over Syria instead.

Secondly, anyone who has played many war games knows that in the long run, economic power is required to maintain military strength. Israel can't afford to be seen as a rogue state in part because their economy suffers of a number of countries avoid doing business with them. The countries that would have the biggest impact (aside from the US) are the UK, Germany, Norway, Swedan, France, and Turkey. Most of these countries either have a strong emphasis on international law or a substantial part of their population of Middle Eastern origin. So basically Israel doesn't really have a free hand. And if they do, the ineffective UN resolutions won't be much compared to the economic damage of the cancelled arms orders.

Finally I would like to point out that much of the "Israel has to keep fighting or it will be wiped off the map" rhetoric is used in favor of policies that either are being abandoned or have been abandoned in the past. Israel is no longer at war with Egypt or Jordan. Israel is abandoning its claim to Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Guppy06]

"...and meet head on with US forces. Which gives the US a reason to enter the fray without actually entering the fray."

Yay, a three-front war! And one of our enemies has nuclear weapons! What could go wrong with that?

"I seriously doubt it would take very long for Israel to claim responsibility for the attack."

Whether or not it was Israel doesn't matter: if it came from Iraqi airspace, US forces occupying Iraq gave them aid and comfort (by allowing them overflight), making them complicit in the attacks.

"Iran could persecute the US for it, but that would only galvanize US citizens into defending ourselves against "those middle east nuts"."

With all our forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing left to galvanize.

"Iran wouldn't last long under US siege, regardless of our history with the occupation of Iraq."

It's not history, it's current events. We can have soldiers in:

• Afghanistan
• Iraq
• Iran

Pick only two.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Heembo]

... won the battle but not the war.

What I mean is, the debate is still on for this vote - but the pro-patriot act senators were not able to "invoke cloture" and force an immediate vote that would have renewed the patriot act with a simple majority. Cloture was blocked by only 8 senate votes. The "showdown" over renewing the patriot act has really just begun.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

I.e., the "nation of reference" that didn't merely threaten Iraq and threaten Iran but invaded Iraq, made things inconceivably better by doing that supposedly odious thing. Pay the fuck attention.

Wrong. The "nation of reference" didn't invade Iraq, although it did bomb it once during peacetime. Try again.

Hint: The US has many thousands of nuclear warheads, not "200-400".

Re:Palpatine loses one

[commodoresloat]

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.

Odd, then, that he would support the military occupation of Iraq, which has had the effect of ushering in a Shiite-dominated coalition with heavy ties to Iran. One could easily argue that the greatest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been Iran.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Kafka_Canada]

All right, you got me -- but I wasn't really paying attention ;)

At any rate, I thought Ariel Sharon controlled Bush and the cabal of zionist neocons? ;P

OK -- I've admitted my mistake, now let's have a response to the substantial parts, pacifist.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[wsherman]

Brilliant analysis! IMHO, anyway.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[afidel]

McCain will probably never get the nomination, he had his shot and he lost to Karl Rove. He is too old to be a likely candidate. That said, if he does win the primary I will probably cross the line and vote for a Republican for only the second time in my life.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

Anybody can put together a list of links to articles by pacifist morons, but that doesn't really say anything about Iraqis' experience after the invasion. In short, millions of people gained their liberty, and hundreds of thousands avoided the fate that the invasion prevented, hacked and raped and slaughtered by Saddam and his ass-headed thugs.

1) BBC, wikipedia (many media sources ref'ed), human rights watch (which wanted military action to stop the Rwandan genocide), and globalsecurity.org (like Jane's Defense) are "pacificst morons"? What's next, was Stalin a disciple of Ghandi?

2) that doesn't really say anything about Iraqis' experience If you had actually read the articles, you'd have run into one of which was a poll of Iraqis, in which even 70% of Shiites want us out of the country now.

3) hundreds of thousands avoided the fate

And, pray tell, where are the remains of these fantastical numbers of people? Why is it that the same organizations that were cited to list the human rights abuses of Saddam by people like you (Amnesty and Human Rights Watch) are now ignored when they point out that the human rights situation is no better in current day Iraq?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[rthille]

Yay, a three-front war! And one of our enemies has nuclear weapons! What could go wrong with that?

Luckily, we've got a "War President" in Mr. Bush.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[lixee]

Leaving the state of Israel in the middle east is the one thing that guarantees unstability in the region. While I deeply wish that the conflict is solved, I know it's like putting cats and dogs in the same cage. One of the signs of the "rapture" in Islamic culture is the day when the Jews and Muslims get along.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Philip K Dickhead]

Might be. It just means his label is small indication of his contents - and those are vile, no matter the designation.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[BagMan2]

A Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats no less. The truth is that the far-left wing of the Democratic party doesn't really have much power and their ideas are out of the mainstream of American politics. I'd like to see the looney left put together a 'contract with America' list of what they would like to do and see how far it gets them. They would get laughed off the stage. Best keep your filibuster able minority in tact...

Re:Palpatine loses one

[killjoe]

I guess I don't understand why Israel is an ally in the first place. I know we give them anywhere between six to 12 billion a year in aid (more then the entire budget of NASA) but I don't see what we get out of this alliance.

Anyway I am all for defending allies IF THEY NEED IT. Israel does not need our assistance in killing arabs. They are very efficient at it and have been doing it for decades now. We give them arms, they kill arabs with them. If the UN tries to sanction them then we veto the amendment. I think that should be enough don't you? I mean do we really have to go and invade countries for them too?

Where do you draw the line on this? I certainly resent spending 100 billion dollars a year occupying Iraq and I don't want to double that to occupy Iran too all because the president doesn't like Israel.

Finally I should also point out that plenty of people in the knesset have called for genocide against the palestenians, how come we didn't invade Israel when they did that?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

No, because Iran seems desparate to run yet another dumb suicidal war. This time with more serious consequences? Who knows, but hopefully the free world will ignore its pacifists soon enough to avert the need for massive bloodshed, mostly among innocent young Iranians.

Well, Iran is a country full of contraditions. Of the Middle Eastern countries, they have the strongest democratic institutions. They are also ruled by an unelected judiciary called the Council of Guardians. The Council of Guardians is sort of like our Supreme Court on steroids-- they are supposed to be the final arbiters of the law, but they have active executive powers which allow them to do things like put members of parliament in prison for saying they are too powerful (they have their own army too).... Iran could become, with a little help, a rising star of democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, less help would be required in Iran than is required at the moment in Iraq. Indeed Iran may already be on the road to real democracy, while Iraq may be on the road to becomming another Iran.

For better or worse, the current President in Iraq probably beat Rafsanjani fair and square (whether he would have beat any of the other reformist candidates that were barred from the election is an open question). He was elected largely in response to the perception that Rafsanjani was a representative of the corrupt government that Iranians had come to know. Note that Rafsanjani didn't help matters much when he tried to buy votes.... Iranians didn't vote for him because they wanted a hard-liner in international politics. They didn't want someone anti-reformist. They elected this guy as a reformer who could hopefully root out the corruption in the executive.

But if history is any indication, one should not trust in the appearance of politicians. Just as Bush is likely more intelligent than he lets on, so too are hard liners often more reasonable behind closed doors. One is reminded of the serious negotiations that Netenyahu undertook with Assad which involved a proposal to give back most or all of the Golan in exchange for a peace treaty with Syria. These negotiations went on in secret until Sharon publicized them as a way of trying to bring down that administration. Similarly Sharon was negotiating in secret over the autonomy of the Palestinians until Netenyahu decided that turnaround was to be considered fair play.

Iranian democracy today is undergoing some severe tests and we will not know for the next few years what the result of the discussions within the judiciary and deocratic parties will be. I am not inclined to close the book on the reformist movement just yet. Indeed the fact that their candidates have been repeatedly banned by the CoG suggestes that they are considered to be a bigger threat than might otherwise meet the eye.

It is also worth noting that Rafsanjani, while more soft spoken on foreign policy matters has been a big proponant of Iran's nuclear energy program. So I am hardly convinced that we would not be having this discussion if he had won.

As for Israeli military action--- the last time Israel threatened to go to war was against Lebannon around the time that our Congress gave W the authorization to use military force (the issue was over water rights). Israel is very predictable in these matters, and I am not sure that Iran fits their target profile. First you don't have an environment where a single air strike would be effective and secondly Iran is neither infringing on Israeli water rights nor are they ammassing troops for a likely imminant attack.

I have followed many of these stories for a long time and Ha'aretz is probably one of the best sources of news wrt Israel.

Finally--- Only in Israel can a known leader (Yitzack Shameer) of a banned terrorist organization (The Stern Gang) with pro-Nazi sympathies (I am not making this up-- their correspondance with the German Embassy in Beiruit is very telling) become Prime Minister and later Foreign Minister a few decades later. So Israel is no easier to figure out than Iran. Once you actually start to get a sense of how each country works, the paradoxes become apparent and one realizes how little one knows.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[AKAImBatman]

Yay, a three-front war! And one of our enemies has nuclear weapons! What could go wrong with that?

1. 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".

2. Afganistan and Iraq are not wars. An occupation isn't the same thing as a war. Very few of our high-tech resources are actually in use at the moment. At least some ground troops can be redeployed as necessary. We can actually pull out of those two countries without exposing to the US to any immediate threats.

3. To have a war on three fronts, you have to have three fronts. These three countries are right next to each other. We'd actually be consolidating two fronts into one, allowing us to better deploy our resources. Plus, we can hit Iran from both sides if we need to.

Whether or not it was Israel doesn't matter: if it came from Iraqi airspace, US forces occupying Iraq gave them aid and comfort (by allowing them overflight), making them complicit in the attacks.

You know, you're acting as if we should actually be worried about the retalitory ability of Iran. That has never been much of a concern. Pretty much the highest tech stuff they have are 30 year old F-14s which have been serviced only through deals with Russia. (Which were probably disrupted by the fall of the Soviet Union.) Iran doesn't have a chance in hell of standing up to Israel, much less the US. That's why nuclear weapons are important to them.

With all our forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing left to galvanize.

I wasn't aware that all of the US Citizens were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Silly me, I thought I was talking about galvanizing public opinion against Iran. Right now public opinion is pretty low due to the issues with occupying Iraq.

It's not history, it's current events. We can have soldiers in:

        * Afghanistan
        * Iraq
        * Iran

Pick only two.

Why? Pick only two, that is. We have more than enough resources to wage war. We just don't have enough resources to occupy Iran. Which would be a bad idea anyway. (No dictators being overthrown, or anything else like that.) There's no real reason why we can only have two. Especially if we can consolidate our theater of operations.

BTW, on the F-22, you may find this bit of interest:

In mock combat the F-22 Raptor showed that it would be a very effective fighter, taking on up to eight F-15s at once and easily winning. In one well publicized incident, an F-15 pilot flying against the Raptor located his F-22 adversary only after the Raptor flew directly over his cockpit. In real combat this pilot would probably be dead, as the Raptor's pilot had no trouble locating and locking on to the F-15 with his powerful radar.

I gotta get me one of those! ;-)

Re:Palpatine loses one

[bhiestand]

The movement is based on the goal of bringing about the return of the 12th Imam by creating chaos on Earth

Great, he'll get along well with the christians then. Just replace "12th Imam" with "Jesus #2".

Re:Palpatine loses one

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[dscruggs]

Israel will take the threat seriously and bomb the hell out of Iran's caches of missiles and nuclear weapons facilities.

Unfortunately that probably won't work, as was detailed in this war game simulation put on by the Atlantic last year. Here's the salient quote:

What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal--but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

Iran is run by kooks, but surely they're smart enough not to put everything in one place like Iraq did.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[drivekiller]

You know, you're acting as if we should actually be worried about the retalitory ability of Iran. That has never been much of a concern. Pretty much the highest tech stuff they have are 30 year old F-14s which have been serviced only through deals with Russia. (Which were probably disrupted by the fall of the Soviet Union.) Iran doesn't have a chance in hell of standing up to Israel, much less the US. That's why nuclear weapons are important to them. You seem to think it's about technology. I certainly don't. It's about time and attention. If US gets into it in enough places, it's only about exhaustion of US resources and/or willingness to continue. I'll wager that most Americans consider themselves reasonable, fair-minded, peaceful, 'minding-my-own-business' people. It doesn't really matter if not much is going on in a war of attrition. The simple fact that US has to attend to a bunch of different "fronts' (and I use that term loosely) could bring it all down in time. Or did you forget that we keep lowering taxes, and Bush's approval rating continues to go down. Bush's term will end, and with luck, the next president will be able to salvage some credibility and stop us from eating our children. ( that's a metaphor, ok)

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Peaceful_Patriot]

As a Democrat, I can say that McCain is the only Republican I would consider voting for. He consistantly stands up for what he believes in, regardless of the party line. I used to feel similarly toward Colin Powell, but he turned out to be just another polititian when he lied to the American People and the world about WMDs, knowing full well it was a lie. The fact that McCain is considered a Republican in name only is a big plus as far as I am concerned.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[raoul666]

The one thing I don't understand is if you don't agree with a bunch of the policies of a party, why the heck are you in it to begin with?

I wish there were more independents. And more parties. More choice than just between red and blue.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[arminw]

.....As for Israel, I am not sure that they have a free hand.....

If Israel's choice comes down to being pushed into the sea or getting nuked into oblivion by Iran or any of the other enemies wanting to exterminate the Jewish state, any other measures, any other country, or all countries on Earth put together are not going to prevent them from doing whatever is neccessary to survive. If that means, in desperation, they have to use nukes first, they will. What the aftermath of such actions will be for the world as a whole is hard to fathom, but it could be the trigger for a world wide depression at best and WW3 at worst.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Zhe Mappel]

Yes. God forbid a politician think for him or her self, instead of doing what they are told. It's politicians like Lieberman (not that I'm a big fan) and McCain who stand up for what they believe in *despite* party affiliation that keeps me from losing respect for the political process entirely.

I'm all for pols thinking for themselves, including Mr. Lieberman. If only he would! Throughout his predictable and mind-numbing career, he has taken his cues from two brain trusts: the defense industry and the American puritan tradition. That's obedience, and it's admirable in a dog. But it isn't thinking.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[arminw]

.....Imagine that Israel changed its name to something neutral like "Harmonia", renounced all racial, religious and ethnic discrimination entirely.....

One basic question is: "What makes a Jew a Jew?" Is it where he/she was born? Is it their religion? Is it race or ethnicity? Is it the language they speak? What differentiates a Jew in New York, Moscow, from one in Jerusalem or London? What is the one thing Jews all over the Earth have in common? If it is not their religion, what is it? When Jews all over the world celebrate their sacred Passover, what is one phrase that has been for centuries and still is almost always uttered? Next Year In Jerusalem! It is for this reason, that there can be not other place on this planet as the homeland of these people, other than the place where the city of Jerusalem is located. There many disagreements in Jewish politics today, but there is one thing wherein there is universal agreement. Jerusalem! This is the city where their ancient kings ruled and it will never be ceded again to any other power, nation or people. The ancient prophecies of the Jewish scriptures predict that the final war of human history will be fought over Jerusalem. It is called the battle of Armageddon, named for a valley just north of that city, where all nations of the world will come to do battle.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[MechaStreisand]

Don't expect her to respond. Look at her posts here: she almost seems to root for the insurgents, doesn't she? I think she's more of an America-hater than a pacifist.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Omkar]

Corroborating evidence for these kindler, gentler genocides?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Grym]

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?

A big difference. Simply glossing over the sheer size and malevolence of the holocaust like you're doing is misguided. The holocaust was probably the most despicable act a group of men has ever done to others. We should never forget this. (And, no, I am not Jewish.)

What you're doing is a weak attempt at moral relativism. It's no wonder you don't want to bother with numbers. You want to draw parallels between, for instance, sterilization programs that affected hundreds and the systematic torture and execution of millions--that's ridiculous.

It troubles me that nobody else has objected to your post. And yet, somehow I'm not surprised. This type of reasoning is frequently used to equate the United States to any and every evil entity that ever existed. So popular is this type of reasoning is that "Bush is a Nazi" actually turns up MORE results (with or without the quotes) in google than "Hitler was a Nazi." This is, of course, despite the fact that Hitler actually WAS a Nazi.

The end result of this isn't what you think. Always dredging up every failure of one's own when discussing the unrelated evils of others doesn't lead to a cosmopolitan, enlightened view of the world. Rather, it diffuses any sense of morality entirely. A moral stance becomes impossible to hold when being apparently accountable for comparable acts of ancestors from hundreds of years ago.

Put simply, your type of analysis is a contrarian point of view that adds little to the discussion. Did anyone actually forget about the atrocities against Native Americans? Do we need to be reminded that--yes-- those too were evil?

Know your history, yes, but at least keep things in perspective.

-Grym

Re:Palpatine loses one

[h3llfish]

Being a RINO or DINO is just a cynical ploy to appeal to the moderate swing voters who decide elections. The party faithful on both sides have already made up their minds, long before the election. Appealing to the center is the key. Both McCain and Lieberman have come a lot closer to the presidency than most politicians, and both still have a shot at reaching the nation's top post.

I'm not saying that either one of them is Satan, but what they are is politicians, and successful ones at that. I don't hate the player, but the game pretty much stinks. In order to make it to the top, politicians absolutely must whore themselves and compromise their ideals. I applaude McCain for working to minimize the influence that money has on elections, but nevertheless, he has to exist in the current system, and so he is dirty.

If McCain was really "free thinker" he'd have opposed extending the Patriot Act. Or if he was a real free thinker, he'd have voted against it in the first place. But no, he and almost all of the rest of the Senate got swep up in a wave of post-9/11 panic, and voted for an unconstitutional law. Oh yeah, they're a regular bunch of Tom Paine's, our Senate.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[ajole]

Actually, alaska wouldn't work too well, either. We'd rather remain in the limelight purley for our controversial use of natural resources. I don't think we could handle cultural (especially religious) problems, too.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Dobeln]

Heh - all it takes is for one of the Islamics to let a wayward comment slip, and the "Liberals" (I.e. Socialists in normal parlance) on Slashdot are falling over themselves to offer upp excuses and defenses. Brothers in arms indeed. (Is this perhaps why Liberals reach their peak levels of indignation when fretting over "abuse" of poor innocent Islamic terrorists? Dunno.)

It really does surprise me though that the pro-Islamic fervor among the Liberals has reached such a peak that even the bastion of Liberalism in the United States, the Jewish community, isn't safe. Suddenly, Slashdot is alive with "But hey, everyone is doing Holocaust denial these days", and "Well, but the United States did destroy the social cohesion of the native americans".

Finally, Bush did not "back spying on Americans", he backed spying on Arab traitors. Luckily it seems to be trendy these days to prosecute national security leaks (even to the point of prosecuting the legal ones!), so hopefully whatever Liberal of dubious loyalty leaked this one will be found out and arrested swiftly.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Lord of the Wazz]

What did they spell wrongly? Or am I missing something?

Re:Palpatine loses one

[pinkocommie]

Sorry but this is BS (nothing could have been done differently). The spike in fanatics came about in the CIA-Afghan-USSR war where they were trained on how to become more effective killers without any thought to the aftereffects. Additionally recent actions have only worsened the situation. Look at the elections in Pakistan after the Afghan invasion, for the first time in its history fanatic theological parties won significant victories including a majority in the province bordering Afghanistan. Same for Iran, instead of encouraging liberalizing trends (Khatami) the end result achieved by ostracizing Iran resulted in another fanatic regime coming into power. As another post mentioned the Irani Spy Chief saying (not sure of the validity) 'Thank you' to the US

Re:Palpatine loses one

[matfud]

Talk about self fulfilling prophecies.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Cirvam]

This is the city where their ancient kings ruled and it will never be ceded again to any other power, nation or people.

Yes and the Native Americans have stories about where they ruled over and such, should we give them back control of North America since their people ruled over it at one point?

The English ruled over a massive empire at one point, should they put it back together just because they had it?

Why do we follow some ancient prophecies when we ignore others? Why not just make the city an independent state, with a non religious goverment governed by the UN or something. That way everyone has equal access to the city (something that I belive the three religions have fought over for a few thousand years) Sure they wouldn't be ruleing over it but that's true around the world.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[arminw]

.....Why not just make the city an independent state.....

There is NO power on Earth nor all the powers of Earth put together that can or will make that happen. Read Psalm 2 and pay special attention to verse 6.

The world's attempt to force this, WILL result in the final war of which the last battle will take place in the valley just north of Jerusalem. Nobody yet knows WHEN this will be, but before the 1948 formation of the state of Israel and the 1967 annexation of Jerusalem, the possibility of this has not existed, but it does now.

Whether you or anybody else likes it or not, we humans are not the creators nor the owners of the Earth. The Owner, Landord, if you will, has told us about it in advance. He has said that this final time will worse for all humanity than any other period of time, before or afterwards. If HE did not intervene, humanity would be wholly exterminated. Read what Jesus told us in Mattew 24 and pay special attention to verses 21&22. You can scoff at this, but it WILL happen, as sure as the sun come up in the east. You think you are in charge of your destiny, but that is an illusion.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

What is really scary is that gene therapy/genetic engineering are just new terms to describe eugnenics. Scientists now (of course) argue that eugenics was/is a pseudo-science but that gene therapy/genetic engineering are "real" sciences. Either way, the goal is the same and, IMO, is a worrisome one.

Actually, if you want to see something chilling, the Nazi symbol used to denote their eugenics program is that same snow-flake-like symbol we see on the back of practically every ambulance in this country. It is derived from the Armanen Hagall rune.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

What you're doing is a weak attempt at moral relativism. It's no wonder you don't want to bother with numbers. You want to draw parallels between, for instance, sterilization programs that affected hundreds and the systematic torture and execution of millions--that's ridiculous.

Hardly. My concepts of ethics are based on systemics. Hence the numbers don't matter-- the system is either good or bad. In the case of the death camps, my point is that we protect ourselves from the true horrors by saying that it was something that happened to one other group of people. Unfortunately in so doing, we allow statements like those made by the Pres. of Iran. to resonate with his people.

If we attempted to look into the system of the death camps and understand how it fit into the way the Nazis went about their business, then we might be able to arrive at a better, truer understanding that would prevent these sorts of reactionary statements.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

It really does surprise me though that the pro-Islamic fervor among the Liberals has reached such a peak that even the bastion of Liberalism in the United States, the Jewish community, isn't safe. Suddenly, Slashdot is alive with "But hey, everyone is doing Holocaust denial these days", and "Well, but the United States did destroy the social cohesion of the native americans".

Actually, I will direct you to my original post. What I said was that the view we have of the holocaust is not accurate in part because we take a part of it (the Jewish experience) and omit many other parts (in particular the Volkishe persecutions). To me the arguments against the existance of the death camps or against the horrors there are hollow because they rely on assuming that the numbers matter rather than the general system. Instead, if we look at what happened and how it fit together with everything else, we can build a picture that is more clear, true, and robust.

My point about the Gypsies is that culturally, they were far more heavily damaged than the Jews were. So if we are to look at how successful an attempt to get rid of a group was, the Germans were far more successful at getting rid of the Gypsies than the Jews.

Note I am not supporting the President of Iran in these statement. I just see them as inevitable based on the way in which the narritive of the death camps have evolved (I don't use the term Holocaust here because this term may be argued to relate specifically to the Jewish experience which though a valid part, is only a part of the whole picture).


Finally, Bush did not "back spying on Americans", he backed spying on Arab traitors. Luckily it seems to be trendy these days to prosecute national security leaks (even to the point of prosecuting the legal ones!), so hopefully whatever Liberal of dubious loyalty leaked this one will be found out and arrested swiftly.

Go back and carefully read the news stories. The NSA has previously been barred from intercepting communications of US persons (nationals and residents). What the Bush Administration did was change this so that they essentially had world-wide surveilance permission without regard to the nationality or residency of those they were spying on. So yes, he signed an order authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans. Whether or not one considers this to be "backing" the spying on Americans is another question, but I would say that if he didn't back the practice, he shouldn't have signed the executive order.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[jZnat]

The non-American English usage of 's' instead of 'z' in words that typically end in -ze (or -se) before being conjugated.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Rei]

I had already responded by the time you wrote your post, gifted child.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Cirvam]

Erm, you do relize what the term independent state means? It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the socio-political organization of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia was just Arabia until the early 1900s when the Saudi family was instilled as the leaders. It is the same sort of organization. So if the UN would create a city and dictate that no nation would have control over its politics, then that would be an independent state. This doesn't mean that all the people of various religions would be kicked out, just that every one may be treated pretty equally. Heck reading your post literally it seems to indicate that if Jerusalem wasn't part of Israel then we would never have to worry about the end of the world.

He has said that this final time will worse for all humanity than any other period of time, before or afterwards. If HE did not intervene, humanity would be wholly exterminated.

So...if he is going to invervene why make humanity go through such horrors? Seems a might bit sadistic. Like having someone beat an animal until it was near death then "saving" it...when you could have stopped it from the beginning.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[arminw]

......So...if he is going to invervene why make humanity go through such horrors.....

All humans have to finally believe it what He has been telling us and what the humn race has demonstrated for as long as there are historical records, summed up best by the prophet Jeremeiah - 17:9

Humans have not and cannot live in peace with each other and have amply demostrated this throughout all of history. There have always been and are still those who say that people are inherently good and can rule their lives and the planet without their Creator, directly contradicting what God tells us in many other places of his word to us. We were made to live in harmony with His creation and under the loving guidance of God, but universally have rejected His ways and by unbelief gone our own way of rebellion against His authority. Because of this rebellion, death, eternal separation from all that is good, God Himself, is the inevitable result.

God left the eternal dimensions and came as a little baby, entered time and space, limited Himself to the same limitations we humans live under. Soon we will once again be celebrating this event, where He, Jesus, the Lord of the Universe entered our World, born in a lowly stable. He grew up to show what God had in mind when he created Man in His own image, living in close communion with and under the power of God. He was the only man who could challenge His enemies to prove even ONE wrong thing He had done.

As representatives of all of humanity, the Jews, right there in the city of Jerusalem, turned Jesus over to the Roman Government to be crucified. He suffered the fate that awaits every human: separation from God. However, because this God-Man Jesus never sinned, He could not remain dead, but conquered humanity's worst enemy, death itself. Not just physical death, but eternal death, separation from God and all that is good.

Right now, in our world, there is both good and evil, love and hate, inextricably intertwined. Every invention and technology is used both in helpful and harmful ways. The terrible weapons that exist now, have made it possible for mankind to wipe itself out. God is going to allow humanity to get to the very brink of extinction, so we, more stubborn than a mule, rebellious humans, will finally understand that we are incapable of living independently from Him, our Creator.

This mixing of good and evil in one world will not always be. There eventually will be two places, totally and eternally separate. One will be where there is nothing evil, called heaven, and another, called hell, where there will be nothing good.

Until then He, Jesus, offers to every person who BELIEVES peace with God and life with Him, now and beyond the grave. Your choice to believe or not will determine in which of the two places you will finally end up. The choice is up to you, based on faith.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Cirvam]

But if we don't have free will (as you previously stated) and he knows and controls every choice and decision that we make, then making us belive in him seems to be irrelevent since he can just force us all to belive in him and we will think we chose that due to our illusion of free will.
Since he knows every choice and can control the decisions and thoughts we have, then we can't really rebel from his authority since he is in charge no matter what. That means that this whole end of world scenerio where millions of people die is totally useless since in order for us all to belive he has to set that in our heads, which he could do to everyone at once and therefore skip all of the horrors and such. Therefore since we don't have free will and are controlled by him, he can avoid the whole destruction of the world thing unless he wants to see his creations die, which would be mighty sadistic.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[sumdumass]

What needs to be done is language added that completley restrict the usage of these provisions to terror suspects and related mater of national security.

That or just get rid of the patriot act all together and work out each change indevidualy. I like the idea of having a temporay measure that has a sunset clause built fiorectly into it. The design is exactly whats going on right now. Debate to see if it is still relevent!

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Heembo]

Frankly, this country was founded on the basis of checks and balances that the Patriot act completely wipes away. I see this to be an UN-patriotic act, myself.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[sumdumass]

I think I will have to would agree. The only patriot thing about this is the sediment they were trying to push onto the public.

Politicians tend to have too much of a knee jerk reaction when something happens or the right people start screeming "somethign needs to be done about this". We have too many laws that were nothing more then an attempt to prove we either care about something or are doing something. I would bet alot of our problem could be cured if every law had a sunset clause like the patriot act. If it needed to be permanent then maybe after three renewals with plenty of dicusion, we could allow it to be placed permently onto the books.

Of course that might stop anything at all from gettign acomplished. But it is easier to change a law being purposed then one already in place. Having to renew them might make the laws more effective in the long run.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Minna Kirai]

techniques were employed to destroy the Native Americans as a cohesive social unit. These incldued some forced sterilizations,

Congratulations! You included such a blatant giveaway that your post was just confused/imaginary rantings, and still sucked many people into taking you seriously! Nice job.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Minna Kirai]

Hardly. My concepts of ethics are based on systemics. Hence the numbers don't matter-- the system is either good or bad.

Therefore you can only function successfully in a monochrome world were everybody is 100% good or 100% evil. A single shade of gray, and you become unable to cope rationally.

I wonder how you bank account is doing, as someone who doesn't believe numbers matter!

Re:Palpatine loses one

[arminw]

.....Therefore since we don't have free will and are controlled by him.....

Every argument about free will or controlled destiny I have ever heard always revolves around the idea of time, time that is in the sense that we know it, past, present and future, the linear sort of time we now experience. If we project our time sense on God, who created time, just as part of everything else, it creates the dilemna theologians and philosophers have argued and written scholarly tomes on.

The God of the Bible inhabits eternity, (Isaiah 57:15) outside of time. The reason God made man in His own image is to have communion and community with someone much like Himself. The foundational truths go back to the creation of man.

In Genesis 1:26 we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion...."

The two words "image" and "likeness" are distinct Hebrew words. The former is akin to the image indelibly stamped on a coin. In the life of the coin, the image may get scratched, but it is still usually easily recognizable even after being in circulation a long time. Every human still bears this image and it manifests itself in our own creativity, appreciation for beauty, an innate sense of justice and the universal, otherwise unexplainable urge to worship, religion and sense of longing for a reality higher than every day life. That is why God prohibits murder; people are of value as His creatures.

The second word, "likeness" is immediately followed by the "dominion" which means authority to act as a representative of the one who grants the authority -- in this case God. Jesus gave us little glimpse of the kind of authority over nature man was given, when He calmed the wind and waves - to the great astonishment of those who witnessed this "miracle".

However, in order for anyone to be entrusted with authority, they themselves must recognize the authority they are under. So God gave man a little test, as to whether this creature would be WILLING to submit to the final authority and governance of God. Because that first Man did not submit to God's authority, he was no longer fit to be in God's presence and also became unable to govern this planet. Man has been and still is at odds with God's Earth and with one another. Man lost the "likeness" of God, the ability to act as God does on His behalf.

My previous post outlined in a basic way, what God did about mankind's predicament.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[einhverfr]

Therefore you can only function successfully in a monochrome world were everybody is 100% good or 100% evil. A single shade of gray, and you become unable to cope rationally.

Why do you say that? A system that leads to evil is a flawed system. I don't really believe in evil in the cosmic Judeo-Christian sense. Instead, I think that there is just a tendency towards barbarism and simple-mindedness in our societies that leads to such attrocities.

Think of it this way--- every government is a huge machine not unlike our bioshpere. The ideal purpose of this machine is to run society in a just manner, thus ensuring that the society as a machine runs properly, and protect it against external threats. I would suggest re-reading Plato's "Republic" to see where I am coming from here (note that Republic is an interesting thought experiement-- many of the specifics such as censorship might have worked for that albeit limited experiment but become flawed when applied to a real system without the limitations of merely exporing the concept of justice).

In this way of looking at things, the horrific nature of so many aspects of WWII from the Nazi death camps to the horrific firebombing of Tokyo to bombing runs (of conventional munitions) after the unconditional surrender of Japan was aggreed to all represent a breakdown in the fundamental role of the ruling principle wrt the building and maintenance of society and the restraint of that barbaric nature that exists within every culture known to man. It is thus within this framework that I was looking at the death camps.

By mere numbers, Mao and Stalin were both worse than the Nazis. The Chinese Communist Party today estimates that twenty million (!) Chinese were exterminated by Chairman Mao, and one can expect the actual numbers to be a bit higher as Mao is not entirely in disfavor yet by the Chinese Communist Party. And while the Nazis may have appeared to be more professional at it, the main reason why we associate them with evil in the way we do is simply because we fought against them in a major war in a way we did not even do against China (Korea didn't involve an all out war against China).

But the fact remains that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler had remarkably similar systems of social control, and what makes the death camps so horribly evil (in the systemic sense) is that they had no redeaming qualities. While the Nazis as a whole were among the first government to recognize the health dangers of asbestos and ban it as a construction material, and so they had a few minor redeaming qualities, the death camps as a whole had no major function other than the control over the German populace and a eugenics program designed to please the nationalist wing of the party. In essence, they were like the gulags but with a decided bend towards ethnic cleansing. The idea that certain groups would be made examples of in order to ensure the general control over the population is to my mind horrific beyond belief.

What I have been saying all along is that we have largely invented a view of the death camps which is designed to minimize the truth. The Holocaust as we know it, as a crime against humanity motivated solely by the hate of the NSDAP party leaders did not happen. The reality is actually quite a bit *bigger* than our history books are willing to admit. And in reality *every* citizen of the Third Reich was a victim directly or indirectly of this system. It was a crime against the entire citizenry of the Third Reich motivated mostly out of political ambition by the senior party leaders. The Jews were not mere scapegoats. They were supposed to be *examples.* In other words, this was not mindless slaughter.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[True Grit]

Hi, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Republicans go much further than just making up names for those who don't stay in sync with their goosestepping rhythm. The Republican party has been funding TV attack ads against one of their own members, Sen. Chafee, in the northeast (RI? not sure). Under Delay's reign, it was common knowledge that the Republicans would threaten their own members with defunding or even guaranteeing that the member would see an RNC funded opponent in that member's next primary election if they didn't vote the party line.

Did you really think that all those Republicans in the House voted the same way every time on those controversial issues because they all truly believed in the Party line? Both Republicans and Democrats didn't call Tom Delay "the Hammer" just because of his personality... Although the iron control of Tom Delay is gone, in the House of Reps, the Republicans are still more of an elite para-military unit which ruthlessly punishes disloyalty, than a poltical party of like-minded, but independent, individuals.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[True Grit]

The fact that McCain is considered a Republican in name only

Its only the frothing-at-the-mouth right wing of the Republican party that actually believes he's not a conservative. In every major category, his bona fides are true-blue (true-red?) conservative. McCain himself has joked about Democrats who claim to like him not really knowing who he is. I've always admired his independence, but now that he's defending Bush's illegal actions authorizing spying on Americans without any judicial oversight, I could never vote for him.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[True Grit]

The one thing I don't understand is if you don't agree with a bunch of the policies of a party, why the heck are you in it to begin with?

There's only one independent in the House of Reps, and none in the Senate, and its been that way for decades. Why? Mainly becuase of money (most essential asset needed to run a competitive race), but even the millionaires and billionaires usually join one of the parties. The one lone exception (Perot) only managed to act as a spoiler, not a real contender. So why virtually no independents? Answer: DUOPOLY.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[True Grit]

I'd like to see the looney left put together a 'contract with America' list of what they would like to do and see how far it gets them.

They'd get a lot farther than a "Contract on America" from the "looney" right....

Hey, one silly remark using meaningless rhetoric deserves another. :)

Re:Palpatine loses one

[BagMan2]

The Republican "Contract with America" was enormously popular and caused the largest shift in the congress ever, with it swinging from Democratically control to Republican control for the first time in 40+ years. The numbers largely show that the agenda layed out in the plan had broad popular appeal. I don't think a similar left wing agenda would be nearly as well received.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Minna Kirai]

The Republican "Contract with America" was enormously popular and caused the largest shift in the congress ever

That's analogous to a contract-employee claiming success on a project just because he got paid, without looking at whether or not the job was actually finished

The Republican "Contract with America" was enormously popular and caused the largest shift in the congress ever

Oh, it succeeded at getting a punch of Republicans elected- but hasn't even made a dent in the actual goals. The largest element of the CwA was the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which would have mandated a balanced budget- and yet, President Bush is now out there creating the least balanced budgets in any recorded history.

(Cynically, if they HAD achieved the goals, then the problems would be solved, and the Republican candidates would have fewer platforms to run on today)

Re:Palpatine loses one

[Minna Kirai]

I feel like typing a quicky introduction to Duverger's Law.

The one thing I don't understand is if you don't agree with a bunch of the policies of a party, why the heck are you in it

Have you asked yourself why there are only 2 real parties in the USA to begin with? After all, it can't be that everybody's opinions on a bunch of topics just randomly happen to fall into only 2 separate groups.

If people joined parties solely because of agreement on the issues, then there'd be 5+ parties, some of them in almost total agreement with each other except in a few issues.

But then, how would such parties fare in elections? The USA has a winner-takes-all system, where 51% votes means total victory, and 49% has lost exactly as strongly as 1%. Two roughly-similar parties will split the vote on issues that they agree on, meaning they will lose to a solo party, even if their position had more total voters!

To avoid splitting their vote in the future, those parties must combine. It's the only way to win on their points of agreement, although it means accepting a truce on the issues where they differ.

The natural process of struggling to win elections automatically leads to all 3rd-place and lesser parties to join one of the top two. Over time, the political scene will collapse into just two effective groups.

The only way to prevent that kind of optimization is to use a non-winner-take-all election style, such as a government formed proportionately from vote totals.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[BagMan2]

It's not a function of whether they achieved their goals or not, it's a function of whether the agenda they proposed is what Americans really want, and clearly it is. Also, there is only so much the House of Representatives can do. The House passed every element of contract, but the Senate (which at the time was controlled by the Democrats) prevented much of the legislation from becoming law. And President Clinton blocked some of it as well.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[PHPfanboy]

Yeah, we've got a big community of them here in Israel. They have beautiful gardens in Haifa (open to public, definitely worth a visit). They also seem to be nice, tolerant peace-loving people which I'm guessing is why they didn't get on so well with most of our neighbours.

Re:Palpatine loses one

[True Grit]

Also, there is only so much the House of Representatives can do.

Yea, all those pesky checks and balances tend to get in the way, don't they? I suppose that's why the House Reps have instituted the "martial law" rule (which revokes all previous standing rules the current majority objects to) and the Senate Reps continue to threaten to go nuclear (probably will with Alito nomination). Funny how the Dems, which held control of both Houses for about a 20 year period never thought to do either of those things. Maybe because those 2 things just sound so... undemocratic... ya' think?

Hint: I didn't necessarily have a problem with Newt's Reps, some of their goals, like fiscal discipline, I agreed with, its the current batch of Neo-fascist conservatives that I have a real problem with. The Dems went so far to the left back then that Newt could put together a platform moderate enough to appeal to a majority. I responded to your statement because I now believe the same situation exists again, but in reverse. This time it'll be the Dems that put together a moderate and very popular "contract" that they'll use against the Reps in the next 2 election cycles with great success because Bush has given the Dems all the ammo they need.

In other words, your rhetoric, and your apparent belief that today's Rep Party's issue positions are still popular are both desperately out-of-date, IMO. The "looney left" is not nearly as insane and scary-looking as the "looney right" has now become, and today's Rep Party now holds many positions that are the exact opposite from the Rep Party of the 1980's. So the Dems will offer the country just what Newt did: a smaller, less intrusive, and less corrupt government, a government that really represents ordinary Americans and not the rich/corporations/lobbyists/special interests, not to mention a government which actually obeys the laws of the land and respects the Constitution. That doesn't sound at all wacky to me.... and given the latest news about warrantless spying, its a contract I'd sign in a New York City second.

Wow, there's a shocker.

[Skyshadow]

Whoa, wait: President Bush abusing his power? No, you've got to be kidding me. I can't believe it. After all, this is the guy who *wanted* to help New Orleans but just couldn't because of those darn rules maybe being in the way.

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.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand criticizing the president for not bringing troops into New Onleans, particularly if you don't like him.

It seems to me that if you believe that Bush does habitually abuse his power, you would be especially supportive of a law that prevents him from using the military in that way.

One day the military are brought in during an emergency to serve as a temporary police force without following proper legal procedure, the next day they're brought in during an "emergency" to "gaurd" polling places.

The particular law governing the use of the military as a police force has been around since Lincoln, and for good reason.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Onan]

First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore...

Sadly, they appear to have, at least for the moment, found a way around such onerous strictures as that expectation that we behave like human beings. McCain's bill mandates that all US interrogations conform to the methods laid out in the Army field manual.

Given that it appears to be passing unvetoably, the Pentagon has simply changed the manual.

And declared the new version classified.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[MindStalker]

Your convientantly ignoring the part about monitoring "international" communicaitons. You really don't have an expectation of secrecy when making an international call.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[_KiTA_]

Unfortuantely, President Bush has proven quite well that the Republicans are anything BUT the party of responsibility -- be it Personal Responicibility, Financial Responsibility, Military Responsibility, what have you.

Sad thing is, as much as the Republican PR machine would like you to to believe otherwise, the Democrats have been the party of at least financial responsibility for quite some time. Military Responsibility too, unfortunately -- at least the Democrats haven't sent people off to war with no plan other than "sit tight for a few years, we'll think of something."

What I don't get is why the people in the Republican party who really do have morals and ethics don't speak out against the path that Bush, Rove, and Cheney are taking their party down. It's clearly a complete 180 from where they're claiming to be. An ethical person coming out and saying "Ok, I don't care what Bush says, he's NOT a Republican, we're disowning him" would solve so many problems...

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[nizo]

Then the PATRIOT act...

This brings up something that really bothers me; I wish that all references to legislation would simply be a number, instead of some (usually misleading) title. I keep waiting for someone to create the "Stop clubbing baby seals act" that in truth cuts funding for all public programs. It is too easy for people introducing legislation to avoid putting a spin on the name.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[TripMaster Monkey]

What the GP is pointing out is that Dubya & Company will cite chapter and verse when it suits their interests, but have absolutely no problem ignoring the same chapter and verse the instant they find it inconvenient.

By the way, Dubya & Company don't need to use the military to 'guard' polling places...they've already got that covered.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[dr_dank]

Sadly, they appear to have, at least for the moment, found a way around such onerous strictures as that expectation that we behave like human beings.

Even more sadly, looking back at our recorded history, we are acting like human beings. We haven't evolved much from the ape who first used a tool to club the crap out of the ape with the nicer foodstuff. Only the tools have changed.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Slashdot. Leftwing, liberal and generally useless."

If you don't like it there are plenty of places you can go to where they see things more your way. I suggest Faux News, or redstate.org. Or you can continue to bitch about it and along the way, support this "liberal and generally useless" website with every page view and comment you make.

Me, I'd rather you left.

-one coward to another

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that if you believe that Bush does habitually abuse his power, you would be especially supportive of a law that prevents him from using the military in that way.

Except that this part of the military, the National Guard, has long been used for disaster relief. We aren't talking about bringing in special forces units to hand out water.

As for the law governing this, the Governor of Louisiana had already gone through the proper procedures to request help from the President. The problem was that Bush was too busy taking his vacation out west and the people he left in charge were incompetent.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[TallMatthew]

Given that it appears to be passing unvetoably, the Pentagon has simply changed the manual.

Unbelievable. Nice link.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[tgd]

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[unknownideal]

Did you mean "privacy?" Whoops, somebody just confessed that they equate privacy with the malevolent connotations of secrecy.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL ad hominem attacks from an AC. There's a shocker. Whats the matter, you can't find any good points to defend your president with? Maybe you're like the AC a little farther up who basically said "but Carter did it first". Blah, blah blah.

The whole "but he did it first" argument seems to be all the defenders of the slime heap that both the Republicans and the Democrats have become can pull out in their defense any more. Ever wonder why our country is going to hell in a handbasket? Because both parties are aiming pathetically low. What do you expect from a country who re-elects perverts and liars to the presidency?

You feel that? That feeling is the weight of responsibility being lifted from my shoulders. No longer do I need to worry about how citizens of the best country on Earth should comport themselves, because we're plummeting fast. Best military? Please. In the 24 hours after hurricane Katrina, the US military managed to land 2000 troops across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In the 24 hours of D-Day, Canada managed to land at least five times as many on a single beach, against German fire. Canada. Feel that?

Meanwhile, our president and vice president waste their breath defending an interrogation technique that has been discredited for centuries. So much for human rights. I have to wonder how many of the "credible threats" that never panned out ended with "... now PLEASE take this stick out of my ass!" How many millions of dollars have been wasted so that some sadists could get their jollies? Wait, what was the excuse of the year for invading Iraq? Oh right, it was to remove such a horrible despot from power, because only horrible people torture other peo... oopsie, did I say that? My load seems to be getting lighter still.

We're being lied to on an unprecedented scale. Defrauded by the people we put into power. But it's ok, because the people we elect don't need to be any better than the guy before them. Every election, we slide farther down into hasbeen status.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Morgalyn]

Man, that totally let the air out of my "I love McCain!" balloon.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[dada21]

I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton or any President going back 3 generations. Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can.

Why do you think it took so long to release papers from Kennedy's time? National security?

Lies. Everyone has secrets to hide.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[bogie]

McCain is a power hungry coward. He gave up on his ideals years ago and is now nothing more than a puppet for the administration. I too used to be a fan of his but no longer.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[MindStalker]

When did happen? Just because someone chooses to not use such quality phrases, as chimp mcflysuit does not automatically make them a right wing zealot.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[MindStalker]

When did "that" happen?

Is what I meant to say..

Sorry I sound like the moron now..

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Gulthek]

Evolution != Progression

Evolution == reaction to change

- Your friendly neighborhood evolution nazi

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[cmacb]

Well, in the event that your curiosity is sincere, here are some points:

(1) I don't consider just raising taxes to cover every spending spree you go on to be "financial responsibility". Republicans regularly vote for smaller spending increases than Dems. And I can't think of the last time a departments budget was actually cut. ("cut" means CUT, not just reduce the increase).

(2) The reduction in the size of government that Clinton likes to take credit for consists almost entirely of military base closings that were voted into place during the previous Bush administration. How about we do the same thing for domestic departments that have long since outlived their function? I don't hear any of these responsible Democrats calling for such things. If they did, I'd vote for them.

(3) Most Republican voters as well as Democrats are "good" people. What confuses you is that you have been told that all Republicans are evil when in reality most Republicans have a distrust, that is well founded in history of governments that get too big and try to live people's lives for them. There is no instance of government "giving" money to individuals that does not come with strings attached. As "kind hearted" as many of those programs sound, they will, and have largely already, produce a population unable to think for themselves and such a society cannot sustain itself. Never has, never will.

If there were a "Leave me the Hell Alone" party that had electable candidates I would vote for them. Until then, I will continue to vote for the party that comes closest to that philosophy, even if there is only a hairs breadth of difference between the two existing parties.

Here is a quote from Jimmy Carter's new book "Our Endangered Values":

"Soon after arriving in Washington, I was surprised and disappointed when no Democratic member of Congress would sponsor my first series of legislative proposals -- to reorganize parts of the federal bureaucracy -- and I had to get Republicans to take the initiative. Thereafter, my shifting coalitions of support comprised the available members of both parties who agreed with me on specific issues, with my most intense and mounting opposition coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. (One reason for this was the ambition of Senator Ted Kennedy to replace me as president.)"

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=4984885)

When Carter took office, even though I hadn't voted for him, I thought he was a nice guy, and his statements on reforming government gave me hope that he would do the right thing. His presidency was one disaster after another, some probably beyond his control (the gas crisis), but his own party sabotaging him is not a reason for me to consider voting for another Democrat until the Democrat party does more to distance itself from people who for all practical purposes are extreme socialists. Again, the problem with the socialist philosophy isn't that the intentions are bad, it is that the system does not work.

As they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Maybe that should be the motto for the Democrat party.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[MindStalker]

If you read the full article its not all that simple.

McCains bill requires one to follow the manual, but upon reading the manual there is not much exact legal language to say what is and what is not torture. Meaning under the current manual you could very well torture and meet regulations as there are many loopholes. Sadly in closing these loop holes and creating a well defined manual they may be adding a few desired loopholes as well, but what did you really expect.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[SensitiveMale]

Whoa, wait: President Bush abusing his power? No, you've got to be kidding me. I can't believe it. After all, this is the guy who *wanted* to help New Orleans but just couldn't because of those darn rules maybe being in the way.

That pesky Posse Comitatus Act again.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Spetiam]

What the GP is pointing out is that Dubya & Company will cite chapter and verse when it suits their interests, but have absolutely no problem ignoring the same chapter and verse the instant they find it inconvenient.

Congratulations. You've just described every politician in Washington and beyond, as well as pretty much everyone else in the world. Get bent.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[orim]

I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton or any President going back 3 generations...

Maybe his daddy, or the senile one before him... But you leave Clinton alone. The man was a freaking genius compared to Monkey Boy.

I get so angry when I read stuff like (and I paraphrase): ... where Clinton arrived at decisions based on his thorough knowledge of the fact, Bush prefers to make decisions based on his gut feeling.

And somehow the articles always equate the two. THAT IS BULLSHIT! Bush is so underqualified for the office he makes Brownie look like Lex Luthor, a mastermind at work.

For ordinary people, life was getting much better while Clinton was in office. Clinton himself got out of the Oval Office almost penniless, if I remember correctly. He appointed competent people, and would actually talk to folks outside of his fucking frat circle.

REPEAT AFTER ME: Bush = idiot. Clinton = genius. Just listen to them speak, side by side. Hear the difference?

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[poot_rootbeer]

One day the military are brought in during an emergency to serve as a temporary police force without following proper legal procedure, the next day they're brought in during an "emergency" to "gaurd" polling places.

I think there should be armed guards posted at the edges of your Slippery Slope there. Someone could fall down and get hurt!

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[poot_rootbeer]

What I don't get is why the people in the Republican party who really do have morals and ethics don't speak out against the path that Bush, Rove, and Cheney are taking their party down.

One hand washes the other. Because they support the GOP, the GOP will support them.

Together, the neo-Cons and the classic-Cons have enough strength to beat Democrats more often than not. Were they to split up along ideological lines and give us a three-party system, Democrats would be able to win every time with as little as 34% of the vote.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Wrong. I've only described everyone in the world who lacks integrity.

It's unfortunate that you believe my statement applies to everyone...what a sad, hopeless world you must live in.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

At one time, The Americans really were the good guys. During WWII, Nazi troops chose to surrender to the Americans over the Russians. They did this because their fathers told them that the Americans had treated them very well as POWs in WWI.

So let me make this straight: Americans were the good guys in WWI and WWII. Germans actually chose to surrender to us because they knew we would treat them well as POWs.

Now we are torturing and killing 'detainees' and keeping people locked up indefinitely. George Bush and all of his Neocon cronies should be executed for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

"I don't support Bush, but he's no better than Clinton..."

I disagree. Look at their wars:

Cliton got us into Kosovo.

• We acted in concord with NATO, the UN, and our allies, and we got the job done without alienated every other country in the world.
• We are *done* in Kosovo. When Clinton was selling the war to the American people, all the Republican congresspeople and right-wing pundits said this was going to be Clinton's Vietnam, that we were entering a quagmire, etc. etc. Guess what? Situation is peaceful.
• We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents
• Clinton never lied to the American people, and never relied on cooked up intelligence to sell the war. We went in to stop genocide and get rid of the bad guy. We did just that.

Bush got us into Iraq.

• Bush alienated every country except Britain getting us into Iraq. We are now a pariah at the UN.
• Bush lied to us about why we were going in and used false intelligence to build the case. Bush's said reasons for going into Iraq have changed several times since he first started selling the war
• Bush's team had absolutely no plan for reconstructing Iraq, and they have no plan to this day. This has resulted in about 9 billion dollars dissapearing from the budget in fraud and corruption.
• 2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight. The violence it getting worse, not better. The military is stretched to their limits. This cannot continue without instituting a draft

"Both parties are power hungry and both push their powers as far as they can."

Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.

Yes, politicians are power-hungry and corruptable. However, your average American fares far better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents. Politicans aren't all the same. Bush is *much* worse than Clinton.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Z-Knight]

This is a complete fabrication and outright lie. I'm not a fan of Bush or Clinton or Kerry or anyone else but at least I don't go around making up crap like this. And just because someone says these are from "real sources" doesn't mean they are crap.

I'm so glad you tried to compare Kosovo and Iraq...that is so perfect and I love how bad you got the facts. First of, I love how the US is accused of attacking a country that never attacked us, when speaking of Iraq...interestingly I don't recall when Kosovo or Slobodan attacked us yet we still went into Kosovo. Interestingly also, the security council (including China, Russia, France, Germany) tried to block us going against an oppressor like Slobodan Milosovic. Not suprisingly, those same stupid countries were against us going into Iraq. And I don't know how you can miss the fact that WE WERE ATTACKED BY IRAQ!!!! We were attacked every day while our planes were flying over Iraq. We were shot at constantly, but that little tidbit escapes most of the Angry Democrat arguements. In addition, no one ever mentions the countless UN resolutions (supported by most countries) that were passed against Iraq and that Saddam and Iraq constantly broke.

Furthermore, we did NOT go into the war with Saadam only with Britain...that's insulting to all of the 30 other countries in the UN that agreed...again the only dissenting votes were China, Russia, France, Germany. Interestingly those dissenting countries stood to lose millions of dollars if the US went in and cut them all of from the illegal dealings in oil and weapons that had been going down under the watchful eye of the UN.

"Clinton never lied to the people..."...never? I seem to recall he lied about several things...blow job ring a bell? That's besides the point. Bush NEVER lied so why do you have to make up crap that he did. The intelligence that he presented to Congress was provided by the CIA which happened to be lead by George Tenet (A CLINTON APPOINTEE). That intelligence was confirmed by the British. That intelligence was confirmed by Spain. That Intelligence was confirmed by RUSSIA!!! Hello...Russia, who was opposed to us going, confirmed our intelligence...PUTIN was even quoted as saying so!!!!

So, please give me a freaking break and get of your damn soap-box and stop whining how your idiot Kerry got robbed and should be president. Go whine somewhere else. Saadam was an angry, evil, dangerous man who brutally murdered thousands of his own people..much less (likely) than have died in Kosovo. He attacked/invaded other countries. He attacked our troops. He developed weapons of mass destructions and USED THEM to gas his people. He had stockpiles of WMDs that have not all been accounted for....how disposes of various germs/chemicals/bombs/etc and does not provide proof to the UN inspectors? If I supposedly did that, I would generate false documents if necessary to show that I did destroy things. The Missing WMDs are likely in Syria or Iran by now and that transport was likely the result of us not going in to Iraq sooner and is a huge mistake on our part.

I can't write anymore because I'm sick and tired of arguing with angry Democrats that result to making up lies to suit their own agenda. I'm glad this country finally took a stance against an oppressor instead of waiting for millions more to be gassed or burnt alive like when the US and others waited for a long time before taking Hitler out...at least we saved some lives by going in early.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

"'Clinton never lied to the people...'...never? I seem to recall he lied about several things...blow job ring a bell?"

You are misrepresenting my statement. I said "Clinton never lied about the reasons for the US to go to war in Kosovo. You are a Clinton-basher and you do a bad job of disguising it. It really comes out later when you cry about being "sick and tired of arguing with angry Democrats".

"He developed weapons of mass destructions and USED THEM to gas his people."

Bush told us we were going to war because Saddam was an IMMINENT THREAT to THE US, not because he gassed his own people back when Reagan was supporting him. Bush LIED to us. He lied to you and he lied to me. I hate him for it, and you lick it up like a lap dog. It's disgusting how you refuse to hold Bush accountable to that.

"Furthermore, we did NOT go into the war with Saadam only with Britain...that's insulting to all of the 30 other countries in the UN that agreed..."

"...he forgot about Poland!" Those countries supported us in name only. They didn't put troops on the ground.

"So, please give me a freaking break and get of your damn soap-box and stop whining how your idiot Kerry got robbed and should be president. Go whine somewhere else."

You again are misrepresenting me. I never mentioned Kerry in my original post. You are using a straw-man argument.

Bush and his cronies have been creating fake intelligence since they got into office. They relied on intelligence from Curveball, who has been roundly discredited. They relied on intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi, who was the darling of the Neocons. He has fallen out of favor since the Iraq invasion because he was spying on us for Iran, and Bush had the naivete to seat Chalabi next to his wife. What kind of sucker president seats a spy next to the first lady? What a joke.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

You sound like an armchair fiscal conservative.

I suggest you travel the world a little and see how different political systems pan out. You will probably come to the realization that:

1. Communism doesn't work. Old News.

2. Capitalist countries with social services and little governmental corruption do the best for their average citizen -- i.e. Japan, Australia, Northern European countries. They have a large middle class, with social mobility.

3. Purely capitalist countries fare the worst -- they have no middle class. Most of the people live literally on the street or in shanties -- I'm not talking crazy homeless guy, but mom, dad, and kids. There is a small class of wealthy elite who run the entire economy and government, and they keep it all for themselves. It never trickles down. They have unchecked power, and they have no interest in letting go of *any* of their power and money.

You want to know what country has the most productive economy? Finland. Yes, Finland, a country with cradle-to-grave social services. It also has a high standard of living and a large middle class.

I'm sick of these neocon hucksters trying to destroy the middle class. If you like corruption and business elites running everything, MOVE TO SOUTH AMERICA. You are trying to destroy the American dream. You and your ilk have worn out your welcome.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[MMaestro]

They did this because their fathers told them that the Americans had treated them very well as POWs in WWI.

Actually thats because EVERYONE within the German empire or its influence knew that the German army had been committing genocide within Russia, civilian and military alike, ON TOP OF the usual invading, killing and destroying homes. By the time the Americans were invading via Italy and France, the Russians were coming for blood. Finding the concentration camps just made things worse.

Don't forget, the U.S. was (actively) involved in WWI for less than two years. If you talk to some military historians, some would say the U.S. didn't need to actively enter the war at all. (Russia surrenders, the U.S. does NOT enter the war, the Germans launch a massive attack on France with troops previously on the Russian front, Paris is spared from much damage from the French and German unwillingness to fire/fight on/within the city, however victory is unachieved due to horrible German morale at home, a British led counter-attack cuts off supplies and reinforcements via the north and the war ends deeper on French soil when the German High Command realizes all is lost and does not want to see the war reach German soil.)

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[mcb]

Oh no, several thousand troops and no casualties. That's so much worse than 140,000 troops and over 2,000 casualties. Not to mention over 30,000 civilian casualties. Oh wait, nevermind.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[mcb]

Why can't I find posts like this when I have modpoints?

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[mrbrown1602]

Yes, but power-hungry Democrats have actually helped this country and its people. FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country like those in Europe, instead of a corrupt, poor backwater bananna republic like in Central and South America.

Uh... NO. World War II modernized our country, not any of FDR's "New Deal" crap. The New Deal was an effort to get America out of the Great Depression and, according to all economists, was an abysmal FAILURE. It was not Mr. Roosevelt's New Deal that modernized the US and got us out of the Depression, it was the war itself.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[karniv0re]

"I'm glad this country finally took a stance against an oppressor instead of waiting for millions more to be gassed or burnt alive like when the US and others waited for a long time before taking Hitler out...at least we saved some lives by going in early."

Hmmm. I seem to recall the US supporting Iraq through the gassing of the Kurds. Maybe you would have been more glad if we had gone against them at that point in time. Hear that? It was the sound of your argument deflating.

Me 1. You 0.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Caffinated]

(1) I don't consider just raising taxes to cover every spending spree you go on to be "financial responsibility". Republicans regularly vote for smaller spending increases than Dems. And I can't think of the last time a departments budget was actually cut. ("cut" means CUT, not just reduce the increase).

Non-military discretionary spending has increased under Bush and his Republican congress by more than twice the rate that it did under the Clinton administration, so it seems that they're not serious about spending restraint. To make matters worse, even in the face of some of the largest deficits in our nation's history, they're still looking to push through more tax cuts ( primarily for those who least need anything of the sort, but I digress...). There's absolutely nothing "fiscally responsible" about it and those who permit it.

2) The reduction in the size of government that Clinton likes to take credit for consists almost entirely of military base closings that were voted into place during the previous Bush administration. How about we do the same thing for domestic departments that have long since outlived their function? I don't hear any of these responsible Democrats calling for such things. If they did, I'd vote for them.

Do you hear 'responsible' Republicans doing so? They have been running things for awhile now and I've not heard anything serious in this regard. Clinton did cut about 400k civilian government jobs over his term, though some were just outsourced to private contractors. I'm curious, which departments are you thinking of in this regard?

(3) Most Republican voters as well as Democrats are "good" people. What confuses you is that you have been told that all Republicans are evil when in reality most Republicans have a distrust, that is well founded in history of governments that get too big and try to live people's lives for them. There is no instance of government "giving" money to individuals that does not come with strings attached. As "kind hearted" as many of those programs sound, they will, and have largely already, produce a population unable to think for themselves and such a society cannot sustain itself. Never has, never will.

I agree that most voters and citizens are good, well meaning people regardless of their political affiliation. I do think that there's a tremendous disconnect between what you view the Republican party as and what they actually are today. They seem have no problem in legislating personal behavior. It's the Democratic party which seems to be the one which allows individuals to choose for themselves what is right for them.

If there were a "Leave me the Hell Alone" party that had electable candidates I would vote for them. Until then, I will continue to vote for the party that comes closest to that philosophy, even if there is only a hairs breadth of difference between the two existing parties.

I think that while there are certainly a good number of shared views, there is a good bit more than a 'hairs breadth' between them.

Here is a quote from Jimmy Carter's new book "Our Endangered Values":

"Soon after arriving in Washington, I was surprised and disappointed when no Democratic member of Congress would sponsor my first series of legislative proposals -- to reorganize parts of the federal bureaucracy -- and I had to get Republicans to take the initiative. Thereafter, my shifting coalitions of support comprised the available members of both parties who agreed with me on specific issues, with my most intense and mounting opposition coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. (One reason for this was the ambition of Senator Ted Kennedy to replace me as president.)"

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=4984885)

When Carter took office, even though I hadn't voted for him, I thought he was a nice guy, and his statements on ref

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Buran]

Freeloaders aren't exactly a good thing either. Why should I expose myself to marketing BS just to get you an ipod that you're too cheap to buy for yourself? That's just selfish. Like too many people these days. Not giving a damn about others is responsible for a lot of our ills. Or have you not noticed that other countries don't like us anymore?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Z-Knight]

I don't deny there were mistakes on the part of the US, and yes I'm ignorant of the entire Kurdish gasing timeline but my point is still valid. My point was that we have gone in much sooner that we did in World War II...I believe we did. At least we did not hold back like the current Germans, French, Chinese and Russians who would rather have the genocide continue rather than lose the money they were getting. Those countries have been the root of all evil in past 100 years and are continuing on with that tradition to this day...pathetic.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[megrims]

Clinton never lied to the American people

Cue exaggerated American accent:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false."

(Yes yes, it's slightly irrelevant, I know.)

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Omnifarious]

While I agree that Bush's problems are far, far more egregious than Clinton's, Clinton also violated some of those same agreements. The negotiation that lead to the (thankfully failed) national health care plan all happened illegally in closed door sessions with the major insurance companies. President Clinton lied on the stand (I could care less what he does with his interns as long as its consensual).

I believe both presidents deserved impeachment for these breaches of conduct. That I believe Bush deserves it several order's of magnitude more than Clinton did doesn't mean that I think Clinton shouldn't have been.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[houghi]

You have elected a person that would be called the village odiot in other places: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto ries/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Omnifarious]

I sort of agree, but I do think that Bush has done many more and many worse things in that regard than Clinton.

Re: Wow, there's a shocker.

[Black Parrot]

> That aside: Bad week for the Neocons.

Another branch of neocons (the "religion is the opiate of the masses and we're going to exploit it to the hilt" crowd) is also sweating the court ruling on ID in the Dover, Pa. case, which may come out next week.

Re: Wow, there's a shocker.

[Black Parrot]

> What the fuck is wrong with this country?

I'm shocked that we're even discussing the legitimacy of torture.

Re: Wow, there's a shocker.

[Black Parrot]

> Sad thing is, as much as the Republican PR machine would like you to to believe otherwise

At least the past year's news is starting to break down the longstanding myth that Democratic politicians are sleazeballs and crooks while Republican politicians are upright characters.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[bagsc]

Small caveat though - Torture is already illegal for the military. The loopholes the Bush Administration was using were that the CIA et al are not military, and were not doing it in the United States. Have a little faith in Sen McCain - the man knows a hell of a lot more about torture than we do.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[hkmwbz]

"Purely capitalist countries fare the worst"

Care to mention some of these purely capitalist countries?

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Buzz_Litebeer]

mexico has a close approximation in practice. The government tries to provide capitalistic incentives to accomplish its goals, such as building roads, sea ports, etc... Oddly, there is little incentive to do this when they can build their infrastructure enough to make it so that the rich are extremely rich, and everyone else is poor with almost no middle class. What happens in this situation? The workers flee to a place were they can get real wages, and social protections are in place because its a better place to live. IF America went this route, were would our majority poor flee too? Canada? LOL.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[alexo]

> Why can't I find posts like this when I have modpoints?

Karma.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

No, FDR's New Deal made sure that a good portion of the profit from WWII made its way to the middle class. If we didn't have the New Deal programs in place, the Robber Barons would have taken all the profit for themselves, and the US would have been a corrupt kleptocracy like most of the countries in the Americas. *ALL* modern industrialized countries (Canada, the US, Japan, Australia, Europe) have New Deal-like social programs, and the dirt-poor countries of South and Central America have no social programs.

Answer me this: Why does Canada, with its extensive social programs, have a large middle class, like the United States? Why is it a modern, industrialized country? Why do all of these Central and South American bananna republics, which have little to no social programs and a free market economy, have such large poverty and disparity of wealth?

A. Because in a free market, the powerful business people are going to keep all of the money for themselves. A middle class cannot exist without unionized labor, a social security-like retirement program, and at least some welfare and government-sponsored health insurance. When there is a totally free market economy, all of the captains of industry will keep the lion's share wealth for themselves, and nobody else has any means of getting any of that wealth from them.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[wkitchen]

"'Clinton never lied to the people...'...never? I seem to recall he lied about several things...blow job ring a bell?"

You are misrepresenting my statement. I said "Clinton never lied about the reasons for the US to go to war in Kosovo. You are a Clinton-basher and you do a bad job of disguising it. It really comes out later when you cry about being "sick and tired of arguing with angry Democrats".

When I first read your post, I noticed the potential for exactly that misrepresentation. I just wasn't sure if any would risk using a tactic so transparently dishonest.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[kbielefe]

FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time.

Strange argument. FDR was duly elected to his 3rd and 4th terms by the people, just like every other president. That can hardly be called installing himself. And any reasonable supreme court would have allowed it. The 22nd amendment wasn't ratified until 1951, almost 6 years after FDR died.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[lawpoop]

Yes, I set a trap. This Clinton-basher took my bait. They are usually easy picking.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[jZnat]

FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power.

Read up on history a bit; there were no limits to how long a single person could remain in cumbency for. The 22nd Amendment was ratified years after his presidency which established the two terms and up to ten years of incumbency limit.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[zerocool^]

The first thought to my mind: an (athiest)

"Amen".

Thank you. The job situation in this country sucks. Yes, net jobs are being created, but at a lower pay rate. And I don't have hard numbers - I have personal experience. The real-estate boom has hurt us all, except wealthy land-owners (house owners, now, but sounds familiar doesn't it). Jobs don't pay enough to live where the jobs are, places you can afford to live there aren't any jobs, and gas is too expensive to commute between the two. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and (speaking as someone who has a wife and kid and is struggling to break into middle class and home ownership) there is no class mobility.

~Will

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Minna Kirai]

(1) I don't consider just raising taxes to cover every spending spree you go on to be "financial responsibility".

Wrong. Paying for what you spend will automatically cause the actual cost to be measured, and by next year's budget there will be a REAL pressure to slash spending. Running up the debt is just pretending that the government can eternally create money from nothing.

Responsibility is impossible without sanity.
High spending + high taxes and low spending+low taxes are both self-consistent plans, which are at least sane.
High spending + low taxes is insane, and can never lead to "responsibility". (That's why The Economist endorsed the Kerry campaign: because he at least acknowledged that loans someday need to be paid off)

Republicans regularly vote for smaller spending increases than Dems.

Oh, you'd prefer people to steal a little from you, instead of borrow a lot and pay it all back?

Republicans regularly vote for smaller spending increases than Dems.

Noting that Republicans regularly win 100% of Congressional votes, whatever the Democrats are voting for is of only abstract interest.

And I can't think of the last time a departments budget was actually cut.

Exactly. It's never happened, even though the Republicans have had a lock on Congressional power for the past few years. Therefore, their claims to desire to cut budgets have been shown to be false, because if they really wanted it, they'd have started already.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Magius_AR]

* We acted in concord with NATO, the UN, and our allies, and we got the job done without alienated every other country in the world.

Kosovo was NOT a unilateral UN move. Russia was hotly against it and was appalled at the action taken. Germany in turn was concerned at Russia's response.

We are *done* in Kosovo. When Clinton was selling the war to the American people, all the Republican congresspeople and right-wing pundits said this was going to be Clinton's Vietnam, that we were entering a quagmire, etc. etc. Guess what? Situation is peaceful.

It's not hard to have peaceful results when your goals are minimal. We didn't even send in troops. Fact of the matter is that Kosovo was strategically and economically unimportant, and the action taken was an inconsequential exercise of military effort. Clinton's touted "reason" for taking action was "humanitarian reasons". If this be the case, any number of other countries could be seen as similar targets. Why did he not go into any of them as well? Are they not similar arguments you see posted against Bush these days? (ala, "Why Iraq? Why not Country X?")

Read up on some 1999 public opinion of Clinton's military excursions here and here

The parallels are incredibly amusing. So much that people bitch about Bush about today they were bitching about Clinton back in 1999. There were virtually identical claims way back in 1999 that Kosovo would see a dramatic decline in European confidence in American leadership due to international outcry about the bombings.

We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents

True, but you're trying to compare a ground war + 3 year occupation to a FOUR MONTH PERIOD in which no ground force was present and our only intervention involved bomb dropping, much of which was done in unmanned vehicles. Kosovo wasn't a war, it was a skirmish.

Clinton never lied to the American people

Some would argue he was just a better liar. That's why people never recognized him as such.

Bush's team had absolutely no plan for reconstructing Iraq, and they have no plan to this day

Anything to back up this claim with?

2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight. The violence it getting worse, not better. The military is stretched to their limits. This cannot continue without instituting a draft

Say what? Now you're just trying to be sensationalistic.

1737 combat deaths so far (not 2000+), since that's the yardstick you're using with Clinton.
No end in sight? Every day, more Iraqi security forces are trained. For every Iraqi squadron that can be deployed effectively, a U.S. squadron can be pulled back. Some reports are here or here.

And of COURSE the military "can continue" without a draft. They're still fighting over there now, right? That's "continuing." Now, whether or not we could fight _another_ war is a different story, though I'm pretty sure we still could without a draft. But it wouldn't be pleasant on the economy. You act as if Iraq is a growing effort instead of the resource sink it actually is. The current alotment of soldiers we have there now is the MAX we will have there. If the numbers will go anywhere, they will go DOWN. There's already talk of limited pullout.

FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Minna Kirai]

Kosovo was NOT a unilateral UN move.

You might want to study the distinction between the words "unilateral" and "unanimous", so you don't keep saying the opposite of what you mean.

Re:Wow, there's a shocker.

[Chabo]

However, your average American fares far better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents.

To paraphrase a statement I once heard:
The Republican Party is sometimes called the 'party of the rich.' Following that logic, in order to get voters on their side, their aim should be to make all of the voters rich.
The Democratic Party claims themselves as the 'party of the downtrodden and poor.' In order to keep voters on their side, what must they do?

Oh dear

[FidelCatsro]

"Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken."
Just one thing to say to that BULLSHIT

Re:Oh dear

[Rob the Bold]

"Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken."

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".

Re:Oh dear

[SlamMan]

In this case, thats exactly right. The NSA was forbidden from spying on US citizens from Presidential edict. Any other US president is free to change that.

Re:Oh dear

[jdigriz]

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.

Re:Oh dear

[EnderWiggnz]

no, the NSA is banned from spying domestically by statute, which can not be over-ridden by the president.

Re:Oh dear

[Locke2005]

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!"

Re:Oh dear

[dootbran]

Actually in this country its nothing like that. See, in the USA the legislature makes the laws, not the executive branch, which the president is part of. So at no point is what the US President says "the law".

Did you fail your high school civics class or are you just conveniently forgetting it so you can make some outlandish comparisons? Oh yeah, cause we all know taking the leash off the NSA is the same thing as indiscriminately killing your own citizens.

Re:Oh dear

[sfjoe]

It was also Richard Nixon's defense.

do something

[Anonymous Coward]

do something

Reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

Your posts are being recorded and may be used against you. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the President for all his hard work in protecting us from Eastasia, at great personal gain to himself.

Re:Reminder

[TripMaster Monkey]

You seem to be mistaken...Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Eastasia is our staunchest ally.

Please report to the nearest reeducation center. Thank You.

Re:Reminder

[jujuchef]

This might make me ++redundant but oh well -

Which Room? Put what on my face (political adviser) and say/admit (anything they tell me to) what? Sorry I'm not the president... or am I?

Re:Reminder

[zaguar]

You are mistaken, my friend. Oceania is at war with whoever the beloved Big Brother says it is. It's doubleplusgood doublethink.

Re:Reminder

[Cylix]

You seem to be working for the old regiment which was replaced days ago! We no longer report to the reeducation center. Rather a series of targeted ads engineered for our neurological make up are cleverly placed around us. It's simply a matter of passivly updating our thought processes. It's quite refreshing.

Please watch some television, internet ads or even listen to the radio (requires longer exposure). Don't worry, we already have your slashdot ID which was tied into your identity profile ages ago.

Thanks and welcome to the machine.

But the problem is...

[Jordan Catalano]

lawfully != ethically

Re:But the problem is...

[BoomerSooner]

Ethics may get you fined. Breaking laws gets you an end of term pardon.
Intelligence Wisdom

With congressional and judicial oversight...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way this is portrayed as some super-secret thing that Bush and Bush alone was involved in.

Re:With congressional and judicial oversight...

[grub]

some super-secret thing that Bush and Bush alone was involved in.

Bush alone could have stopped it or prevented it from happening in the first place.

In related news..

[PhrostyMcByte]

The senate recently rejected extensions to the patriot act.

Re:In related news..

[Jtheletter]

The senate recently rejected extensions to the patriot act.

Yes, but how many more times will it come up again from now until it's passed? How many times will it be tacked onto medicare spending bills so it has to go through lest people can claim their reps voted against helping people on medicare? It's a joke. It will be passed, just a matter of time and political wrangling. Don't get me wrong, I hate it and what it represents like politicians hate accoutability, but I'm resigned to the fact that there are just too many fools and underhanded reps out there to keep such a bill at bay forever. We need to reform how bills can be reintroduced. A bad bill should be labeled as such after a certain point and permanently rejected, without getting unlimited chances to pass or to be snuck in through the backdoor of an spending bill amendment.

Why does Bush hate Our Freedom?

[helpslipfrank]

*dons flame retardant suit*

Re:Why does Bush hate Our Freedom?

[WindBourne]

And yet, clinton was able to protect America without resorting to throwing away the constitution. Keep in mind, that the first WTC attack occured after clinton was in office for 1 month. In contrast, GWB had more than 8 months to get his act together. During the next 8 years, we had successful attacks on our soil (yes, they occurred elsewhere).

Offhand, I would trust Clinton, Kerry and the majority of the democrats to protect us more than GWB and many of his republicans.

Re:Why does Bush hate Our Freedom?

[aitikin]

Now would be a good time to revisit some classic negative utopia literature:

I believe the term you were searching for is dystopia.

bleh

[know1]

is anyone surprised?
you would be a fool for thinking this didn't go on

None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Drudge Report.

Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[Politburo]

Does that somehow make the actions less wrong?

Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[Concern]

Wow, the same news broken in not only a newspaper, but a book too.

Holy shit, someone reboot my pacemaker.

Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[killjoe]

Well that proves it, he is obviously wrong then. If anybody says anything in a book it must be wrong. Except of course Drudge, he is never wrong.

Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[geminidomino]

Holy shit, someone reboot my pacemaker.

Dammit Jim, I told you not to run Windows on that damn thing! -- Bones

Re:None of this is tied a book release, oh no.

[onemorechip]

So you're saying they should have published this a year ago, when they first learned of it. Hey, I agree!

I've just been watching...

[IdleTime]

All the Presidents Men and the similarities are striking in many ways... Maybe some of our journalists should have re-screening of the movie or even better, re-read the book?

Re:I've just been watching...

[WindBourne]

Sadly not enough similarities have shown up. That is why Mr. Dean suggest to Mr Fitzgerald to turn over more stones. Apparently, he was initially ordered to not stray from his mission of finding just one person who leaked. Now, the question is, will he?

Re:I've just been watching...

[Reducer2001]

I completely agree. The US DOJ won't do anything about it, the politicians (on both sides) won't do anything about, nor will any other federal agencies. Dubya, Rove, Chency and their henchmen is going to get off scot-free AGAIN. Where the hell are the 2005 Woodward and Bernstein?

This guy is Shilling his book

[drsmack1]

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?sid=33&p id=518822

The NY Times failed to reveal the conflict of interest. Additionally this stuff has been known to congress and the federal court involved.

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[Skyshadow]

Oh, gee, if there's a *book* about it, then that makes it all better.

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[Concertina]

Additionally this stuff has been known to congress and the federal court involved.

Cite?

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[vontrotsky]

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.

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[Red Flayer]

Just because someone is tying into a book means that the information is no longer important to be aware of?

That's crap. Sure, it raises a flag that maybe it needs to be verified, but anything this important needs to be verified.

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[Onan]

Um, what conflict of interest would that be? Violation of those laws against covering events in more than one text medium?

It hardly seems unethical--and certainly is not unusual--for a journalist to cover the same topic in both small pieces in periodicals and longer works published as books. Everyone from Ann Coulter to Al Franken seems to do this on a regular basis, and I'm having a hard time finding fault with the practice.

Is your complaint seriously that the New York Times article didn't include a line about "James Risen has also covered these events in an upcoming book!" That I would find slightly problematic, as advertising the book in the article would feel kind of sleazy.

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[necrognome]

And you have failed to tell us that you got your ideas from the Drudge Report!

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[finkployd]

Oh, nevermind then. I'm not upset at all about Bush circumventing the constitution if there was a book involved.

Re:This guy is Shilling his book

[drsmack1]

It seems to me that this article was timed to help his book sell; he has a conflict of interest. This was reported as hard news; whereas it is content from a upcoming book that is obviously aimed to damage the Bush administration.

He has had this information for a year, he submitted the book three months ago - yet this story is released the day after the Iraqi elections just in time to take the focus off of that great achievement?

Nothing to see here, move along...

Support the President!

[lawpoop]

Hey, Bush WON, and he can do WHATEVER HE WANTS. He is the PRESIDENT, and we HAVE TO SUPPORT HIM.

I was going to make a sarcasm tag, but slashdot is stripping my fake tag apparently. What gives? Anyways, impeach this fucker now. He's screwing EVERYTHING up.

Re:Support the President!

[bersl2]

Use < and >

Re:Support the President!

[Belseth]

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?

Re:Support the President!

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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?

Re:Support the President!

[lawpoop]

I was being sarcastic. I pretty much agree with everything you say.

From TFS...

[Shadow Wrought]

"The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." [emphasis added]

But is it still legal when the steps are combined? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re:From TFS...

[Biff Stu]

Lawfully as defined by Ashcroft and Gonzales.

Re:From TFS...

[FidelCatsro]

" It will be interesting to see how this plays out."
I hear Iran's president recently brought up some anti-Semitic stuff and is trying to push the Nuclear program .. or so the propaganda says.
This appears to be a nice rug for them to sweep it under , also gives them a lot more oil.

Re:From TFS...

[susano_otter]

I think that in this case, there was only one step involved: He signed an order instructing the NSA to eavesdrop on certain international calls originating from the U.S., something the NSA actually has the legal authority to do. My understanding is that the presidential order was used to expedite the approval process, something that the President has the legal authority to do.

Not that such eavesdropping is strictly necessary, of course. Nobody planning a terror attack would ever make contact with a compatriot outside the country.

Re:From TFS...

[sasdrtx]

Why do you respond to such a statement from Bush's sycophants as if it was a meaningful statement? Nothing passes their lips except in their self-serving interest. Whether a statement is true or false isn't even considered. They speak only to influence, manipulate, and control others.

That's also Bush's intention, but he's dumb enough to let a few unscripted lines out, and occasionally say what he's wants to.

Sounds strangely familiar...

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

Re:Sounds strangely familiar...

[sulli]

You're thinking of COINTELPRO, not Watergate.

Re:Sounds strangely familiar...

[strikethree]

erm... if Bush were impeached, we would have Cheney as President. Which would you rather have as President?

strike

Re:Sounds strangely familiar...

[edunbar93]

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.

I'm not so great with my American history, but if I'm not mistaken, the country's founding fathers founded the country after all the killing was done.

The Patriot Act is a moot point.

[Biff Stu]

Bush will just do what he wants to whether it's legal or not.

Something else to trouble you:

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'm a little more concerned about http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bil l/index.html, which basically says that the Nuremburg trials are no longer valid precedents for US law.

"(It) basically says that if a person, a reasonable person, would feel that someone was acting under orders ... then it could be a defense in case of accusation,"

Re:Something else to trouble you:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think McCain would add a section that obviate the Nurenburg standards?

The analysis I heard on NPR yesterday called it a "thin" defense - it's a "minor" adjustment made to save face for the White House.

Basically, they pointed out that while you could assert that you were following orders, the standard set by the Nuremburg trials still holds.

Re:Something else to trouble you:

[Descalzo]

I think I heard about this. I think you have got it wrong. If I remember correctly from what they said on the radio, in order to get off, they have to have been following legal orders. If they were following orders any reasonable and sane person would know were illegal, they are still in trouble.

I should probably look it up, but I won't right now.

Re:Something else to trouble you:

[Kelson]

Here's how this morning's Los Angeles Times article described it:

After weeks of tough negotiations, the president and his top advisors won two concessions from McCain: that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful, and that the U.S. government would pay their legal fees. [emphasis added]

So that means nothing obvious, like "Torture the detainee in cell XYZ," will be able to pass the "following orders" test -- any reasonable person would be aware of these laws, and the regs in the field handbook, and would recognize orders to torture someone as being illegal. The orders would have to be seriously in the gray area to be able to provide a defense -- and the bill is all about clarifying what is and is not acceptable.

Nothing new ..

[Entropy]

Not that I am defending Bush, but the NSA spying on Americans is nothing new. Read "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford if you want a good look inside "no such agency" .. the only things to change from the book would be the tech, not the policies, politics and yes, paranoia.

Re:Nothing new ..

[guaigean]

Exactly... It's interesting how individual parties will suddenly use a very longstanding organization as an excuse against a current political enemy. The NSA is intended for National Security (Agency). They don't handle foreign affairs, but focus on at home threats (Which made me question the need for Homeland Security, but anyway). The point is, their entire job is to monitor the US and US Citizens. Now it surprises people just because the current president allowed it to continue?

Re:Nothing new ..

[Pollardito]

i think you missed the part about "without court approval". here's some more information about what the NSA is supposed to be doing :

[Director Michael] Hayden said the NSA has not spied on Americans since the 1970s. Congressional committees, led by U.S. Sen. Frank Church and U.S. Rep. Otis Pike, found that government agencies, including the NSA, had eavesdropped on actress Jane Fonda, Dr. Benjamin Spock and other anti-Vietnam War activists.

As a result, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created a procedural structure with a special court for considering and approving certain surveillance activities that occur in the United States and involve rights guaranteed by the Constitution such as the ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

...

In certain cases, the NSA can look into the activities of U.S. citizens or residents if it believes they are acting as agents for another country. The agency must first get the permission of a special court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and then get the U.S. attorney general's consent.

Hayden said the burden of proof is on the NSA when seeking such authorization. He declined to say whether the agency had ever been turned down.

Re:Nothing new ..

[Coryoth]

They don't handle foreign affairs, but focus on at home threats (Which made me question the need for Homeland Security, but anyway). The point is, their entire job is to monitor the US and US Citizens.

I'm honestly not sure how you could be more wrong. Instead of just guessing at what you think they do based on your own bizarre interpretation of the name of the agency, you could try actually looking up real information on what the role of the NSA is. From their website we see that their stated mission is a dual one, involving "Information Assurance" to protect US information, and "Foreign Signals Intelligence" to collect and process foreign communications. Feel free to actually read the executive order that defines what the NSA does. Spying on US citizens is precisely what the NSA is prohibited from doing, and handling of foreign intelligence is part of their mission statement.

Jedidiah.

Re:Nothing new ..

[Minna Kirai]

Spying on US citizens is precisely what the NSA is prohibited from doing,

"Monitor" is different from "spying". The single most critical job of the NSA is actually to evalutate which US citizens are trustworthy to handle classified secrets, which is under their Information Assurance duty. That involves lots of monitoring, polygraphs, etc.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

Sure. Maybe they can make something out of the 1000s of 'approved mortgage' and 'p3nis 3nlarger' messages.

President acted lawfully

[192939495969798999]

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."

Re:President acted lawfully

[Linux_ho]

Yup. A Presidential order in direct violation of the constitutional freedom from unreasonable search and seizure... the constitution which is the foundation upon which every law in the nation rests. Sounds pretty unlawful to me, Condi.

But after all, as Bush said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper." It's not like he swore to uphold it before he took office or anything.

Re:President acted lawfully

[Cryptnotic]

Bush never said that. The Capitol Hill Blue article is an editorial rant, not a news source. Thompson was making a political statement by making up a story about how he thinks the White House and Supreme Court work.

Nothing new

[gid13]

Hey, the constitution never stopped him before. Perhaps he figured there was no need to bother with passing another PATRIOT act?

Great quote

[Josh Coalson]

from here

"God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican.

Hell, why stop there, let's wipe with the constitution a little more and go straight to a Police State Act, then Sen. Kyl can argue "God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Police State Act before it was passed." Yeah, a prison could be real safe too.

If 47 senators are so for it, maybe they should just "opt-in" to giving up their rights, instead of passing another odious law that will apply to them too? Oh yeah, that's because it won't apply to them. They are elite. Their names will never be on a no-fly list. Their personal information will never be stored at a company like ChoicePoint (if you ran ChoicePoint, the first thing you'd do is create a blacklist so that no one who could mess with your business model could be affected by a scam). But they're oh-so-ready to shackle the common man to keep him safe.

Re:Great quote

[VP]

47 senators were against it, that was enough to prevent the termination of discussion, and therefore prevent bringing it to a vote...

Re:Great quote

[Politburo]

Their names will never be on a no-fly list.

Actually, Ted Kennedy showed up on a NFL. There is a Republican Congressman who is also on the List.. can't recall the name off the top of my head.

Also, there's no mechanism for getting off of the NFL. What they claim to do is add a note next to your name on the list.

Re:Great quote

[Amouth]

Had to note that one of them has.. but i am willing to bet they didn't want him using the plane like his car http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A170 73-2004Aug19.html

Re:Great quote

[Josh Coalson]

were they among the 47?

Re:Great quote

[dr_dank]

Actually, Ted Kennedy showed up on a NFL. There is a Republican Congressman who is also on the List.. can't recall the name off the top of my head.

Also, there's no mechanism for getting off of the NFL. What they claim to do is add a note next to your name on the list.

Oh well, he can just drive to wherever he needs to go...

Ummm, never mind.

Re:Great quote

[Politburo]

No, I said Congressman, not Senator.

Re:Great quote

[geminidomino]

i am willing to bet they didn't want him using the plane like his car

I think they're more worried about him using his car like a plane.

"Teddy and Louise" anyone?

Re:Great quote

[Fishstick]

saw this recently:
US no-fly list vexes travelers from babies on up

In addition to babies, the victims of mistaken identity on the no-fly list have included aging retirees and public figures such as Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, Republican Rep. Don Young (news, bio, voting record) of Alaska and Democratic Rep. John Lewis (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia.

I likes this bit especially..

Peter Johnson, a retired bibliographer at Princeton University, said travel became "hellish" after he discovered his name was on the no-fly list in August 2004.

"I'm not sure if what's behind this is an effort to simply control people or if it's largely mismanagement and poorly conceptualized programming," Johnson said, adding a TSA official had told him there were more than 2,000 other Peter Johnsons in the United States who reported similar problems.

Yeah, that's really an effective deterrent against terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union calls the no-fly list system unconstitutional, saying it treats people as guilty without a trial and unfairly deprives them of freedoms. It also says the system is an inaccurate and ineffective security method.

Because the real terrorists wouldn't ever think of getting forged identity papers or anything.

Ayman, where were you!? We were supposed to meet up to carry out the operation two days ago!

Yes, I know -- It's this damn no-fly list. No matter what I do, I can't get tem to take my name off the cursed thing!

Re:Great quote

[Fishstick]

>there's no mechanism for getting off of the NFL. What they claim to do is add a note next to your name on the list.

not even

Cleared individuals receive a letter from the TSA which says "we have provided sufficient personal information to the airlines to distinguish you from other individuals" but cautions that "TSA cannot ensure that your travel will be delay free."

John Graham, a 63-year-old former State Department official, said his TSA letter had not helped at all.

"I'm at a point now where I don't really care whether my name is on the list as a mistake, as mistaken identity, or whether someone at TSA does intend to hassle me. The fact is, there's a total absence of due process," he said.

Re:Great quote

[geminidomino]

If 47 senators are so for it, maybe they should just "opt-in" to giving up their rights, instead of passing another odious law that will apply to them too?

Not just those 47. We should extend that invitation to every single one of these people who says "I'd give up some of my rights to save 3000 American lives."

All they have to give up is their right to freedom of religion, convert the entire nation to fundamentalist Islam, and poof, we're safe with no more bloodshed.

Funny enough, I don't think we'll see them rooting for that idea though.

Re:Great quote

[netfunk]

If 47 senators are so for it, maybe they should just "opt-in" to giving up their rights, instead of passing another odious law that will apply to them too? Oh yeah, that's because it won't apply to them. They are elite. Their names will never be on a no-fly list.

Tell that to Ted Kennedy.

--ryan.

Thanks America!!!

[bigdadro]

Glad I didn't vote for that giant douche, i voted for turd sandwich.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[thiophene]

"I have nothing to hide" etc, etc...

I think this deserves a...

[Lithgon]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

*Waits for the FBI to come and get him*

This makes slashdot?

[tpgp]

Why does this make slashdot when in the last two days we've had bush resisting torture legislation and his complicity in kidnapping citizens of allies

Re:This makes slashdot?

[anaesthetica]

This article has a more direct link to technology, which is ostensibly what this site is about. The others don't involve technology as directly.

Re:This makes slashdot?

[Guppy06]

Your Rights Online. People tend not to get kidnapped and/or tortured over the Internet.

Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Savantissimo]

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.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[vk2]

Pray NSA is not monitoring the network between your machine and slashdot :-)

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[TheRaven64]

I think he could quite convincingly plead diminished mental capacity as a defence. Take today's example when asked how one used an iPod:

"I get the shuffle and then I shuffle the shuffle," he told confused reporters.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Seumas]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?

As many as he likes, as long as they don't involve consensual sex and hummers.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Jtheletter]

Good show. I just posted almost the exact same thing. Death or at least life in prison should be the minimum sentence for mucking with constitutional rights. As it stands now there's no fear from the politicians, at worst they serve a year or two of a reduced sentence in some cush-job prison (compared to true federal prisons). Most first-offense everyday crimes carry stricter minimum sentencing guidelines than what polititcians get for abusing an entire nation's rights.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Cautious? Why? The OP called for Bush (among other Administration officials) to be "quickly tried and promptly executed". This is a direct statement of a lawful process. The Congress has every right to Impeach Bush, and in fact any President. The courts of the land also have every right to try the President for crimes, once he's removed from office.

If we started calling for Bush to die from old age, will the Secret Service really have a case against us? Is the President immune from being indicted and tried for crimes that carry the ultimate penalty? What ARE you saying, exactly?

I disagree with the OP about ONE thing, however. As a clear enemy to the people of the United States, upon Bush's indictment for war crimes, he should be held in prison before seeing trial for the exact number of days that he has held Jose Padilla (who is on his third year and counting).

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[taniwha]

don't worry the rest of the world is on to him

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Savantissimo]

Threatening the life of the President or Federal officials would be a serious crime. I am not doing that. I am saying the President and his administration are subject to trial under the Constitution for violations of the law, including capital offenses, and that I believe there is overwhelming evidence that they have committed such offenses. Proposing that the law be upheld is not proper grounds for issuing a warrant, and would be at best a questionable basis for monitoring the excercise my Constitutional right to free political speech in a public form. That said, yeah, someone at the the FBI or Secret Service (not likely the NSA) will be skimming my posts now, I expect.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Bogtha]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?

Just one. However, it has to be one that the majority of the USA cares about. Killings, kidnappings, torture? The average American doesn't care, as long as it doesn't happen to them. Now if Bush was caught getting a blowjob, it would be a different matter altogether.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Savantissimo]

You forgot Waco, among others. Also, I have heard that the practice of "rendition" of prisoners to foreign countries got its start under Clinton.

The difference is that under Clinton, violating the Constitution was on a more-or-less retail basis, while Bush has gone wholesale with the operation.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[xz0565]

bush doesnt actually have the brains to make all these descisions. he is not the one controlling what is being done. he is a pawn. for some reason i dont think a person with an iq of 80 or w.e is capable of making any descisions, he has a whole team who tell him what to say, where to sign etc etc

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[killjoe]

Saddam is on trial for torturing and killing people, maybe one day Bush too will be ontrial for torture and murder. He has tortured people and killed people after all. There is no dispute about those facts.

So the question is how many people do you have to kill and torture before you get the death penalty? I say one death is too many but hey what do I know, I am not a republican.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[babyphatman]

I've got a good quote from Noam Chomsky regarding Bush's supposed "diminished mental capacity"...

"Both political parties and the media are far to the right of the general population on a whole host of issues. And the population is just disorganized, atomized... And that's why the media and campaigns keep away from (political) issues. They know that on issues, they're going to lose people. So therefore you have... George Bush... this pampered kid who came from a rich family and went to prep school and an elite university. And you have to present him as an ordinary guy who makes grammatical errors, which I'm sure he's trained to make--he didn't talk that way at Yale--and a fake Texas twang, and he's off to his ranch to cut brush or something. It's like a toothpaste ad. And I think a lot of people know it."

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[whoisjoe]

I think they should have to serve their sentences in Federal Pound Me In the Ass Prison.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[jcnnghm]

What about perjury and selling nuclear secrets to the chinese?

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[geminidomino]

Oh, I'm pretty sure you could find people who would beat his record on human rights violations, and I don't even think it'd be that hard.

Translation: "Sure, he's a dick. But there are and were bigger dicks so let's leave him alone."

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Cro Magnon]

Translation: "Sure, he's a dick. But there are and were bigger dicks so let's leave him alone."

What it REALLY comes down to is "He's OUR dick, so lets leave him alone". Just as the Democrats never had any problems with a certain Pres lying under oath to a Grand jury.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Tackhead]

> > How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?
>
>As many as he likes, as long as they don't involve consensual sex and hummers.

"Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"

One ticket to hell, please.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Moofie]

"Proposing that the law be upheld is not proper grounds for issuing a warrant"

You must be new here.

Preach on, brother. You've got my vote.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[cens0r]

But what if he got caught GIVING a blow job? That would make heads explode!

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[schon]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit

if Bush was caught getting a blowjob, it would be a different matter altogether.

Wow. I had *no* idea that getting a blowjob was illegal.

My wife keeps wanting me to go to the US to visit her relatives. At least now I have an excuse (I wonder how she feels being an accomplice?) :o)

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[millennial]

That's a bullshit comparison. Why was Clinton being examined in the first place? Because he had CONSENSUAL SEX with an ADULT. Why did he lie? To try to salvage his marriage. Who died? NOBODY. Why is Bush being examined in the first place? Because he lied about WMDs. Because his vice president used to head the company that the government hands all its war-on-terror-related oil/rebuilding contracts to. Because he has given executive approval for the transfer of foreign POWs into prisons where we know torture takes place. Why did he lie? To protect his own ass, and cover up the crimes of people in his administration. Who died? Over 2100 American troops, tens of thousands of Iraqis (military and civilian), and several dozen tortured detainees.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an average American and nobody has polled me yet or asked my opinion or anyone else I know. If average American's were really represented or had any say I think things would be different. *tin foil on*

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Fallingcow]

If they're afraid of going to REAL jail, then maybe they'll be motivated to reform them so that a prison sentence no longer becomes a de facto sentence to get raped?

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[geminidomino]

What it REALLY comes down to is "He's OUR dick, so lets leave him alone". Just as the Democrats never had any problems with a certain Pres lying under oath to a Grand jury.

As neither a democrat or a republican, I never had a problem with it either. Specifically, because despite the fact that he was a douche, to this day I see no reason that Clinton should have been answering questions about getting his knob polished in the first place.

If you've got any indication that there was a valid reason behind it, rather than the same partisan bullshit that the reds are pulling today, then please, enlighten me. I'd like to know.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[kerrle]

What the hell? I never suggested he should be left alone. I'm merely pointing out that a statement was probably inaccurate.

That in no way suggests I'm a supporter at all, and I don't have a fucking clue how you got that from what I wrote.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Damvan]

Bush swore, when he took the oath of office, to uphold the Constitution. Ordering the spying on Americans, against the Constitution and statute in place, is a violation of that oath. Hence, perjury.

Not to mention lying to justify a war that has killed 2000+ Americans and countless Iraqis. But of course, he is not under oath during the State of the Union address, so that doesn't count as perjury, right?

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Damvan]

So lying about having an affair, when being questioned about something entirely unrelated, is justification for impeachment. But lying to start a war which has killed 2000+ Americans, and countless Iraqis, and cost TRILLIONS of dollars, is ok? Oh, I forgot, he wasn't under oath during all those speeches and the State of the Union address, so Bush is allowed to lie as much as he wants. He isn't under oath!

How any rational human being can consider what Clinton did worse than what Bush has done and is doing is beyond me.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Damvan]

Why does this surprise you? The same people condeming Clinton for getting a blowjob are the same people who want all references to sex out of our culture while allowing and encouraging violence in our culture? Same people who think this war is justified, and even good, while freaking out about Janet Jackson's boob on tv. Seriously fucked up individuals.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Spetiam]

...how you got that from what I wrote

Sorry, it's obligatory... You must be new here.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[geminidomino]

Force of habit. Hardly a new statement but they tend to have that gist. The most famous one is "But clinton lied under oath about consensual sex" (though worded somewhat more emotionally).

My apologies.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[geminidomino]

But what if he got caught GIVING a blow job? That would make heads explode!

Only if he was reasonably good at it... ... ... ...

Ok, I'm sorry for that one.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[timeOday]

Just one. However, it has to be one that the majority of the USA cares about. Killings, kidnappings, torture? The average American doesn't care, as long as it doesn't happen to them.

I guess you're right. I just checked the CNN quickpoll on their front page.

Question: Should the government have been given the authority to spy on Americans without warrants after the 9/11 attacks?
Answer: 69% no, 31% yes.

A third of the US thinks establishing a secret police force with no judicial oversight is a real good idea.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[shking]

Oral sex is illegal in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and... Washington D.C.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[kimvette]

I disagree. Now, if he were calling for an assassination of the ass in charge, it'd be a different matter because that would not be in accordance with the laws of the land. What he's calling for is the ass in charge to be accused of a crime, tried for those crimes, and be punished in accordance with the law, and if the crime is treason, the punishment could very well be a hanging or firing squad.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[kimvette]

Both Clinton and Bush are dirtbags, and both should have been accused of treason, but for different reasons.

Clinton: for selling nuclear tech to China

Bush: for encroaching inalienable rights outlined in the Constitution

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

The reality of the fact is if 80%of the population does not like a thing, they will vote into office who SAY they believe the same thing. Since the average american never check what thier elected officials are voting in session, they just believe the lies and reelect the otehr 20%.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Grevling]

Which explains the need for greater surveillance powers. Esp cameras in every bed room is needed. If not, how could you police these laws? What other nations in the world have talibanic laws like these?

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[ScuzzMonkey]

A third of the US thinks establishing a secret police force with no judicial oversight is a real good idea.

Well, I'm pretty sure what they are actually thinking is, "Damn it, if those pinko Democrats would just let Dirty Harry and Rambo go after those raghead bastards and stop pesterin' 'em with all their RULES and their REGULATIONS, hell, we'd kick some ass and get unleaded down to $.50 a gallon by Christmas!"

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[colinrichardday]

Doesn't the Constitution ban cruel and unusual punishment?

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[talksinmaths]

I rather liked the part where he referred to the 'Next' button:

"And if you don't like it, you have got your little advance button. It's pretty high-tech stuff."

I wonder what animal will be on the cover of the O'Reilly book that splains all that high-falutin high-tech gajectry. :)

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[GeneralAntilles]

It's a convenience sample and, therefor, invalid. It's a sample of people that goto cnn.com, and feel the need to respond to their stupid poll, not a good sample of the population as a whole. Yes, centralized power in government is a bad thing.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[BagMan2]

yeah, this guy is real insightful...nice modding /.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[fleaboy]

Weird how this kind of behavior flies when people are taught to worship criminals, i.e, Trump, Gates, and other such scum. Crimes against humanity only apply when you don't 'play ball' with those in power. Futhermore it's the people who 'placed' Bush in office that scare me as he is clearly not intelligent enough to get as far as he has gotten in his terms as president.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[thelinuxevangelist]

"looney left fringe"

Apparently the United States has a hell of a fringe

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[pintomp3]

*shudder* i think it would make heads shrivel and die.. oh that head. nevermind.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[HD Webdev]

That said, yeah, someone at the the FBI or Secret Service (not likely the NSA) will be skimming my posts now, I expect.

It's not likely. The FBI and the rest are in a mess (again!) after trying to semi-merge into the Homeland Security. It'll be a decade or so before they recover.

No one barely knows who's supposed to do what other than terrorist monitoring (and multi-state crimes, etc...) and don't know who will get hung out to dry if general "fishing" investigations get leaked out. This has a lot to do with how the CIA was bitch-slapped decades ago after being ordered to do things by one administration and then persecuted by the following administration for following previous orders, rinse, lather, repeat. Also, it's more likely that the Secret Service would be interested if there weren't so many reported threats to check up on, threatening emails/letters to government agencies, and phone calls from seriously disturbed people to deal with.

The agencies were in quite a bit of trouble a decade ago for not paying attention to threats from Francisco Martin Duran. He ended up trying to kill President Clinton. Francisco got 40 years for the attempt. They know that it's important to concentrate on reported threats or direct ones, not check on every person who posts anti-administration text on WWW/USENET. They may do some dumb things, but the not-dumb things are rarely good Headline Media Material.

Although I do not believe what government agencies report, there is sufficient documentation and mention of numbers around 1,500 investigations/year that I believe that the number is quite likely accurate. Even if the number is 10x higher, it's not a large number considering the population of the world. On top of that, the crime is only punishable with a 5 year sentence. Being charged for growing marijuana (no sales!) usually carries a more serious sentence.

Also, Google alone reports 2.5 MILLION hits for the phrase "kill president bush" alone to check out.

Yes, I will always fear government. But, I also realize that they they're human, not supermen who can do whatever they want unless the current political climate gives them some rope and they can justify the time they spend getting paid to do {whatever}.

Reading Slashdot and/or filtering communications for the billions of variations of "do something bad to government" is not likely to be useful. OTOH, filtering for references to the {currently watched terrorist organizations} more likely is being done.

Again, I fear government. But, I'm much more worried about laws being passed to infringe on our rights compared to what will happen to me if I have "Bomb. Kill. President. Revolution. Washington. Airplanes. Hijack. CAPSII actually helps us terrorists..." in a USENET/WWW .sig or post.

And, before anyone is quick with a mod-down, remember, if (when) there is another successful terrorist attack and the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs finds out that government employees were wasting time investigating Slashdot/WWW/USENET text, heads will definitely roll.

So, I'll end with Bomb. Does. Kill. Better. President. Get. Foreign. A. Policy. Before. Drastic. Someone. Something.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[HD Webdev]

And you have to present him as an ordinary guy who makes grammatical errors, which I'm sure he's trained to make--he didn't talk that way at Yale--and a fake Texas twang, and he's off to his ranch to cut brush or something. It's like a toothpaste ad. And I think a lot of people know it.

I'll never forget an excellent quote from one of Douglas Adams books although Bush, unlike most presidents, is breaking the rule quite a bit " the President's job is not to wield power but to distract attention away from it .

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[cold fjord]

Apparently the United States has a hell of a fringe

There is a difference between "being less popular than you were", and being "a clear enemy to the people of the United States," who should be imprisoned or killed ... or is that too fine of a distinction? I rather doubt the "clear enemy" camp is even as high as 6%, although the "unpopular or bad President" group could reach up to 65%, depending on the date & poll. President Bush's popularity will no doubt continue to rise and fall for the next several years, but the percentage of people in the US who seriously consider him an enemy who should be imprisoned for life or killed will likely remain small, at the fringes of American society, and deserving scrutiny as to their sanity. History may ultimately jundge him to be a terrible President, or possibly a great one, but almost certainly not an "enemy of the people."

Re: Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Black Parrot]

> I think he could quite convincingly plead diminished mental capacity as a defence.

Funny aside, he didn't have any qualms about executing the mentally retarded when he was governer of Texas.

Re: Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Black Parrot]

> Saddam is on trial for torturing and killing people, maybe one day Bush too will be ontrial for torture and murder.

It doesn't seem to be commonly known, but starting gratuitous wars accounted for two of the four charges against a number of German politicians, generals, and industrialists at the Nuremburg war trials. Charges #1 and #2 were -

1. participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace

The Wikipedia article has a table listing who was found guilty of which charges; those found guilty of one or both of these two charges included Göring and Hess, as well as lesser-known individuals such as the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Economics, the head of their equivalent of the Pentagon, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Notice that you could easily put names on the holders of some of those same positions in the USA in 2003. It's small wonder that the Bush administration has been so adamantly against the creation of the World Court.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[lewp]

What it REALLY comes down to is "He's OUR dick, so lets leave him alone". Just as the Democrats never had any problems with a certain Pres lying under oath to a Grand jury.

I can't stand either major political party, but I have a real hard time drawing a parallel between lying about getting a blowjob and sending 2000+ of your fellow citizens off to die because it fit your agenda.

Maybe you can shed some light on that for me.

Re: Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[cold fjord]

It doesn't seem to be commonly known, but starting gratuitous wars accounted for two of the four charges against a number of German politicians, generals, and industrialists at the Nuremburg war trials....

. ... Notice that you could easily put names on the holders of some of those same positions in the USA in 2003. It's small wonder that the Bush administration has been so adamantly against the creation of the World Court.

Apparently the whole boring history of UN Security Council actions against Iraq, the sorry saga of the weapons inspectors, the Oil for Food scandal, and the regular firing on US planes by Iraq (AKA "Act of War") is apparently still unknown by you. Minus 10-12 years of history and collective action by the UN against Iraq, I can almost see confusing the Iraq situation with that of German aggression* .... almost. Of couse, if it lets you slam the US or Bush, well... facts be damned!!

*Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Africa, Russia, the whole genocide / concentration camp thing, etc.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Savantissimo]

I wish I had said that.

Re: Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Black Parrot]

> Apparently the whole boring history of UN Security Council actions against Iraq, the sorry saga of the weapons inspectors, the Oil for Food scandal, and the regular firing on US planes by Iraq (AKA "Act of War") is apparently still unknown by you. Minus 10-12 years of history and collective action by the UN against Iraq

What part of that rant is supposed to actually justify an invasion of a country and forcible change of their government? The only thing that even superficially looks relevant is the anti-aircraft missiles, but you can hardly blame someone for firing AA against someone who is habitually invading their air space. (Well, you can blame them for stupidity, but not for illegality.)

And before you invoke UN resolutions, please look up that clause of international law that gives the UN or anyone else the authority to violate a state's airspace.

> Of couse, if it lets you slam the US or Bush, well... facts be damned!!

Bush and the US government deserve a slamming over this, and the facts support the slamming.

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[Yojimbo-San]

How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?

What?? Ballmer is President of the US now?

Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law

[mhollis]

I agree with your sentiments but, unfortunately for many, it is the victors who write history and stand in judgement of the vanquished.

More likely, "Gee Whiz" Bush will be noted for buildings, schools and other monuments of a "grateful" nation erected in his honor.

I also note that nobody mentioned Abu Graib prison, where Bush's intelligence officers and hired hands tortured and killed Iraqi citizens with impunity (similar to the manner in which Saddam Hussein's regime is alleged to have done). Bush, in a speech "took responsibility" for the "unfortunate acts" of "misguided" members of the military, without acknowledging that his administration hired goons and former CIA agents as independent contractors to "expedite" quick "confessions" from Iraqi taxicab drivers, unemployed mechanics and felaffel stand vendors.

This is the same type of official incompetence practiced under Saddam Hussein in the 1990s (after the first Gulf War). The only difference here is that in one case it was incompetence on the part of Hussein's secret police, aided by his sons, Uday and Kusay and in the other, incompetence on supposedly professionally-trained former CIA agents and operatives.

Status of encryped Voice-over-IP and email?

[mozumder]

So what do we do now? Can we standardize on encrypted VoIP and email protocols now?

I wonder how long it is before they use NSA intercepts to implement other authoritarian measures, such as drug/copyright/misc law enforcement.

And, is anyone surprised that Vice President Dick "Go Fuck Yourself, we're gonna invade Iraq and torture/kidnap people for my profit" Cheney is pushing the whole spy-on-american-citizens philosophy as well? The guy is the single greatest point of all things evil in the world, and must be removed from power & influence immediately.

Re:Status of encryped Voice-over-IP and email?

[Sloppy]

At least they can't "creatively interrogate" you without your knowledge. And they sure as hell can't do it to everybody.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[thiophene]

On second thought I should have probably put sarcasm tags around that. Before someone takes that the wrong way and jumps down my throat, I, in no way, endorse this sort of policy.

I'm thrilled, but...

[ndogg]

Bush admitting to going to war under faulty intelligence, and now this? I'm not unhappy about it (in fact, I'm thrilled), but when did the ball drop? When did he change his mind and decide to take the blame? How did this all happen?

Re:I'm thrilled, but...

[nojomofo]

He waited carefully until Iraq was just about to have (in his opinion successful) elections before taking the blame for Iraq. It's a calculated risk that they're taking: if the Iraq election goes well, they expect people to forget about his admission of mistakes about a week after it was made, when he can continue to claim that things are going swimmingly and according to plan in Iraq.

Re:I'm thrilled, but...

[jfengel]

By "now this", do you mean to imply that he's taking responsibility for this? Thus far the White House has had relatively little to say on this topic, and what there has been has been denial that the President has done anything illegal.

As for the ball dropping, it's been gradually lowering for quite some time. Even before the invasion itself the rhetoric had shifted away from WMDs, and towards other reasons for invading Iraq: fostering democracy in the Middle East, overthrowing a dictator who'd been cruel to his own people, the general "War on Terror", forcing Saddam to comply with UN regulations (which he hadn't done; he didn't have the WMDs but didn't give UN inspectors complete access to prove it).

So he's been pushing away from the WMD issue and gradually admitting more and more about the faulty intelligence. The most recent admission is the most bald, but it's laid against a background of other justifications.

I'm not trying to claim that those are good justifications; I'll let you make up your own mind on that. And I've got no (public) opinion on whether he knew the intelligence was faulty at the time. But I can say this isn't a sudden reversal; it's an opinion he's been working towards for some time. If it seems sudden, it's only because he's using language now that admits some of the blame, but only because he can point to some progress in Iraq.

I am hereby moderating this entire story...

[Caspian]

(-1, Flamebait)

Re:I am hereby moderating this entire story...

[HardCase]

Amen! Oh, and you got screwed by the mods...

Re:I am hereby moderating this entire story...

[Caspian]

Yeah, no shit. They do this sort of crap to me all the time. It was meant as a joke; how it was a Troll is beyond me. (Maybe they resented my English-Nazi signature?)

Of course, I'm sure some vengeful fuckwit is going to mod me (-1, Off-topic) for this response here. Shit, I get (-1, Off-topic) for plenty of perfectly on-topic stuff on a regular basis.

Go ahead, crackheaded mods. Do your worst.

(Oh, for the record? I can't stand Bush.)

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Jerry Coffin]

Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

I don't think it's particuarly relevant exactly who does it, and it's already been ruled that looking at email doesn't violate laws against wire-tapping. IOW, from a legal viewpoint, your email is already fair game in any case.

If you honestly care, I'd consider something like PGP or gpg.

NY times sat on this for a year

[wwwrench]

The fact that the American government snoops on its citizens without any oversight is frightening, but perhaps not as freightening as this:

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

And how exactly is knowing that the NSA isn't under court-oversight, gonna help terrorists???? I guess Bin Laden is now gonna hold off on making all those phone calls to the States, now that he knows the NSA doesn't need to call a judge before starting the wiretap.

The New York Times simply cannot be stupid enough to believe that this knowledge will help terrorists. They are a bunch of sniveling, subservient, fart-catchers. They care less about informing the public, then in protecting their pathetic "access" to the powerful.

That the government removed the provision that wiretaps should be (effectively) rubber-stamped is shameful. That they kept the people in the dark about this decision is even more shameful. But that the supposed free press also kept this massive decision secret?? That's so fucked, I don't even know where to begin.

A vibrant democracy has a free press. In a democracy, you can speak your mind without fear. Your government is open, and their decisions are public and can be scrutinized. Heck, the public can even influence the decisions!

What America has is a vote every few years to choose between one of two figureheads. There are certainly places in this world, where they don't even pretend to live in a democracy, but this shouldn't give one much comfort.

America: Please. Do something. Your democracy is so shallow, it barely exists, except as some cheap idea evoked by your rulers to justify the invasion of other countries.

Why we aren't all at the barricades is beyond me.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[dnoyeb]

The most important part of a functioning democracy is the free press. I have yet to hear a single solitary word about establishment of 'free press' in Iraq.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[rainman_bc]

What America has is a vote every few years to choose between one of two figureheads.

Don't you think you are over simplifying things? You are showing your ignorance of the american democratic system. In fact every four years they get to vote for a congress person as well as a president, and congress has more power than the president does. Congress represents the people much better than the president does, and has more power.

And every 2 years 1/3 of the senate also goes up for re-election. You have three houses where you can make your voice heard instead of just one, like in Canada.

In Canada, the senate is appointed by the PM, and so is the governor general. So in a sense, the PM has all the power, with little oversight.

The only problem Americans have is that they are fixated on a two party system. Extreme Right, and Right Leaning liberals.

No one with a hope that stands up for the little guy.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[Neph]

After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting

Oh crap, I want a firmer number here. Did they wait exactly a year? Was it a roughly a year? Was it maybe a bit more than a year? Was the article originally going to be printed before election day 2004?

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[Red Flayer]

Hit the nail on the head, I think. Before or just after the appointment of Bush, either way it would have been a PR nightmare.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[millennial]

"They care less about informing the public, then in protecting their pathetic 'access' to the powerful."

Would you prefer that the powerful are inaccessible?

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[bhsx]

... how about because THERE ARE NO F**KING BARRICADES?(censorship mine)
Um, how about the "Free Speech Zones"? You wouldn't consider that a barrier?
So, um, you can walk up to the White House, no problem, huh?
No security clearance needed? Hmm? Get a F**KING CLUE MORON!!!

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[mkro]

And how exactly is knowing that the NSA isn't under court-oversight, gonna help terrorists???? I guess Bin Laden is now gonna hold off on making all those phone calls to the States, now that he knows the NSA doesn't need to call a judge before starting the wiretap.

By assuming terrorists believe the U.S. uphelds principles not even the U.S. believes in anymore. You must admit it is kinda funny.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[iabervon]

On the other hand, they broke the story when the Patriot Act was up for renewal, which can hardly be a coincidence. Most likely, they held off when they first found out, due to not having enough proof to be sufficiently sure to go against the white house, got further confirmation, and then waited for a time when domestic surveillance would be on people's minds. It's not like the story was time-critical when they found out; it was already 2 years old, and likely to be just as shocking when they decided to break it as it was when they found out.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[houghi]

Your democracy is so shallow, it barely exists, except as some cheap idea evoked by your rulers to justify the invasion of other countries.

Yet this democracy is what they want to export to the rest of the world. Well, that is untill the people of said country elct in a democratic way a governement that is against the foreign policy of the US.

The kid that saved me in kindergarten from a beating has become the bully of the neighbourhood.

Re: NY times sat on this for a year

[Black Parrot]

> perhaps not as freightening as this

Also, one of the major networks (CBS, IIRC) is still sitting on a story about Bush that their management quashed just before the 2004 election.

Re:NY times sat on this for a year

[Dobeln]

"The New York Times simply cannot be stupid enough to believe that this knowledge will help terrorists. They are a bunch of sniveling, subservient, fart-catchers. They care less about informing the public, then in protecting their pathetic "access" to the powerful."

There is no "duty to publish". Since they (accurately) knew the information being pursued was related to an ongoing terrorism investigation, they held off publication (alternatively, they wanted time to write up the book being pushed here). The right call, certainly, as at least one AQ operative was nabbed in the operation. (Plotting against NYC bridges and tunnels, IIRC)

It should also be noted that Congress was informed about this course of action, and I am willing to bet that's where the leak came from. Lucky that the new policy is finding and prosecuting press leaks vigorously.

Warning

[EmoryBrighton]

Prior to replying, I'd like to remind everyone
that making statements such as: JOHN shoud die
by mahi-mahi. Where "JOHN" is replaced with an
identifying name that represents the president
or his family, or a former president may cause
a lot of trouble. Dont even type the statement
since your words are being monitored currently

a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[isotope23]

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.

It sounds worse than it is

[rapierian]

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

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[smitth1276]

They won't listen. This site is full of pimply-faced teenagers who have no since of perspective, and hold irrational, dogmatic beliefs that are dangerous to the security of the free world. If they had their way, it would be illegal to investigate terrorists at all.

Civil rights, in this case, is simply a pretext for incoherently bashing somebody that they don't like after a simply cursory reading of a summary of an article which in turn summarized another article, which omitted some information after withholding the entire story for a year.

Such is the immaturity of Slashdot's readership (generally speaking, of course... there are some genuinely intelligent people here).

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[Viper Daimao]

you're the twig trying to fight back the flood. No one needs to read or try understand the different sides.

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[rapierian]

I know...usually on the political posts I don't even bother...occasionally such as this though I feel I can get in a post early enough and in a mild enough way that some people might read it and actually pay attention to what it says and not immediatly think, "Oh no! Someone who didn't refer to Bush as McChimpy BusHitlerburton! He needs to be moderated to oblivion!" Sigh...

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[Viper Daimao]

I agree, the froathing at the mouth moonbattery on days like this make me sick.

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[sammy baby]

Yeah. See, here's the problem:

Regardless of the scope of the surveillance conducted by the NSA, the subjects they're allowed to snoop on are severely restricted. Here's the relevant bit:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

(this is way, way, out of my field of expertise, but my brief reading of the code didn't yield anything that would have placed this in the Preznit's purview.)

So anyway. The code basically says, "You can conduct surveillance without a court order, so long as there is "no substantial likelihood" that you're spying on Americans. The President's order said, essentially, "Do it anyway."

The Department of Justice, as you noted, reviewed the program: however, this is a DoJ which has been notoriously dismissive of civil rights. Take John Yoo, for example, who recently claimed that crushing the testicles of the child of a suspected terrorist should be acceptable behavior. Or Alberto Gonzales, who has in past legal memos revealed himself to be unabashedly pro-torture. These are not people I would view as well qualified to provide balance to issues of civil rights.

I have to say, though, Michelle Malkin is even worse, given her support for the internment camps for Japansese during WWII, and for Muslims now (and utter fabrications/slanders she's made to justify these positions.)

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[poot_rootbeer]

Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program.

Who cares how many pieces of candy I stole last week? The important things is that I haven't stolen any candy TODAY!

Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic

So? That doesn't make it any less of a violation of the rights of those were were eavesdropped upon.

Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers.

Bullshit. If it were only known terrorists that were being monitored, the government would not have had any difficulty getting warrants for wiretaps.

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[rapierian]

Note I didn't say that I agreed with everything that she pointed out, just that there are counterpoints to many of the statements in the article. My general approach to an issue is to try and find reasonably discoursed arguments for both sides, read them, and then make my decision. I do tend to fall towards the conservative views on issues, but that's probably because most liberals seem to be unable to do much besides froth at the mouth against Bush and America. In my opinion those who follow the political philosophies of Truman and FDR are now the moderates --their party has moved away from them.

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[Damvan]

"no since of perspective, and hold irrational, dogmatic beliefs that are dangerous to the security of the free world. If they had their way, it would be illegal to investigate terrorists at all."

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, just as we are entitled to ours. Show me the quote within this discussion where anyone, ANYONE, said that is should be illegal to investigate terrorists at all. I appreciate if you don't make assumptions on my "way".

BTW, it is spelled "sense" not "since"

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[sammy baby]

I suspect that ideologically, we're farther apart on the spectrum than our self-descriptions would suggest. You say that "you tend to fall towards the conservative views on issues... because most liberals seem to be unable to do much besides froth at the mouth against Bush and America." I believe that I fall slightly to the left on most issues, but I can't stand the way that statist pundits like Malkin (or occasionally Reynolds, or anyone writing at National Review) can say one thing one day, do a complete 180 the next, and then label anyone who fails to agree with them at either stage anti-American.

Certainly the Democratic party has been in bad need of help for some time. But with apologies to a certain cartoonist, trying to establish a dialogue with the "other side" is a lot easier when you're not telling them they're treasonous, slanderous, "frothing at the mouth" lunatics.

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[rapierian]

There are a decent number of left leaning people out there who are able to carry on a decent conversation and back their arguments with reasoning, I'm certainly not denying that. What I'm pointing out is that there's a large portion of the modern democratic party that refuses to take a look at any facts that might fly in the face of their convictions. Even worse, this group tends to create it's own distortions of the truth to try and gain a partisan advantage. Two of the larger examples I would point out are Howard Dean and Micheal Moore.

A lot of my frustrations with the modern democratic party arise from the fact that I live in Boston, where the left leaning culture has become sort of a self propogating thing: so many people lean to the left and read left leaning opinions that it shifts their view of where the middle is, causing them to lean further to the left, etc.

An example: Two days ago my roomate asked me what I thought about Bush's quote, "It's just a G*dd@mn piece of paper". When I said I suspected that was a hoax, since I doubt any politician in this country would be foolish enough to say something, she wouldn't believe me, because to her and her friends it was just a confirmation of what they believe to be true (that Bush would say something like that). Five minutes later with Google showed that every article about that was linked back to one blogger, who never linked his article. Conclusion: It's either a hoax from said blogger, or else he privately was told that by the president, and no reporters heard it. My point, however, is that the knowledge that Bush not only would do such things but does such things is just common knowledge here, and the entire culture of lies and slander against the left is self propogating here.

Re:It sounds worse than it is

[sammy baby]

Two of the larger examples I would point out are Howard Dean and Micheal Moore.

A pity you have to cite Howard Dean in your example, considering he was just the target of a mini smear campaign claiming that he was "gleefully" predicting American defeat in Iraq, when any reasonable reading of the interview showed quite the opposite sentiment (about the "gleeful" part, that is. Looking for a more specific reference, but wasn't able to find one in time to get this posted). And such a pity that, viewed objectively, the main thrust of his argument - that quotes from administration officials today look just like Nixon administration quotes during Vietnam - is pretty much objectively true.

As for Michael Moore: not such a big fan. But I'd gladly take Moore's dubious documentary style over, say, Coulter's outright bile any day of the week. Twice on Sunday.

Two days ago my roomate asked me what I thought about Bush's quote, "It's just a G*dd@mn piece of paper". When I said I suspected that was a hoax, since I doubt any politician in this country would be foolish enough to say something, she wouldn't believe me, because to her and her friends it was just a confirmation of what they believe to be true (that Bush would say something like that). Five minutes later with Google showed that every article about that was linked back to one blogger, who never linked his article.

It took me a comperably short time to trace that particular story back to Capitol Hill Blue, the blog I assume you're referring to. According to his bio, the author, Doug Thompson, is also a published journalist and photographer whose work has been carried by Esquire, National Geographic, the AP, and Reuters. He sourced "three people present at the meeting," without further elaboration, which I assume means he was only permitted to cite them on background.

Of course, you're free to doubt his story or sources, but this is a far cry from some random crank with a blog. And really, why would it be that surprising? Because he cursed? This is the same guy who was doing impersonations of Texas' first death-row inmate since 1860 begging for her life, as a joke. To a journalist. (Although, evidently, he realized immediately after that that kind of joke really isn't so cool). And as for actual respect for the constitution, the Bush administration has been trying to expand the power of the executive in pretty much every sphere of American life, not to mention the lives of non Americans.

Anyway: thank you for taking the time to debate this with me seriously, and I'd just ask you to consider the notion that occasionally, the reason that something has become conventional wisdom is that it's objectively true.

Surveillance Breakdown

[dch24]

From the article: "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

It sounds like a review is needed here.

From Sneakers: Gordon walks up to Bishop and shows his ID.

GORDON: National Security Agency.
BISHOP: Ah. You're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone.
GORDON: No, that's the FBI. We're not chartered for domestic surveillance.
BISHOP: Oh, I see. You just overthrow governments. Set up friendly dictators.
GORDON (smiling): No, that's the CIA. We protect our government's communications, we try to break the other fella's codes. We're the good guys, Marty.
BISHOP: Gee, I can't tell you what a relief that is, Dick.

The truly amazing part is that we elected him...

[mmell]

not just once, but twice.

I think our government crashed about twenty years ago; nobody noticed because the rest of the system stayed up (the economy, most outward-facing services, etc.).

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Concertina]

Legal for the FBI, I think. Not so legal for the NSA. Someone care to confirm?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[thiophene]

I only wish more people used gpg/pgp. Unfortunately, I know only one other person that I regularly correspond with that also uses it. Unfortunately, it's my fianceé and I kind of forced it on her. Though it does give me hope that given a proper setup, she's able to use it easily and fairly seamlessly. Perhaps someday more people will catch on.

Because he's Republican

[mozumder]

/filling up the tank with gasoline //pouring it on discussion forum ///lighting match .. 3.. 2.. 1..

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ak3ldama]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[east coast]

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.

THX 1138

[Dan667]

Just watched THX 1138 last nite. Movie set in the future about people having no rights and everyone spying on each other in a "utopian" society. Everything in the movie was driven by money and power. Favorite part is when they are "reconditioning" the main character and there is a new guy helping and he has no idea what he is doing. The torture of the main character, while the new guy was figuring out how to brain wash the main character was classic. This de-humanization and stripping of freedoms for power seems like what Bush would love to do. I don't want to live in that world.

Re:THX 1138

[Anonymous Coward]

Just watched THX 1138 last nite. Movie set in the future about people having no rights and everyone spying on each other in a "utopian" society. Everything in the movie was driven by money and power. Favorite part is when they are "reconditioning" the main character and there is a new guy helping and he has no idea what he is doing. The torture of the main character, while the new guy was figuring out how to brain wash the main character was classic. This de-humanization and stripping of freedoms for power seems like what Bush would love to do. I don't want to live in that world.

TOO LATE. We already live in that world.

I hope so

[WindBourne]

My bet is, that there are encoded messages amongst that. One of the best ways to hide something is to place it in all the noise rather than trying to encrypt with lots of security.

Re:I hope so

[TripMaster Monkey]

My bet is, that there are encoded messages amongst that. One of the best ways to hide something is to place it in all the noise rather than trying to encrypt with lots of security.

You wouldn't be far off... ^_^

Re:I hope so

[WindBourne]

Far better to intersperse a voice amongst a series of common mp3 files spread on multiple servers. In addition, it should use on of the more uncommon languages on the planet; say something from a small tribe of people in pakastan or the middle east.

Don't Worry...

[donnacha]

Thank God we have President Bartlett to watch out for our rights as citizens.

Let's impeach President Dummard

[NFNNMIDATA]

If treason isn't a good enough reason to be impeached, maybe we can come up some kind of blow-job scenario.

Ooh geez, I wonder

[Swift Kick]

Could this ground-breaking article have anything to do with the upcoming release of a book written by the author of the NY Times article, which happens to deal with this exact subject matter?

Before you start lashing out against the government, notice that the article states that the monitoring activities are of individuals believed to have possible ties to terrorist networks, and no mention is made if they're even US citizens.

Of course, you can say that they could technically monitor anyone they want as long as they made it a 'national security' matter, but then again, you are probably wearing tinfoil hats and living confortably in your tempest cages, so you have nothing to worry about.

Re:Ooh geez, I wonder

[josepha48]

Your a terrorist, or so your neighbor says. Does that mean we should monitor you?

After sept 11, there was this whole thing about 'report terrorism in your neighborhood' and tell on your neighbors. Some people just didn't like their neighbors. What if they reported them? Should we allow US citiznes to have their constitutional rights bent, because the goverment says they are are terrorists?

The goverment has been watching some peace activists, because they say they 'may' be terrorist too.

Are you okay with the philosophy of, speak out against the goverment go to jail? Better watch that one...

Re:Ooh geez, I wonder

[shrtcircuit]

Of course, you can say that they could technically monitor anyone they want as long as they made it a 'national security' matter, but then again, you are probably wearing tinfoil hats and living confortably in your tempest cages, so you have nothing to worry about.

They can, and I don't wear tinfoil hats and sit in a cage.

I do, however, live in the real world, and work in technology. It isn't that hard to spy on people, and facilities are in place to do just that.

Just because you don't do anything wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you communicate electronically (by that I mean email, telephone, web, etc) it can be monitored. In particular if you communicate overseas, is IS monitored. This is just how it is; the legalities are a grey area (getting more black and white by the day though) but in the interest of national security, law itself becomes a grey area anyway.

Lawfully

[squoozer]

Yes it might be lawful considering the current state of the law but was it morally right? The law is (or at least is supposed to be) a reflection of the way the people feel about given actions. I can't believe that most people would feel it was right that their conversations were being listened to. I suppose that problem is that most people think it won't happen to them.

I can understand the "it won't happen to be" brigade. I fail completely to understand the "if you've got nothing to hide" brigade though.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[TripMaster Monkey]

No...we elected him once. The first time he took office, he was appointed by the Supreme Court (a national first, not to mention thoroughly unconstitutional and illegal.

Action should have been taken there and then to stop this malignancy from spreading, but we chose to sit on our hands instead.

In the long run, everybody gets the kind of government they deserve. Americans are living proof of that...we've turned into a global cautionary tale.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[chinadrum]

i'll just paste this chunk from Michelle Malkin.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm

"Those who actually read the piece will note that the paper must grudgingly acknowledge that it is talking about the NSA's monitoring of international communications (e-mails, cellphone calls, etc.) only; the agency still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

And not until the 16th paragraph, some 1,110 words into the massive piece, does the paper tell you the important context in which the program was created and used:
What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said. In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

As a result of the NSA program, buried down in the 11th paragraph, we learn that the terrorist plot involving convicted al Qaeda operative Iyman Faris was uncovered--possibly saving untold lives, not to mention New York bridges and possibly Washington, D.C. trains."

Last I checked they won't be finding my contact info in some AQ member's phone, nor do I call anyone internationally, let alone one that would be listed.

More info, some perspective

[Viper Daimao]

FTFA: The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.

Additionally as a result of the NSA program, buried down in the 11th paragraph, we learn that the terrorist plot involving convicted al Qaeda operative Iyman Faris was uncovered--possibly saving untold lives, not to mention New York bridges and possibly Washington, D.C. trains.

As to the legallity, its murky. Though, Mark Levin offers this: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Re:legally done

[mozumder]

So the fourth amendment to the constitution isn't a law anymore?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[dgatwood]

Obligatory South Park reference:

Ah. This man has a small penis. He must be planning to overthrow the American government.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[WindBourne]

The patriot act was all about giving DOJ/FBI access to NSA's tech. It is suppose to be in the name of chasing terrorists.

International, but intercepted where?

[jbeaupre]

I'm a bit confused. This seems to be about monitoring international emails and phone calls. And from the article "Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States." The rest of the article confirms this is legal. Can someone explain what the difference now is? Is it that rather intercept outside the US, they intercepted inside the US? But the exact same type of communications it was ok to intercept before?

Ethically this would seem the same. Intercept here, there, seems the same (note, I didn't say good or bad, just same). As someone pointed out, ethical and legal are not the same. So is it more of a legal issue? Is there just enough wiggle room the Whitehouse was able to come up with some sort of logic permitting it? Again, having a logical argument, doesn't mean it's ok.

Just curious.

Re:International, but intercepted where?

[Zuke8675309]

Well, the problem you see is that this is just an opportunity for the slashdot crowd to cast stones and bitch about Bush. Never mind the facts of the situation.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

This is a good question for GOP fans who claim to be conservatives. Conservatives don't believe in violating the nation's laws. That's what domestic surveillance without a warrant is.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[Dr. Spork]

Condoleezza Rice said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'

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.

Re:If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[ortcutt]

It isn't true. Condi is spinning like crazy in order to keep the story from catching hold. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Congress or the Justice Department to investigate though. This should be an occasion for a special prosecutor.

Re:If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[cain]

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.

Well John Adams outlawed criticism of the gov't - and he was one of the founding fathers:

"The Sedition Act posed the biggest challenge to civil liberties, undermining the core of the First Amendment protections of free speech and press. It prohibited spoken or written criticism of the government, the Congress, or the President."

The founding fathers aren't that high and mighty either. I'm just glad they set up a system where (evenutally) bad politians get what's coming to them. At least the system is transparent enough that we see these things and talk about them.

Re:If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[geminidomino]

Would you rather have a president like that?

You mean a president who would do what this one's doing, but have the balls to actually pull the trigger himself?

Fuck yeah, where do I sign up?

Re:If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[cain]

Do you have a cite for this?

Re:If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[Derling Whirvish]

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.

Like FDR did when in WWII ALL outgoing and incoming mail and telegrams were intercepted and censored if the government deemed it to be necessary?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt establishes the Office of Censorship in 1941 to censor communications between the United States and foreign countries and to prevent news organizations from publishing information the enemy might be interested in. Roosevelt appoints Byron Price, a respected journalist, to run the office. Price accepts the post on the condition that the media can voluntarily agree to self-censorship. The office employs 14,462 civilians to monitor cable, mail, and radio communications between the United States and other nations....

From December 19, 1941, until August 15, 1945, the Office of Censorship had the power to censor international communications at its "absolute discretion." With a staff of more than 10,000 censors, the office routinely examined mail, cables, newspapers, magazines, films, and radio broadcasts. Its operations constituted the most extensive government censorship of the media in U. S. history ...

Re:If this is lawful then we need new laws!

[Minna Kirai]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt establishes the Office of Censorship in 1941 t

That's not as bad as Bush. When you "establish an Office", you are putting everyone on notice that those communication channels are not confidential, and removing any expectation of privacy.

Bush wanted to have secret eavesdropping that the public would not know about, and he calls it "shameful" that the press exposed him:

1. "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," - GWBush

Furthermore, FDR was involved in a genuine WAR (as in, Congress issued a Declaration of War). The "war" Bush refers to is a rhetorical object summoned from his own fantasies. (Note: WWII was the most recent time the USA declared war)

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[mmell]

Hmmm . . .

Still upset that the Dubya stole the first election fair 'n' square? ;^D

W "Its only a GD piece of paper" Bush

[expro]

As you can see, it has been reported before. The only news is that it finally made it into the mainstream corporate-censored news stream, a bit like Abu Graib.

What else to expect from Bush, whose desire to shred the constitution is only barely hidden from public view.

Re:W "Its only a GD piece of paper" Bush

[The New Stan Price]

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.

Third agency in 48 hours

[jamie]

In the past 48 hours or so, it's been reported that the NSA, FBI and DOD have all overreached into Americans' privacy.

At some point the question becomes: which of Bush's TLAs is not illegally spying on us?

But the saddest thing of all

[WormholeFiend]

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?

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[BraceletWinner]

people seem to forget that the previous president was nearly impeached for lying about a blowjob in the oval office.

You left out two very important words: "impeached for lying under oath about a blowjob in the oval office."

Politicians lie all the time - this is nothing new. A sitting President lying under oath was new.

And he was impeached... it wasn't "nearly".

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[eluusive]

The question is why he was asked if somebody gave him a blowjob under oath....

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[BraceletWinner]

The question is why he was asked if somebody gave him a blowjob under oath....

Well, that's not really the question, but the answer to that is: Because he was being sued for sexual harassment, so an alleged blowjob at work from someone that works for you is relevant. Baseless lawsuit or not, you shouldn't be able to lie under oath and get away with it.

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[TheDauthi]

He hasn't recieved oral sex.

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[talksinmaths]

Baseless lawsuit or not, you shouldn't be able to lie under oath and get away with it.

I agree. You should only be able to get away with your lies if you speak them outright (in, for instance, an address to the citizens of your country). You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[meta-monkey]

So then you agree that Clinton should have been removed from office for his lies under oath? It's so refreshing to hear a liberal say that!

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[Fractal Dice]

I guess Clinton's the only one who bought into the "make love, not war" philosophy? :)

Re: But the saddest thing of all

[Black Parrot]

> You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.

So, by your lights it's ok to tell lies to start a war that get ~20,000 people killed, but not ok to lie about a blowjob, simply because one was under oath and the other wasn't?

(And BTW, isn't testimony to Congress and congressional commissions done under oath?)

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[edunbar93]

Clearly, this is the real issue at hand. The man really needs a blowjob.

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[TheGratefulNet]

simple solution: enact a law that says ANY time the pres talks, he's under oath.

why should he NOT be under oath for all he says? if anyone has to be held accountable for telling untruths, its the most powerful man in the world (as such).

"swear in? no, but I'm willing to have a CHAT with them..."

sheesh. that guy should be removed immediately. as one of my favorite movies' lines goes: "farm, immediately".

Re: But the saddest thing of all

[talksinmaths]

So, by your lights it's ok to tell lies to start a war that get ~20,000 people killed, but not ok to lie about a blowjob, simply because one was under oath and the other wasn't?

No...if fact it's quite the opposite. My point was that using an arbitrary indicator (such as being under oath) to determine the impact of and retribution for a lie isn't valid.

(And BTW, isn't testimony to Congress and congressional commissions done under oath?)

It depends. If the purpose of the hearing is to Nail(TM) someone (i.e. the baseball steroid hearings), then yes a swearing in will likely take place. However if the purpose of the hearing is to put on a Dog and Pony Show(TM) (like this, for instance), then not only do they not swear you in, but they (apparently) allow you to lie to your heart's content without consequence.

Re:But the saddest thing of all

[Minna Kirai]

So then you agree that Clinton should have been removed from office

She wrote no such thing. "Not get away with" is very far from "remove from office"

So then you agree that Clinton should have been removed from office for his lies under oath? It's so refreshing to hear a liberal say that!

Any rational liberal supporting the goals of his own party would say that. If Clinton had found an excuse to retire, then Gore would've recieved the usual incumbent-bonus, and handily defeated Bush in 2000.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Stealth Potato]

No, not really. Last time I checked, legislation like The PATRIOT Act couldn't override the Constitution...

Fuck You.

[missing000]

So, where's the grand plot here? 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?

Just one question. Why do you hate your freedom?

Re:Fuck You.

[smitth1276]

Yeah flamebait is right. Now that some immature 14 year old on slashdot has said it, I can say with absolute certainty that it is a "blatant violation of the constitution."

Re:Fuck You.

[finkployd]

I'm pretty sure search and seizure without a warrant is. If it is not, then what do you consider "unreasonable" to mean?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[acoustix]

I could honestly care less. The NSA wants to read my email? Fine. The government will know where and when I'm having a football party, geek meeting, or brass rehearsal. They will also see every piece of spam. That's pretty much it.

Go nuts.

-Nick

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[paterthorn]

I do believe one of the big issues here is that there was absolutely zero judicial oversight. That and what is supposed to agency restricted to operating overseas observing US citizens on US soil.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[WilliamSChips]

Yes, but the Patriot act is against several parts of the Constitution, hence it is an illegal act IMHO ;).

Technicalities

[Jtheletter]

You know, it's crap like this that has been pissing me off more and more lately as it is uncovered. For every scandal the Bush administration has perpetrated they sen dout Condi Rice to parrot "we're wokring inside of the law" when in fact it's either a boldfaced lie (i.e. the real truth hasn't come out completely) or is a weak technicality. Greatest example of this is the rendition and abuse of "terrorist suspects" aroudn the world by the US. The party line is "We don't torture" but torture has been so finely legally defined by them that while they may technically be not torturing, they sure as hell wouldn't want anyone they care about to ever experience what US agents have been dolling out. And the fact that Rice can even utter the phrase "the President respects the constitution" without being struck by lightning from some god or other is amazing. At every chance this administration has pushed the limits of constitutional authority, claiming for itself any power not nailed to the floor, and in cases of legal ambiguity it claims powers that may well be technically legal (as in no specific law against) but that completely fly in the face of the spirit of the constitution. And we're not even talking about pedantic semantics here, anyone with a heartbeat in most cases can see these policies for what they are at face value: power grabs designed to further centralize government and exclude them from reprecussions and responsibility.

I propose an amendment/law/Pact with the nation that serves the death penalty to any administrator at any level who purposely circumvents or otherwise overrides every constitutional liberty, in all cases. Extreme? Certainly, but the current legal deterrant is more or less nonexistant. Consider that even after an abuse of some sort is uncovered we go through a period of denial, then minor concession ("ok, so we did it but, we were just trying to stop the bad guys, honest!"), then we find that previous statements were outright lies (lying to the public from an elected official should be treated and prosecuted as purjury in my mind). This could all take years, then come congressional investigations that move at the speed of a glacier, another few years gone, then maybe a few people are sentenced to what amounts to handslap prison terms at best. First-time drug offenders have higher minimum sentencing guidelines and their actions affect at most maybe a few dozen people directly (perhaps 100s) but constitutional infringements affect 250 million people every time! I'm absolutely sick at the total lack of public accountability in today's US government (was it really ever any good?) and more than that the utter disdain that most high-level politicians seem to have for the people who elected them. We need more than just weak checks and balances in the system, we need mandatory severe sentences for anyone who dares to trample upon the constitution that defines our personal freedoms and the soul of our country.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Syberghost]

Where are Dubya's defenders now?

Waiting for the retraction in the NYT in a couple of weeks.

Where's the Beef?

[Quinn]

The closest I can find to a right to "privacy:"

Amendment 4 - Search and seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No mention of email or telephones there, so they're all fair game.

Or we could be flexible and say the "spirit" implies the inclusion of an all-encompassing right to privacy, but if you do that, then you'd better also agree that I have the right to bear arms, you unbearably incongruous whining fools.

Re:Where's the Beef?

[stinerman]

*cough*

See .sig

Re:Where's the Beef?

[Quila]

Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Re:Where's the Beef?

[Jack9]

If rights are are not explicitly enumerated within the constitution, they are not retained. Telephone, etc.

If the US Constitution was not to be interpreted in such a way, but to strictly follow the language of the 9th Amendment, why would it ever again, contain language with an intent other than to define/restrict rights. Rights would fall within an "infinitely broad" scope.

i.e.
Does the Constitution say I don't have a right to ignore the 6th Amendment? Nope. K, then it falls under the 9th Amendment that I can choose to ignore it.

Please explain how this is rational.

Re:Where's the Beef?

[Quila]

If the US Constitution was not to be interpreted in such a way, but to strictly follow the language of the 9th Amendment, why would it ever again, contain language with an intent other than to define/restrict rights.

There was a fear among some authors of the Constitution, most notably Alexander Hamilton, that if a bill of rights were included in the Constitution, then it might be misconstrued as the only rights the people have (your view). He also thought it redundant, as the people already assumed all rights, that the government already had no power to remove those rights. The 9th Amendment is there to assuage the fears of Hamilton and others. Unfortunately, Hamilton was right, and the 9th forgotten.

Also, the Constitution does not restrict the rights of the people at all. It declares the people have all rights and explicitly defines a few. It does heavily restrict the powers of the federal government, and reserves all non-enumerated powers of government to the states, or to the people.

Of course, looking at our country now, you'd hardly recognize that.

Re:Where's the Beef?

[Jack9]

I am of the view that the founders were not as bright as they are often touted. I agree it makes more sense that the 9th should be interpreted broadly (your view, as if we own these views), meaning I agree with you. Hamilton always understood people better than Jackson. Does it matter? No. Too many loopholes. No government can function under a broad interpretation. What was that whole civil war about anyway? Oh yeah, we switched interpretation...

/If narrow got us to free slaves, it had to happen ASAP. //Be interesting to see if narrow's what gets America in the end, was it worth it? yes.

the essential is preserved

[pbf]

Who cares if he lied, acted unconstitutionally or abused his powers, as long as he did not receive a blowjob in the oval office then he is truly a good president.

I guess god asked him to do all that, what a faithfull president!

NSA has been doing this for years

[payndz]

Read James Bamford's awesome book 'Body Of Secrets', or do a Google search for the deliberately loosely-worded text of United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18). NSA is already eavesdropping on every email it can find. USSID 18 not only allows NSA to keep copies of any emails (or anything else, including phone calls) it intercepts via the Echelon programme (for a year in the case of emails to a US citizen from a US citizen, for four years in the case of emails to or from a US citizen to a non-US citizen, or indefinitely in any other case) if an NSA analyst decides they're of possible foreign intelligence value. Meaning they have to be examined by NSA analysts to determine if there's any FORINT value in the first place! If the Echelon computers flag an email for any reason, it will be read.

If that wasn't enough, anything that NSA isn't legally allowed to intercept can be picked up by any of NSA's partners in the UKUSA programme - primarily GCHQ in the UK, but also its counterparts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and forwarded to NSA. Because these intercepts weren't technically made by NSA, they get to keep them indefinitely. Pretty sneaky, huh?

Oh, and if NSA 'just happens' to come across something in an email that suggests a possible criminal act within the United States, then they're required to turn it over to the appropriate law enforcement authority - police, FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security, whoever - for investigation.

In short, if you're doing something dodgy, don't use email to plan it!

Re:NSA has been doing this for years

[Tackhead]

> NSA is already eavesdropping on every email it can find. [ ... ] Oh, and if NSA 'just happens' to come across something in an email that suggests a possible criminal act within the United States, then they're required to turn it over to the appropriate law enforcement authority - police, FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security, whoever - for investigation.
>
> In short, if you're doing something dodgy, don't use email to plan it!

"NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one!"

One of my oldest entries in my collection of .sig quotes, it's nice to see it finally come true :)

> --
> You must think in Russian.

"Major, you will be compiling the fastest, most sophisticated web browser on the face of this earth."
"Where's the source?"
"Hosted on Kremvax."

Re:NSA has been doing this for years

[nsaspook]

This is why this is a none story. Domestic USA commint has be handled by cutouts for ages.

Re:Not just a BJ

[Seumas]

While I'd tend to agree, his impeachment process had NOTHING to do with murders and was only about lying about a BJ.

I wish people like you who throw around retarded statements about "liberal media" would have a habit of getting beat up or killed.

Think I'll go to Iraq

[smooth wombat]

so I can enjoy all the freedom they have over there.

You know, to be free from a ruler who spies on its people, imprisons them without trial and tortures them.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[helix400]

Bush breaks the law to infringe on Americans' rights. Where are Dubya's defenders now? Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

Well, I tend to hold to the liberal idea where people are innocent until proven guilty.

So you'll cc the NSA on all your communications?

[sulli]

I'm looking forward to seeing you do that. Go on!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[chinadrum]

I'll clarify that some since i just took a chunk. Call 1: InternationalInternational = Legal
Call 2: InternationalUSA = Legal
Call 3: USAUSA = need warrant

Type 1 and 2 needed FISA warrants which could take up to 6 months to be processed. Now we can say screw that since it's obvious any numbers obtained won't be used 6m later.

Can you imagine.....

[acoustix]

.....what would happen to Bush if the NSA wasn't watching communcations systems and there was another attack on the counry? Everyone would be bitching about how "the intelligence community dropped the ball again". He is pretty much forced to do it because of liability issues. Look at how many lawsuits are still ongoing from 9/11. Now just imagine what would happen 4 years later. No matter what Bush does here (or anyone with authority) it's a lose/lose situation.

-Nick

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[kerrle]

It really worries me how uninformed people are even over legislation they're aware of and (one way or the other) enthusiastic about.

There are plenty of specific, legitimate reasons not to like the Patriot Act, but no, this specific thing wasn't made legal by it.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[jd]

The cards were rectangular, the chads were roundish and the legal case went in circles. Nothing square about it.

Paper of record?

[amightywind]

The New York Times publishes a negative story about President Bush, the day after a historic vote on Iraq, which the Times bairly notices. This from an institution that claims to be the paper of record. It's not out of character these days, is it? God Bless the President of the United States.

George Lucas's finest moment questining the system

[mozumder]

One of the greatest orwellian movies ever made.

The point that George Lucas makes in THX is that the SYSTEM itself is a flawed dangerous, self sustaining entitity. The tragedy is that people live within the boundaries of such a system, but never question the system itself.

In america, we question our President. We SHOULD be questioning the essence of the Constitution itself. How the hell do we consider the Constitution a good thing, when it allows a person like Bush to be elected into power in the first place?

Is DEMOCRACY itself even a good thing? Would our lives be any different if the leader at the top was a monarch instead of a "elected"? I doubt it.

History repeats itself...

[Dr_Ish]

Are there any other really old netizens still around? Those who have been on-line way too long will remeber something similar quite a few years ago. Back in the late 80s when the word went out that the NSA was packet-dipping network and e-mail traffic. I think this was one of the first paranoid conspiracy theories to hit the net. All sorts of wild evidence was cited to 'prove' this rumour. Anyhow, as a result of this story a fashion arose for people to put things like 'Bomb', 'President', 'Drugs' etc. etc. automatically into their .signature files. The idea was to try and trigger the NSA into recording all sorts of silly and trivial e-mails. The fashion did not last long. Of course, if people were to try to do this these days, they would no doubt be 'disappeared' to Guantanamo. There is one thing though that puzzles me: If supposed enemies of the nation (i.e. anyone who opposes Bush or Haliburton) are the target of this snooping, then how are they handling the State of Louisiana these days? Everybody in Louisiana hates Bush and Co. for their pathetic response to our Hurricane problems (they still want to charge the State $3.7 Billion for the money that FEMA workers are wasting in 4 star hotels). Do they really have the resources....opps, there is a knock on the door...men in suits...ARRGGHHH! ;)

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[garcia]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Jonny_eh]

These illegal and corrupt acts happen even in democracies with 3-4 parties. Look at Canada!

The current ruling party is fighting for its' life because of corruption, and I bet they'll be re-elected too. The 3rd most popular party (socialist) tells its' voters to vote for the Liberals (the ruling left-wing party) because they don't want the 'scary' Conservative party to win.

As long as there's two ends of the political spectrum, you'll have two leading parties, with the others fulfilling special interests that never get enough votes to matter much.

Re:It is amazing...

[agent dero]

You're right, how dare we.

What am I thinking, I'll gladly give up my rights so we can find your hypothetical 500 people out of 300 million, what a great idea!

I mean, it's not like the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are amazingly lower than, say, being struck by lightning, or...being mauled by a Black Bear.

This isn't an issue about terrorism, it's an issue about freedom, the same (apparent) buzzword Bush used to run for re-election.

*squints eyes* "The war on terror is about protecting freedom..." */squints eyes* give me a break

so, everybody who was surprised raise your hands

[swschrad]

either nobody was surprised, or their hands have been cut off.

Not quite so bad

[StanS]

For those who don't RTFA (from the NYTimes), the meat of the story is buried 16 paragraphs into the article:

What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

So they were monitoring the communications of people that had their phone numbers or emails on a terrorists computer, which is exactly what they (the NSA) should do. According to the article MOST of this was done internationally (and therefor not an issue). The potential grey area is that some of the communications monitored may have been USA/International (which is generally allowed, according to the article) and USA/USA (in which case they would need a warrent).

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[hzs202]

Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

Who cares when we have OpenPGP data encryption and voice scramblers!

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

mQGiBENkWOARBADxLXVbOGq/OZymr1qJlolh7CzCXK7kqzFfYJ LJKpm2UppVHdvB
3Wb6T+OQ9lwFOfd7nobjKtiOf1rjGcY/dLxj0bkXQMCnOb83IB C4QA+zgmdzJSUc
YreML13cQYE/MNsZigTij/2CwplngfcmkfLWOUhBbYkQOs1Stm 7KDID0mwCgnHce
r1IQvByGx1aHtNIVbk27OekEAMR664MGE309hpbMItV9ocFTCI UdsANSiZsYqmKr
hm/mDq7GWS8K7odoQmbGBsUYQNWv0r5N+CKDfeOGHN52AY1BKQ HHV2/00F0YhOQT
h4RZyMhMeV8zASiJgF/zViuV9TI14E6kF9cJRLchUXo4XUFTot DDrAedPDtdN5O8
WEyPBACFmALw8Zsi/ZSmJlm5skqsybNjpvKcdM0+zL7g32UXd3 X/0BRY1nOsxxq8
TjvV75tq1Lud+gkBlsu+p+Iw/En1tC//fqzH7kD6t1FOv67N3A SYDy631ievLPV2
JQL7+QBc0Z9ZKsnDynTsNdWyRmdLXwLi+XbRHQ5Yq4DnAV/amL QgSGFraW0gU2lu
Z2hqaSA8aHpzMjAyQGdtYWlsLmNvbT6IWwQTEQIAGwUCQ2RY4Q YLCQgHAwIDFQID
AxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRCoG8ogZI8U++ylAJ9I8+BN1AEc8cXJF7 etHG6zfL0SpgCg
k2Iy+OUQfVnduJ5zI3YPFKYPfGe0Kkhha2ltIFNpbmdoamkgKH NwaWRlcm1hbikg
PGh6czIwMkBueXUuZWR1PoheBBMRAgAeBQJDZFpeAhsDBgsJCA cDAgMVAgMDFgIB
Ah4BAheAAAoJEKgbyiBkjxT7jbgAn2LPM44hQXj3cCOjO+2Zjv Hn3SUJAJwNS605
c0mP37J48liHqhbcIllearkCDQRDZFkFEAgApUXQ3k/c32jVqv iNTbPCKaIqU7LH
C7/c7IbUcTvai79vAcLn42aCP1airbIqHjY5sqIc3CsdnQrYXa CuPc+6AYJpoy0m
zfEWTa2fNzQtxaqgeDSvQGknpSzbawSbTbl74AueFDMva+vtjn RnIiuZkyGMcx5v
I7CPl+JhRid5q50e6a7qqkKdVz7eoSqXshJ5V1i47lv0o/8amu RkRB7m2Q9EeUzr
v0f9CQGcbbIi9CySUsh+4ezX6UGBZIzXLqwF76GrbwzzPIre0n Mtab1loKyXRqkV
nlkebdS5wUysh8pAkNWCDHCoz1vKUx/Z5mvfvNjFrTbT6oz/U5 3VnVkvdwADBQgA
hbxARlg7zBK+w1/wdNvFSKmwPy6E9cu21Ioa0FzqIvJB7UmSZ2 n5eIEwpbctQhAL
+FchSNN5wkNLgGX9WXSWSIabixDVxWjgw8sWPvuYRH8xtPjSHy OvY3LcBn5Yj+df
ZiFafHGpyOsk9EdTxWpmd+mv2XQJ+586mUmVItYIqxtH8f0Z21 fDM1mzHieDTCnN
9+nqhAW7emUoiL60hsvf/C5UwDASEuPhRDzbINn9bXxtuubKrO R61OncL2RUxw41
jaZ0FiY6to+O97sqhW2p2dXHERogWpd1S5MXMjrtpcCYAa2BmU iZACm9qMLd4EL9
bViKvAR76CVktHBIP0gAiIhGBBgRAgAGBQJDZFkFAAoJEKgbyi BkjxT7jN0An0oN
N9w3s4roFaQm+SzT6ebqD178AJ49o6sYJkYo/7Ek3/0GWQkN/W yOxJkBogRC7IUu
EQQAhD0xPF9jEBsbC09xgdaig5+YTrdvOwZu6jGENBEBiEjnGc XzSQ5JigAZdx4j
4P/+l3fzX3dQz2tTrkSX+kB6XKn6d+r/oZVxN1Vfe25bsUt+O+ XYovv6SFi4J5ek
tG3TN/o15ZpqZyc951EmuK9/CnHEdfj9lBePkTL8x4KKEpcAoI ML3/ZBy8MI+WoH /wH+jvVrGNpHA/9tc0d+OZ+jNwmnJUiRdVAM7zKPMxHEDAkC1G 55WOfHWUUFlWwl
u7FjGizsyWv++E4gq0K69AQyYU+e7LujUJnAuLbFWzPK6kaQ0Y 8U0tF8z1dc1aL3
WI29UOsjraWDtU0ektJEkT4nkVnUpd5o+THeK9pmSIF6KLgOp8 VUYaaGLAP+IWxg
716JLusO5bRwJzmzkJcR0qQQQCEq9ZifrK5wRszYeGVPYi5Zxi JraUoLFF58QFJ/
aiR5GFwutSLppRw9AwoTZHLTsQ0jpjVp5UVyNblzVnBmXWZRt+ C+p1wJKty0EflA
afXHw9MR5VGi0BkG/tm5SZYhFlmnKD5dML3elG60JEhha2ltIF NpbmdoamkgKE5Z
VSkgPGh6czIwMkBueXUuZWR1PoheBBMRAgAeBQJC7IrsAhsDBg sJCAcDAgMVAgMD
FgIBAh4BAheAAAoJELTcPjuVgsjEst8An1Kb07KUu6h3bUZYfk u857TbZ3+QAJ9n
3yv7T64pPc0Eqyyz7Oy0jQJRQrQqSGFraW0gU2luZ2hqaSAocH JpbWFyeSkgPGh6
czIwMkBnbWFpbC5jb20+iF4EExECAB4FAkLshS4CGwMGCwkIBw MCAxUCAwMWAgEC
HgECF4AACgkQtNw+O5WCyMT+ZwCaApCQ+vXrm24rQaeSYHJO09 1BsbEAn1y+oXmm
0ZtAekC2LsQsx7FEKd0B0f8AACGz/wAAIa4BEAABAQAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAP/Y/+AA
EEpGSUYAAQEBAEgASAAA/+EAFkV4aWYAAE1NACoAAAAIAAAAAA AA/9sAQwAIBgYH
BgUIBwcHCQkICgwUDQwLCwwZEhMPFB0aHx4dGhwcICQuJyAiLC McHCg3KSwwMTQ0
NB8nOT04MjwuMzQy/9sAQwEJCQkMCww

OK then.

[JustNiz]

>> Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"

Oh well thats all right then.

In other news, Bush made himself a law that says he can do what he likes.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you didn't read the NY Times article (shocker...):

The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

Where were the outcries in 2002 from Congress and the FISA court? Oh, that's right, there weren't any...

The timing of this article is great. The book by the author is coming out in days. Iraq just has successful elections. How much you want to bet the author is on 60 Minutes this week and all over the Sunday shows. But there is no agenda... I mean, they've only had this article for a year.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Mr. Sketch]

Clinging to a principle for no practical reason is fanaticism, it's just that when it's YOUR principle, suddenly it's all about morality and your rights. Right?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/firs t.html

The New York Times held back this story...

[Vaystrem]

for a full year before they published it and they have admitted to witholding certain elements of the story from publication.

Details @ http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admit s_it_held_1215.html

Quick

[faqmaster]

Someone give Bush a blow job so we can impeach him!

Re:It is amazing...

[gamlidek]

It's this kind of thinking that's causing our rights to leak away...

Re:legally done

[isotope23]

Bush followed all the applicable laws, and members of congress knew about it. I don't see what the problem is.
Bullshit.

From the article :

"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."

When people inside the NSA have a problem with its constitutionality,
I think thats a pretty clear indication of just how legal it is.

No accountability, it's damage control for '06.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[dfn5]

Where are Dubya's defenders now? Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?

Anyone who has an expectation of privacy when sending email is sadly naive. This is Internet 101. Attention World, News Flash! Your email can be read by any number of people between you and the intended recipient. Sorry, that's the way it is. If you don't like it, encrypt your email. There is certainly enough free software out there to do it.

However, the tapping voice communications over POTS lines I would consider highly illegal.

Re:It is amazing...

[smitth1276]

You guys are transparent. No one in their right mind believes that you wouldn't be raising hell if the Brooklyn Bridge had been blown up. You, like many Slashdotters, are a fringe leftist looking for anything at all to complain about.

Spare us the faux outrage. Like I said... self-important, and disingenuous hypocrites, all of you.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[AKAImBatman]

If you have any information, please do share. I've tried to detangle the sections on Wiretapping and the like, but it appears to be a mess that involves stitching together 3 or more laws written over the last half century.

Question

[Descalzo]

OK, so if the President, and Congress, and the courts all know about something, doesn't that kind of make it legal? I mean if they all okay it? Doesn't an Executive Order with the approval of Congress and the courts amount to legality?

Note: I don't like it either, but what does it take to make something legal? Also note that, as someone said earlier, legal != ethical.

It also just occured to me that congress and the president and the courts all looking the other way doesn't make it legal, either. Is this what happened here, or was there some sort of officialness about it?

Bad summary.

[helix400]

The Slashdot story summary is wrong. But what should we expect from Slashdot editors who have political bones to pick? The Slashdot summary says "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."

However, that is not the case. While controversial, the NY Times does not go that far. The most they do is quote some critics who believe it crossed a legal line. Simply having some critics suggest it's unconstitional and illegal hardly makes it so. As the report says:

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[sexyrexy]

Slight difference with this here is that no one is coming for anyone. Monitoring is not the same as imprisoning, and I have no reason to shed a tear for anyone who has been imprisoned, because it was done because of direct connections to terrorist plots. The funny idea you people seem to have is that the government is going to throw you in jail because they don't like you. That's never happened. You may think Bush is the goddamn devil but last time I checked he hasn't had the Secret Service quietly "silence" protesters. Sheehan is still yelling her head off about it and no one is putting her in jail.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[MrTester]

I have never understood this argument. I have no problem with a third party, but what on earth is there about a third party that is going to be any more or less corrupt than the existing two?

There is nothing inherent to the parties that makes them corrupt. Its the people in the parties that bring the corruption. If they move to a different party they will just bring it with them.

Dear Pres. Bush,

[ENOENT]

Why do you hate America?

Ease up.

[Gruneun]

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.

Re:Ease up.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so"

no, the author comes out looking like instead of writing an article about it and letting it devolve into the standard fox/nyt fight back and forth, he chose to sit back and research the shit out of it, then publish something that cannot be brushed away, something thorough and well reasoned.

until we know the exact circumstances of the editorial decision not to print a year ago, it would be inappropriate to label the move opportunistic, well, any more opportunistic than a republican criticisng a liberal for sleazy business practices.

They said that they delayed a year to do more research. DOESNT IT SEEM LIKELY THAT A YEAR'S WORTH OF RESEARCH MIGHT PRODUCE ENOUGH MATERIAL FOR A BOOK!!??? I for one, think it just might.

And another thing, the NYT article very gingerly mentioned that the white house asked them not to publish. doesnt it seem likely that such a request, from the executive branch of the federal govt might make a paper a little hesitant to rush off and go shouting that the pres. had been violating the constitution and his oath of office? It would make ME slow down and do some research, that's for fucking sure.

Gettting a full book's worth of info and then putting that out there is a much less easily dismissed statement than a few articles. Given the Bush administration's ability to talk its way out of immediate criticism of gross misconduct, I'd say that the NYT's actions were the only reasonable response to white house pressure not to publish.

Re:Ease up.

[Smoke2Joints]

another point, is that having thousands of books by hundreds of different authors on the shelves is a much bigger and harder to ignore voice than a couple of articles on the intarweb. it gets the info out to the public in a way that actually makes them think, rather than through a standard media medium ie. government sanctioned tv news, something which the public at mass just absorbs and passes out the rear end. food for thought.

Re:Ease up.

[SoulRider]

doesnt it seem likely that such a request, from the executive branch of the federal govt might make a paper a little hesitant to rush off and go shouting that the pres. had been violating the constitution and his oath of office?

For any credible news agency in a free democracy I would think this would be incentive to do exactly that.

Re:Ease up.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

I take your point, however, I would argue that the very nature of the revelation in question shows thta we do not live in as free a democracy as we like to think.
When the story you're about to report concerns how the executive branch has seriously ignored the constitutional guarantee of due process and ordered domestic spying without judicial oversight, would you really feel entirely sure of your constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press? or would you perhaps take a step back and make sure that your claims were as rock-solid as possible, and present the public not with a simple article, but with a solidly-researched and exhaustively explained record of events?
were I the editor of the NYT, I would also have have been very circumspect in approaching the presentation of this story.

Re:Ease up.

[mapmaker]

the white house asked them not to publish...It would make ME slow down and do some research

The administration didn't ask the NYT to not publish because the info was false, but because they feared doing so would tip off the people they were (illegally) spying on.

And the Times obliged them. For a year. Even through a very close Presidential election. So all you right wingnuts that like to scream LIBERAL BIAS whenever you hear the name "New York Times": does sitting on a story that is hugely embarrasing for a Republican president running for reelection sound like something a liberally-biased organization would do?

Re:Ease up.

[raehl]

but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.

What if his motivation wasn't waiting for the book, but was waiting to release the story until just before a vote on extending the Patriot Act to have the maximum political effect?

The timing does seem rather convenient - and if this is true, is the guy slimy for waiting so it would have enhanced political effect, or a hero since it helped stall the patriot act?

Re:Ease up.

[pomo monster]

I doubt the "right wingnuts" care. Objectivity itself is a liberal ideal, and probably unattainable at that.

Food for thought: Is it possible to report "just the facts" without any hint of bias, if "the facts" alone make this administration the ugliest and most sinister in generations?

Re:Ease up.

[Minna Kirai]

waiting to release the story until just before a vote on extending the Patriot Act to have the maximum political effect?

The "maximum political effect" would've been to release 48 hours before the vote on electing G.W.Bush. Anything else is trivial.

If this news had come out election week last year, Bush WOULD have lost 2 battleground states due to angered libertarian-sympathizers.

If waiting a year to publish the news is to be viewed as politically manipulative, it can only from a PRO-Bush angle.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[bofkentucky]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[uradu]

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

I'm calling bullshit. It's easy to respond to these outrages by saying that Republicans and Democrats are all the same. But you didn't see any violations of privacy under Clinton. And today, you've got Democrats standing up to oppose the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. 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.

Magna Carta

[VaderPi]

Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"

That is because we live in pre-Magna Carta England. The King, I mean the President, is above the law.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[TheGavster]

sexyrexy, meet The Slippery Slope. I don't particularly care about *my* mail, but I care about the privacy of others' mail because I may someday need that protection. I'm sure that people who research sensitive news stories (like this one, for example) would appreciate not getting shut down before release because the NSA detected dissent in their inbox.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[Sloppy]

No...we elected him once. The first time he took office, he was appointed by the Supreme Court

That is absurd. The Supreme Court didn't even have jurisdiction over how the states decided to vote.

And you're just quibbling over details. Both times, about half of the people who voted, voted for him. The other half, voted for someone very similar. No matter how you slice it, about 99% of American voters approve of corruption, increased federal power, and they believe that government should micromanage of our lives. Quit blaming presidents and start talking to people, because they need a good talking-to.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[laughingcoyote]

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.

Re:Uh, guys...it was 9/11.

[Politburo]

Remember the lack of airlines for weeks?

No, I don't. Airspace was re-opened on September 13. Most airlines resumed revenue flights within a couple of days.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[TallMatthew]

You sure about that?  No paper trail any more, some of his top deputies are election overseers and the developers of the software on the voting machines refuse to hand over the source.

Methinks they are trying to protect this function ...

if ( $vote == "Democrat" && ($republican_votes <= ( $total_votes / 2 ) ) )
{ $vote = "Republican"; }

Article is a Troll

[Nom du Keyboard]

This whole article is a troll. It has already been debunked that this wasn't done in secret, all the necessary people were notified, and that the article writer is using the front page of the NYT to flog his book on this subject coming out in 10 days. (I wonder what the advertising rate for an author to use the front page is going for these days.)

But I guess whatever the NYT says is still the gold standard to some.

Re:legally done

[Coryoth]

Bush followed all the applicable laws, and members of congress knew about it. I don't see what the problem is.

It represents a significant change in policy. The relevant directive, to which this more recent policy represents a significant change, is United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18. That document makes for interesting reading. While chunks have been redacted the important point is that, according to that document, the NSA took the fourth amendment very seriously and had tight regulations as to exactly what conditions needed to be met before any interception of communications from anyone inside the US can occur. Given that, any weakening of this policy, such as what has been reported, potentially conflicts with the fourth amendment and would thus be unconstitutional.

Jedidiah.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zxnos]

until 'they' outlaw something you like to do...

How Many American Lives?

[bayers]

We are currently balancing lives and rights. How many American lives are you willing to spend to preserve your rights perfectly? 300? 3,000? If you could save 500 lives by giving up a few of your rights, would you?

Radical muslims will kill more Americans. We all know that. How easy do we want to make it for them?

Re:How Many American Lives?

[dartboard]

No, I won't give up my rights for 500 lives.

Re:How Many American Lives?

[geminidomino]

We can save ALL Americans from Muslim fanatics by simply forcing them to convert to Islam! Brilliant! After all, what's the right to practice your own religion compared to millions of lives?

Didn't think that one all the way through, didja?

Re:How Many American Lives?

[SithLordOfLanc]

No, I would not. How many thousands of Americans have already died so that we HAVE these right to begin with? Are you suggesting the 500 are more important than those thousands?

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[Politburo]

I'm against Bush as much as anyone else.. but CHB simply is not a reputable source.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[LihTox]

You don't seriously think a Democrat is any more forthright than a Republican?

In general? No. However, just because most politicians are crooked doesn't mean there aren't levels of crookedness, and I think that the current Republican leadership has taken corruption to a level beyond that typically seen in American politics. It's a fallacy (false dichotomy?) to argue that because both parties have flaws, they are equivalently flawed. There really is such a thing as the "lesser of two evils".

I am careful to make the distinction between the current Republican leadership and Republicans in general; I have no reason to believe the average R and the average D aren't equally honest.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[chinadrum]

NYT printing a retraction? They would rather go belly-up before admitting there is bias involved.

Completely off topic article...

[thx1138_az]

News for Nerds? Technology? IT? I'd hate to see this forum become a Democrats Vs. Republicans debate forum. I'll have to (and a lot of others) go elsewhare for a satisfying geek outlet.

Actually, on this one, Bush is right...

[mozumder]

Well, to be fair, the constitution DID allow this guy to come to power, invade random third world countries, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, secretly kidnap and torture people, and so on.

When bad things happen, do you question the act, or do you question the system that allowed the act to happen in the first place? Where do you place your efforts in solving the bad problems? If a murder happens, do you blame the murderer and fix the murderer, knowing full well that there may be millions of other murderers that need to be individually fixed, or do you blame the system, and repair the system itself in one fell swoop, to prevent murders from happening again?

Given that, we seriously have to start questioning the validity of the constitution itself. It IS a flawed system, originally written by wealthy slaveowners, designed to increase their wealth and capital. MILLIONS of people were killed by this government over the course of its history. Are people happier now than they were 300 years ago?? Remember, not everyone supported the Revolution.

It therefore is a perfectly valid stance to be against the existence of the Federal Government. Let the 50 states be their own countries. Monopolization of power is ALWAYS dangerous.

Re:Actually, on this one, Bush is right...

[Hatta]

Well, to be fair, the constitution DID allow this guy to come to power, invade random third world countries, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, secretly kidnap and torture people, and so on.

Yeah, the same way the constitution allows them to prohibit marijuana use, or profanity on the airwaves, or even the god damned right to grow your own food on your own land and not be bothered about it.

The thing is, the constitution doesn't allow any of this! All of those things are unconstitutional, it's just that no one cares, including the supreme court.

Re:Bush Derangement Syndrome on display at Slashdo

[Viper Daimao]

actually they got the names and contacts from a terrorist's computer and phone book, and these were all international calls which is legal. So its even more innocuous than you thought. But yeah, slashdot is turning into a tech news themed democratic underground.

Article written to enhance book sales

[j0217995]

Best part about this is that the author of the story wrote a book that details it that will be released soon. The book is titled: STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration

Interesting that the NY Times article doesn't mention anything about Risen's upcoming book that discuss this story and the other stories he will be releasing thru the venue of the New York Times. See http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?sid=33&p id=518822 for the book

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Snaller]

Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party

No it means a lot of parties.

Have you made an international phone call lately?

[lpangelrob]

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said.

Hmm. I don't think I've called Afghanistan or Iraq lately.

This is still something to watch carefully. I often wonder if the U.S. were actually being attacked, in the present tense, daily/weekly, by terrorists that would be communicating entirely within the country and therefore (theoretically) avoiding this spy effort, if people's attitudes would actually change about "the privacy their government violates."

Not advocating a policy position. Just curious.

It's printed in a book? That makes it okay!

[for(;;);]

I guess what Ed Gein did was just fine, then, since there were, like, a million books and movies about him.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[GusChiggins]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[laughingcoyote]

Oh really?

Cindy Sheehan is far -too- vocal, and far too well-known, for that to happen. How many Guantanamo detainees have been convicted of a crime? I don't know if any have, if so, very few.

That's not how it works in a free country. If you are accused of a crime, you may be subject to a -short- period of pretrial detention, and then only if you can't or won't post bail or are provably a flight risk. To be sentenced to jail for years, you must be CONVICTED OF A CRIME, not by a sham "tribunal", but in front of a jury.

Pastor Niemoller's immortal words apply exactly here. Will you let this one start "First they came for the Muslims"?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Politburo]

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.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[swillden]

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.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[hsmith]

they have made 2 retractions in 8 years. seems to be a pretty good record to me.

Re:It is amazing...

[the arbiter]

Yeah, the guy who was going to (I can't even write this without laughing) cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch was such a threat. I mean, he could have done that in only a few days! Not that anyone driving by would have noticed or anything.

Please. Give us a better example than that. This guy was less of a threat to America than you are.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[KarmaMB84]

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.

Re:It is amazing...

[smitth1276]

How do you reconcile that with the absolute fact that the surveilance of a small number of terrorists engaged in international communications prevented an attack on a national monument/landmark (the Brooklyn Bridge)?

You can't escape the fact that you are indisputably arguing that you would prefer that people had died in the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge. This is an argument you can't win, so give it up.

Republican here...

[everphilski]

1) innocent until proven guilty -> earliest article I could find via Google was 20 hours ago. This is fresh. Lets give it time for the smoke to settle and see if this is legit.

2) According to the reports, he didn't spy he authorized the NSA. According to Condoleezza and Scott McClellan he "Acted within the law." So right now its tit-for-tat, whose telling the truth? Again, lets wait for the smoke to clear and everyone to get their stories straight

3) According to the accuser "up to 500 people were spied upon." Wow. /sarcasm. 500/295,000,000 = 1.6*10^-9 %chance of getting "spied upon." That is in the noise, folks. Now while I understand your ideological concerns with it, much more real concerns to me right now are getting over this damn virus, I've been sick for a week and a half, and getting home to my family for Christmas. Then I'll worry about my 1 in 590,000 chance of having been spied upon. Thanks.

-everphilski-

Re:Republican here...

[tutori]

While I would agree that your first and second point have some merit, the third point doesn't hold water for me. Just because your chances of having your rights violated are small doesn't mean that we should be alright with that. Again, assuming this actually was illegal. By this logic, you would be fine if every year one person was chosen at random from the population to be sacrificed to the volcano god...

Re:Republican here...

[Ender Ryan]

Independent here...

Republican here...

Do you, A) have a conscience, B) a brain, and finally, C) a mind of your own?

Re:Republican here...

[nystul555]

About your 3rd point, the article actually says - "While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time."

500 at any given time.

Not 500 total.

Re:Republican here...

[Valdrax]

According to Condoleezza and Scott McClellan he "Acted within the law."

According to Scott McClellan and Condolezza Rice:

1. The White House does not condone torture (but fights for the CIA to be allowed to do it).
   
2. The White House does not comment on ongoing investigations (but the President said in a recent rare interview that he thinks Tom Delay is innocent).
   
3. Congress had access to the same intelligence that the White House had when it voted to authorize the war in Iraq (even though the CRS report proves solidly that they did not).
   

In short, I don't put much stock in what The Mouth of the Administration says anymore.

That is in the noise, folks. Now while I understand your ideological concerns with it, much more real concerns to me right now are getting over this damn virus, I've been sick for a week and a half, and getting home to my family for Christmas. Then I'll worry about my 1 in 590,000 chance of having been spied upon. Thanks.

It is when the people are complacent about the loss of rights for others that they trade away rights for themselves. If you don't care about our rights disappearing now, then I don't want to hear anything out of you when a party you aren't in love with is in office. Personal privacy matters, and conservatives used to be the loudest advocates for it before 9/11 punched them into submission. I miss the pre-Bush conservatives. At least they stood for something more than just hating gays and cutting taxes.

(OT: I hope whoever modded you Troll gets M2'ed Unfair. I don't agree with you, but I think you're being sincere and unoffensive.)

Re:Republican here...

[DrJimbo]

Ah yes, a typical Republican.

500/295,000,000 is 1.7 *10^-4 % Not only did you get the second significant digit wrong, you were also off by 5 orders of magnitude. Furthermore, I am not surprised that both errors were in the direction that favors your argument.

If you don't know how to use numbers, just leave the result in the raw fractional form. If you don't know how to do a rough order of magnitude check on your results, you should not be posting in scientific notation.

Finally, your argument seems to be that you don't give a rat's ass about the executive branch breaking the law just so long as it doesn't affect you personally. This leads me to wonder if you were personally affected by Clinton's blowjob. But more importantly it indicates that your grasp of history is not much better than your grasp of mathematics. It is precisely the attitude you express in your post that has allowed fascism and dictatorship to grow, thrive, and eventually take over nations that were once democratic.

Re:Republican here...

[idsofmarch]

1) innocent until proven guilty -> earliest article I could find via Google was 20 hours ago. This is fresh. Lets give it time for the smoke to settle and see if this is legit.
Okay, but the evidence is pretty damning.

2) According to the reports, he didn't spy he authorized the NSA. According to Condoleezza and Scott McClellan he "Acted within the law." So right now its tit-for-tat, whose telling the truth? Again, lets wait for the smoke to clear and everyone to get their stories straight
Also okay, but between you and me, the NYTimes versus two mouthpieces, I'm gonna' go with the Grey Lady, all her problems aside.

3) According to the accuser "up to 500 people were spied upon." Wow. /sarcasm. 500/295,000,000 = 1.6*10^-9 %chance of getting "spied upon." That is in the noise, folks. Now while I understand your ideological concerns with it...Then I'll worry about my 1 in 590,000 chance of having been spied upon. Thanks.
Go read the article again, I think you missed some details, it affected more than 500 people, the list changes and has affected possible thousands, and there's more than one accuser (whistleblower). Furthermore, I didn't realize that the Constitution had some kind of majority clause built-in. If the Executive Branch misuses its powers and ignores a long-standing system created because of previous abuses, we might want to pay attention even if it will never affect us at all.

Did anyone actually READ the article?

[linuxrunner]

First off, there has been a historic election in Iraq and they're talking about a 70% turn out.. 70%!!! Damn!
But we don't want to talk about good news so let's dig up an chapter TITLE in James Risen's new book that will be out in 10 days. For those that don't know, James Risen is a Times Reporter... yup.. no conflict of interest there.

And to boot: The Times attempts to create a national uproar over something called a "special collection program" launched by the National Security Agency sometime after the Sept. 11 attacks. The opening paragraphs give the alarming impression that the agency is spying broadly on "Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.

Those who actually read the piece will note that the paper must grudgingly acknowledge that it is talking about the NSA's monitoring of international communications (e-mails, cellphone calls, etc.) only!!! the agency still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

Hello? RTFA.. Don't we say there here often.. too many chicken littles... no one with brains. Sad.

Re:Did anyone actually READ the article?

[kpang]

I fail to see the big difference between allowing the NSA to monitor all international communications and allowing the NSA to monitor all communications. Sure they restrict it to a certain degree, but the bottom line is they're still listening to conversations they have no right to be listening to. I like how every time this administration chips away at our civil liberties, their supporters chime in with "well at least they didn't (insert even more atrocious unconstitutional act)". For an administration so eager to spread "freedom" to other nations (that is, those that we have an economic interest in and aren't powerful enough to do anything about it), it certainly seems ok with the destruction of our own. We aren't just going to wake up one day without any rights, it's going to be a slow and gradual process. Each time something like this happens and people choose to ignore it, a little piece of America dies. Sticking a "God Bless America" and "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on your car does nothing to curtail this.

Frog Boiling

[Ed Almos]

The cook just turned up the burner another notch.

Ed Almos

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[Politburo]

I don't think number of retractions is a measure of accuracy. One could simply refuse to issue retractions, ala Drudge, and be 100% accurate!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Radres]

...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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

When I first heard this, I thought "Of course he did, it would have been foolish not to". On the one hand you have people like Michael Moore saying Bush should have leaped out of his chair, slammed down that childrens book and started organizing national defenses and what not.

Now you've got people like this, wait a few years until public unity has died down a bit, and then accuse the president of going too far. That's the problem with you liberals, you have no idea what you want, you just like to complain about everything and claim you would have done a better job. More troops in Iraq, now less troops in Iraq. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

This boils back down to the patriot act debate, whether you think privacy is more important than security. You could probably guess what I have to say about that.

Re:It is amazing...

[idsofmarch]

It is simply amazing how a once proud nation became a legion of cowards and syncophants.

First, you take the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, either terrorists destroy the Brooklyn Bridge or NSA spies on all Americans without any kind of judicial oversight. Second, you ignore the obvious danger of the Executive branch of the government able to wield power without any kind of process by either Congress nor the Judicial Branch. Finally, you accept that idea that our rights are worth less than our lives in exact opposite of all our soliders from 1776 on who died in order to protect those rights so that you may have them. How spineless and useless you are, how easily are you terrified by evil men and unwilling to accept that our nation means something not because of its land or its people but because of its ideas.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[TripMaster Monkey]

I suggest you visit this site and relive the tragedy.

From the site (emphasis mine):

Tuesday, Dec. 12--The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7-2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5-4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, "the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

Re:The scariest part

[pl1ght]

Good job reading the summary and not the whole article. Or you would have realized this whole story is out of context.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Descalzo]

That doesn't really stop us. Look at copyright law and gun control laws. Clearly unconstitutional, yet still legal.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[isotope23]

I'm against Bush as much as anyone else.. but CHB simply is not a reputable source.

Hmmm lets see. If my choice is between

A) a guy who worked for three congressmen on capitol hill, who reported
the NSA story AND the Pentagon database story a year ago.

versus

B) a corporate newspaper who held a story about constitutional abuse
of power for over a YEAR

guess which one I'm going with???

Re:Bush Derangement Syndrome on display at Slashdo

[sponglish]

What a clever fellow you are. Wrong as can be of course. Read this and get informed: How many people overstay their temporary visas? Lots. While most of the 30 million people who enter the United States on temporary visas each year return home, over the years an estimated 3 million people--including some 700,000 foreign students--have stayed beyond the limits of their visas. No one monitors their whereabouts, although the INS plans to establish a tracking system in 2003. In early 2002, the Justice Department announced a push to locate some 314,000 individuals who overstayed their visas and have been ordered deported by immigration authorities; priority has been given to locating those people from countries where al-Qaeda maintains a significant presence.

Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[Jtheletter]

The most important part of a functioning democracy is the free press. I have yet to hear a single solitary word about establishment of 'free press' in Iraq.

Considering how the US has treated other free press agencies like Al-Jazeer by "accidentally" bombing two of their buildings (the precise coordinates of which were specifically given to the military to prevent that sort of accident) as well as harrasing and possibly shooting some of their reporters, somehow I'm not surprised that no one over there has been too keen to start publishing the US's actions over there. Also, Iraq's government and our government's interest in it has nothing to do with democracy, do you really think if the Iraqis voted tomorrow for the US to leave that we would? Puppet governments aren't gone, just getting updates to the facades. Our government is not in the habit of respecting sovereignty or the press.

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[jcnnghm]

I for one wish we would pull out of Iraq. They'd fall into a nasty civil war and learn to hate each other for the next thirty years.

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, poor al-jazeera, who brought us the real story of the opening of the war in Iraq from Iraq Bob http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/. It is a good thing too that buildings in a war zone are never accidently destoyed. So it must be a big conspiricy.

Also thank you for telling us about the Iraq puppet government. Because the 70 million Iraqis who voted yesterday are all under mind control of the US government, because the UN sanctions against them kept them from buying tin foil hats to protect them from the evil George Bush mind control rays. I wish I could tell you more about the election that happened yesterday but for some reason free new media www.cnn.com www.abcnews.go.com www.msnbc.com www.foxnews.com www.bbc.co.uk feels that a year old story negative story about the president that is a promotion for a book, www.drudgereport.com is more important than coverage of the Iraq elections. Thank God for the free press. I am so glad we can rely on them to put for news that matters.

Have a nice Day :)

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[millennial]

Funny... before we were there, there was no threat of civil war... Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have gone in, but we really should have had some sort of realistic plan before we did.

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[smitth1276]

The most important part of a functioning democracy is the free press. I have yet to hear a single solitary word about establishment of 'free press' in Iraq.

Maybe that's because you haven't bothered to hear anything about it. You have predetermined what you want to be the fate of Iraq, and ignore anything that might contradict that near religious view.

For some of the hundreds of new news outlets that have appeared in Iraq since the fall of Hussein, go here.

That's old, it appears, but it was the relevent link that I saw when I googled it. Google is here if you ever get the urge to read up on things before parroting the drivel of the likes of Noam Chomsky.

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[jcnnghm]

Not much threat of civil war under totalitarian dictatorships.

We did have a plan, invade their country, capture or kill their leaders, and go from there. It's the tried and true gameplan that has been used in pretty much every conflict ever fought. The focus when you start a war is generally on winning, not what to do IF you win.

Did we have a plan for what to do with Germany once we won WWII before we joined the war in Europe? Remember, the military expected Iraq to be much more formidable in the first Gulf war, and expected they would have learned from there mistakes for the Second Gulf War. Not to mention, they knew we were coming months in advance.

In my estimation, the first mistake in fighting a war is assuming you will win. As I've pointed out, lots of people scream withdraw. In this case, withdrawl of US forces will almost certainly lead to a nasty and lenghty civil war, not to mention possible invasion. The question is, how many people that are demanding immediate end to the "war" will freak when civil war erupts, and if left to continue turns into genocide.

Immediate withdrawl is not a plan, the powers that be have given an ounce of thought to what would happen if it we did withdrawl. Keep in mind that the dems are in favor of withdrawl in name only, they voted against it not too long ago.

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[BagMan2]

We should have bombed Al Jazeer a long time ago...

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[millennial]

"Destabilize the nation by capturing/killing its leaders, then wing it" does not count as a plan in my book. Nor does immediate withdrawal. What bothers me beyond reason is that Bush and most Republicans refuse to believe that it's possible to withdraw in stages, and that every single Democrat just wants to pull the troops all out at once. Nobody actually wants that to happen, because they know it's ridiculous to expect anything good to come out of a strategy like that. But simply saying that we're going to "stay the course" isn't realistic either, since we haven't plotted the course to begin with.

Re: Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[Black Parrot]

> do you really think if the Iraqis voted tomorrow for the US to leave that we would?

FWIW, a poll in Iraq this week revealed that 81% want the US to leave.

Re:Free press would be hardpressed to be free

[ex0duz]

Somehow, I'm not that surprised at the US's lack of bombing accuracy, as shown in the kosovo bombing of China's embassy.. old maps or something if i remember correctly. If they can bomb China's embassy, i think Al-Jazeera doesnt even make them break a sweat, especially when 'terrorists' are actually releasing 'propaganda' through its channels..

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

No this is standard practice. The president has executive authority to do things like this in a state of emergency. I think it was well called for, and nobody's complaining because they got their feelings hurt. It's just more of this same old stupid philosophical debate over security vs privacy. It's just a bunch of stupid hype meant to sell copies of the journalists book. www.drudgereport.com

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[anaesthetica]

I'm reminded of a story, not sure if it's true or not.

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[TomTuttle]

Yeah using the IRS to silence whitewater critics is soooo white knight.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[kent_eh]

These illegal and corrupt acts happen even in democracies with 3-4 parties. Look at Canada!

The current ruling party is fighting for its' life because of corruption, and I bet they'll be re-elected too. The 3rd most popular party (socialist) tells its' voters to vote for the Liberals (the ruling left-wing party) because they don't want the 'scary' Conservative party to win.

As long as there's two ends of the political spectrum, you'll have two leading parties, with the others fulfilling special interests that never get enough votes to matter much.

And the party who is likely to come in 2nd or 3rd this time only exists in one province. And their reason for existing is to remove themselves from the country.

This time I'm voting Rhino. At least they admit that they can't be trusted.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[beforewisdom]

I don't mean this in a nasty way, but what kind of credibility does this guy have?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

I call bullshit Garcia. I've seen enough of you to know you're a wacko liberal.

Thank God for fallacyfiles.org.

[for(;;);]

From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html:

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and--with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle--the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

Thanks for playing. Don't forget your gift basket on the way out.

Actually, 52 in favor

[jfengel]

The Patriot Act extensions did receive 52 votes in favor of cutting off discussions and moving to a vote. It's just that it requires 60 votes to do that, so we don't get the Patriot Act (today) even though it appears that a majority would vote for it.

Which is all it needs to pass, if it made it to the floor. That's what has Republicans so ticked about filibusters: they allow a (large) minority to stop a bill that has majority approval. When outraged Republicans cry, "Why would you deny a simple up-or-down vote?" they're referring to cases like this. If it weren't for the filibuster rules the Patriot Act would already be approved.

Re:Actually, 52 in favor

[KarmaMB84]

Thank god for the filibuster or the tyranny of the majority would've steamrolled all of us by now.

Re:Actually, 52 in favor

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

Republicans will defeat the loons in 2008, loon party starts to eat itself, splits into two competing factions, one comes back stronger than the Republicans.

How else would you envision it? Everyone just magically agreeing with each other someday?

Look on the bright side...

[aiken_d]

...at least he didn't lie about get a blow job from an intern. Now, *that* would be an outrage. This piddly stuff about secretly expanding the role of the police in the state is trivial compared to serious stuff like that.

Cheers
-b

Re:Look on the bright side...

[True Grit]

"Offtopic" MY BIG OLD BUTT. IMO, what Bush has done is *exactly* what the Impeachment process is for, not for Presidents having a private affair that has zero effect on my consitutional rights.

My /. posting history will serve me well

[Thud457]

When I use the Steve Dallas defense to counter charges that I bilked Citibank for one treellion dollars!

Re:It is amazing...

[smitth1276]

First, you take the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, either terrorists destroy the Brooklyn Bridge or NSA spies on all Americans without any kind of judicial oversight.

There are only 500 people in America? Or did you not read the article before bloviating? How typical.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to substantiate what you say and demonstrate some knowledge of the topic--which very few people here have.

Your first point should have been worded:

"either terrorists destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and other targets, or NSA spies on a couple of hundred suspected terrorists with congressional and judicial oversight by the secret national security court."

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[palutke]

I'll grant you gun control, but copyright laws? The constitution grants congress very broad authority with regard to regulating copyrights and patents. Congress's actions with regard to copyright are stupid and shortsighted, but not unconstitutional.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[selfdiscipline]

Ok... today you've got Democrats standing up to oppose the renewal of the Patriot Act. But that's a relately new thing. They were perfectly fine with it when it was originally passed.
    And remind me how many Democrats voted against the Iraq war?
    Anyway, the only reason the Democrats are finally voicing their own opinions on issues is because all politicians realize that Bush has almost no popular support anymore. I'm sure that the Republicans are just as eager, if not more eager, to paint themselves as having different views as the whitehouse at this point.
    Why do you say we don't need a third party? Why stop at three parties? Ok, so say we get a government that, in your opinion, gives a shit about civil rights. Why do we even need two parties then? We can have one party, the good party (I assume you're thinking Democrats) running the country.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[garcia]

I call bullshit Garcia. I've seen enough of you to know you're a wacko liberal.

LOL. yes, you know me and everything I believe from the posts you happen across because they are modded +5. Sure dumbass.

It won't just be the NSA reading your mail

[Stalus]

There's a part of the Dept of Homeland Security known as NVAC (National Visualization and Analytics Center). I'd suggest taking a look at their research agenda. Particularly the "Grand Challenges" section, and particularly the "Scalability Challenge" part of that.

Their target is to handle 1 billion structured messages/transactions per hour and 1 million unstructured messages/documents per hour. For reference, there are 6.5 billion people in the world, according to the CIA world factbook. 296 million in the US. When these numbers were presented to the IEEE Vis conference in 2004, questions arose as to whether they were going to get warrants for all of these transactions. The basic response was that they were going to 'anonymize' all of the data. First, do you honestly think that will happen? Second, how much do you trust the anonymizer? And lastly, do you trust the government to not turn off the anonymizer switch? It's a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling, isn't it?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

...it's already been ruled that looking at email doesn't violate laws against wire-tapping.

Ha! Did you even read your own link?

On Thursday, by a majority of 5 - 2, the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, making it clear that even though emails are stored in computer memory during transmission, it is still criminal to intercept those messages without the user's permission or a court-issued wiretap order.

According to Kevin Bankston, attorney with the EFF, "Today's decision reaffirms that email providers can't snoop on their customers' incoming messages any time they like, and that the law protects the privacy of your email just as much as it protects the privacy of your phone calls."

Malicious Neville Chamberlain

[amightywind]

...programme on U.S. TV

The poster gives himself away as a limey trying to further his pacificist agenda.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[TVC15]

>I could honestly care less. The NSA wants to read my email? Fine. The government will know where and when I'm having a football party, geek meeting, or brass rehearsal.

hmmm that's interesting. according to your e-mail there is a guy at your football party and another two from your geek meeting who are on the No Fly List. just to be sure, we'll add you as well.

Re:Was I asleep?

[abenton]

amen. arent we glad we have the OPPORTUNITY to bash? In pre-war Iraq we could have our tongues cut out, or our arms chopped off, but i forgot, they were so much better before us :]

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

I'd bet more Democrats feel this way than Republicans. I tend to think G.W. is about as honest as a politician can be (of course not completely honest, otherwise he would be mince meat).

I notice that it's always been the liberal media's game to try and destroy GOP candidates credibility, since Nixon, and it always works. The WMD thing is a joke, but it works, because most of the population isn't informed enough to know that the people who're calling people liars are liars themselves. Apparently you've been taken in by it also.

Clinton lied to the entire country on camera and had no problem with it, the guy is a damn good liar, lies to a grand jury, lies to his wife and kid. That's about as low as it gets in my book.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[Echnin]

Eh. I interpreted the site and piece as a right-wing libertarian constitution-thumping rant, and nothing else.

Tighten it up a bit...

[delcielo]

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.

And Slashdot joins K5...

[Tiber]

Slashdot has just joined K5 on the topic of politics.

Linking to just one news source is just promoting a particular spin on the issue and makes no strides for a comprehensive presentation.

For this shit, I could turn on my TV.

I would really prefer if /. honored their mantra of "news for nerds". Stick to tech; I get cable TV. It comes with the modem.

legality != constitutionality

[everphilski]

and its tit for tat at this point. White house says foo, NSA says bar. The story has only been "out" for about 20 hours... no point arguing until the smoke settles. (it is possible both parties are right... it is possible to follow the letter of the law, not break any rules and yet violate a constitutional right)

-everphilski-

Re:legality != constitutionality

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Your actually very wrong. You cannot violate the constitution without violating the law. If a law violates the constitution, then you violated the law by following it, the law itself is unconstitutional and thus unlawfull. In a case were there is an obvious difference between what is stated by law, and what is stated by the constitution, the constitution always wins out.

Re:The real criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Cro Magnon]

A 3rd party will probably be better than the Big 2 because it's not as entrenched. Its members will be trying to prove to the American people that they are different from the existing crooks. There's no doubt in my mind that if a 3rd party got in power and held it long enough, they'd become as corrupt as the Big 2, but it would take time for that to happen.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[Viper Daimao]

You do realize that Bush won the recounts before the ruling, and most afterward right?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

What need to happen is not some goofball third party candidate.

Read: Ross Perot

I SAID he stole the election fair 'n' square . . .

[mmell]

C'mon, did I really need <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags?

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[KarmaMB84]

The Supreme Court appointed noone. They just told Florida they couldn't waste any more time on recounting since their needed to be an answer immediately (which was perfectly fine). Since Bush was ahead at the time, he was certified as the winner of Florida and thus won the election as a whole.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots /stories/main.html

Please keep in mind the Supreme Court is ulimately the governing body on what is and is not Constitutional so they had every right to decide on the dispute over the recount.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[gg3po]

But you didn't see any violations of privacy under Clinton.

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.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." -- Bill Clinton

Not so fast.

[damian cosmas]

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I don't know what you see as "aid and comfort," but I assure you that covert surveillance, kidnapping, indefinite detainment, torture, &c. don't fit under that particular umbrella.

Re:Not so fast.

[geminidomino]

don't know what you see as "aid and comfort," but I assure you that covert surveillance, kidnapping, indefinite detainment, torture, &c. don't fit under that particular umbrella.

Well, we've already had at least 2 of 4 wielded against CITIZENS. Keep that going long enough and you might have a case for "levying war."

Re:Not so fast.

[Guppy06]

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Surely this is more of a high crime than perjury.

Re:Not so fast.

[Dobeln]

You have to understand that he is a Liberal - he thinks helping "terrorists" is the highest form of "Patriotism". And you must accept his way of looking on the world, or you are to be deemed "insensitive" and cast into the void (I.e. sensitivity training).

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[isotope23]

Did he really say that?

I'd love to see him answer that question under oath.

At least one former liuetenant colonel believes it:

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com, hosts the call-in radio show American Forum on Saturday nights, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com. To receive automatic announcements of new articles and upcoming guests on her American Forum radio

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Abcd1234]

Uhh... how is that even remotely similar to secret wiretaps performed by the government at the behest of the leadership?

Seriously... the politics in all countries are fucked up (and probably appears doubly so if you happen not to lean in the direction of the existing leadership *cough*conservatives*cough*), but at least in Canada, the government respects the rights of it's citizens (or did you forget about those post/9-11 omnibus security bills that got shot down because of fear of human rights violations?) Seriously, say what you want about Canadian politics, but it's a far FAR cry from what's going on down south right now.

Oh, and as a side note, remember who it was that wanted to take Canada to war based on false intelligence... those 'scary' conservatives.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[s20451]

The first time he took office, he was appointed by the Supreme Court (a national first, not to mention thoroughly unconstitutional and illegal.

Firstly, the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of what is legal and constitutional, and what is not. To say that a decision of the supreme court is unconstitutional and illegal is a contradiction.

Secondly, complaints about what happened in 2000 are ridiculous and partisan. If the positions of the principals had been reversed and Gore ended up 100 votes ahead rather than behind, would the left be complaining that his election was illegitimate? Of course not.

Nobody will take the left seriously until they stop whining about 2000. I say this as someone who wishes Gore had won.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[selfdiscipline]

Don't be sure that we elected him the second time, either. I think Diebold can claim that honor. But we'll never know.

NY TImes was "scooped"

[guygee]

Not only did the NY Times sit on this story for a year (an action that quite possibly changed the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Elections), but it seems that they have only come out with the story now because they were "scooped" by NBC News. The NY Times article is dated today, December 16th, but check out this article by NBC News, "updated" on December 14th: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?

Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks 'suspicious' domestic groups

By Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit

Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.

[...]

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

[...](go to link above to read the entire article)

One of the striking aspects of this is that the U.S. military is directly involved in spying on American citizens. Such activity has not been known to occur, publicly, since the Civil War, and is in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878:

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

It is also worth recalling the quaint document that George W. Bush has called "just a goddamned piece of paper" http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml, the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[susano_otter]

Why don't you take it to court? If it's truly so obviously unconstitutional that any layman can glance over the Bill of Rights and find the problems, then you should have no trouble getting a lawyer willing to take the case.

And you shouldn't even really need to find a lawyer, either. There must be hundreds--if not thousands--of lawyers already working overtime on the biggest, easiest case of their careers: trivially prove before the Supreme Court that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

There can be only two reasons this isn't happening: Either all the lawyers are stupider than you are, or you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Re:legally done

[hackstraw]

Bush followed all the applicable laws, and members of congress knew about it. I don't see what the problem is.

Yeah, and Clinton didn't have "sexual relations" with an intern.

The problem lies with crap like the Constitution, due process, and all of that other silly stuff that keeps people "with nothing to hide" from being put in jail and/or killed, being searched (like we are talking about here), or having their property seized for doing the normal stuff that most people do.

If the 1 to 2% of the US population already controlled by the penal system isn't enough, maybe people without problems with government actions like this can volunteer for a free residence in a prison or gulag. I'll take my freedom elsewhere thank you very much.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[isotope23]

here is his bio

Interesting part :
"Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "

ugh

[routerguy666]

Posting an article like this on slashdot is like tossing garbage bags full of heroin into a rehab clinic.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[baggachipz]

Silly goose, you're a Libertarian!

Even long before then...

[Nick Driver]

You can find evidence of US federal government agencies illegally spying on its own citizens going back all the way to the days of the founding fathers in the late 1700's. Nothing new here at all indeed.

Re:Even long before then...

[Arandir]

But no Democrat has EVER done this. That's the whole point. If only we didn't have Bush in office, this NEVER would have happened!

Wake up and smell the Kool-Aid...

Re:Even long before then...

[Nick Driver]

But no Democrat has EVER done this.

Last time I checked, both FDR and Truman were democrats. Not only did they perform warrantless spying on American citizens on a wholesale scale, they imprisoned thousands of them in concentration camps merely because of their ethnicity/ancestry.

Re:Even long before then...

[Arandir]

You are correct. Johnson, Carter and Clinton also have dirty hands.

The phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" should have been a clue, but since the moonbats have taken over, it's hard to tell the difference beween mainstream Democratic thought and naked sarcasm.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Daniel_Staal]

The new-aged GOP is actually a very old American party: It's the Jacksonian party. Their core values haven't really changed (there's no mention of slavery, and they talk about the Arab Terrorists instead of the Indians, but that's just sematics).

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Belisarivs]

And I'm calling bullshit on that. Carnivore and Echelon were Clinton-era programs. And let's not forget Filegate.

Seriously, mods, don't believe all the Bush-bashing you read on Slashdot as fact. There's plenty of legit criticism to be made without feeding the trolls.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Ruff_ilb]

So what if someone were to prepare some insanely elaborate specific defense, and then get "caught" for doing what he or she prepared the defense for, and took it to court that way... granted, it raises the stakes if you lose, but then he/she would be sure to be taken to court. If they weren't, then no loss, so meh...

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[susano_otter]

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, no law was broken.

As far as the NSA reading my email, I'd be honored. But then, I sincerely doubt they'll find anything worth going to the trouble.

Anyway, it's the nature of government to have to do some things in secret. I understand, accept, and approve of this. I remain unconvinced that Bush is doing anything out of the ordinary for presidents to do, as I remain unconvinced that he's doing anything particularly egregious.

Really, it doesn't even have anything to do with Bush at all, for me. I'd feel the same way if it was Clinton, or Kerry, or any other faction leader who was president at the time the order was signed.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

The President has something called executive authority that he can use to do whatever he wants. He could blow up a city like in that movie Outbreak if he had to. That's what the president is for. I think 9/11 was an instance when such executive pwer was necessary.

It's not illegal, maybe controversial, definately not illegal. You have been had by a media campaign to sell a book and pull a Nixon. The media has learned well, thank you Richard Clarke.

With things how they are...

[Toloran]

With all this lack of privacy because of policies of the government, I might just have to move to Singapore.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Paracelcus]

Like we didn't already know that they are spying on everybody!

OK, let's review:
If they call you a "terrorist" you can be imprisioned forever without charges or an attorney, you can and will be tortured, your family may be rounded up too and God forbid you should "look" middle eastern then you'll be shot five times in the back of the head while "escaping". I sure am glad that I live in a progressive western democracy! Oh? whadyya mean America has the largest prision population in the world and the third largest number of "executions" why youze must b a commie or a terrorist!

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[dkleinsc]

Actually, there's a decent chance that the President has never won an election fair-and-square. Texas governorship: One of the most corrupt states politically. Case in point: Tom Delay, who guilty or not has a habit of bending the rules. I don't have the details handy on his gubenatorial elections, someone else probably does. 2000 presidential election: As you pointed out, a blatently political decision that fails to meet the impartiality test (would the same Justices vote the same way if Bush's and Gore's positions had been reversed?) 2004 presidential election: Voting irregularities, especially in districts using Diebold ("I promise to deliver the electoral votes of Ohio to Bush") were the norm in Ohio and other closely contested states. Notable were the discrepencies between the normally extremely accurate exit polls and the actual results, as well as the difference between time needed to vote in various districts (suburbs: 15-20 minutes, cities: 3-5 hours). Not to mention the widespread corruption in the Ohio government (governor convicted of some crimes, several officials currently being tried), and the CEO of Diebold's recent resignation.

This just doesn't seem that big!

[Snerdley]

From TFA:

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in this country by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.

Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

So, to me, this says:

Before, if Bob in Germany called Alice in New York, the NSA could listen in to the conversation if the NSA setup its physical wiretap in Germany.

Today, For the same call, from Bob in Germany to Alice in New York, the NSA can listen in regardless of whether their physical wiretap is in Germany or the US.

You might also conclude from the TFA that they can now eavesdrop regardless of who initiates the conversation. Perhaps that adds some latitude, but it certainly isn't the huge policy change that everyone seems to be screaming about.

Of course, I may be wrong, but I'm sure there are a few people here on Slashdot who'll politely explain my error. ;-)

Of course you are right!

[LibertineR]

Yale, Harvard MBA, Fighter pilot, Governor, President, he's got to be a loser.

While YOU, bright boy have spare time to post bullshit on Slashdot every day.

I'm sure he wishes he was you!

Re:Of course you are right!

[xz0565]

loll im a girl...hence the lol...and shitty typing..meh

Re:Of course you are right!

[Moofie]

I'm sure glad I'm not him. I don't care what his resume looks like...he's still a broken human being.

I'd rather have integrity than power. That's why I'll never have power.

Re:Of course you are right!

[Anonymous Coward]

And not a single one of those done without daddy's friends or connections.

Re:Of course you are right!

[eyebits]

Of course you are right. He's done all of those things. But, that should make you worry. He acts like he is an idiot, therefore you should ask yourself what game is being played. If a person acts like they are a loser and they are not a loser then they shouldn't be trusted.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[jred]

I don't think he really expected you to come up w/ examples. Now you've gone & caused him to blow a fuse...

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[susano_otter]

So would you say that the current situation in Iraq is the lesser of two evils, vis a vis the situation in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

You mean like TESRA 2005?

[benhocking]

Check out the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Its goal appears to be to threaten and endanger species. It was initiated by Richard Pombo (R-Cal), who is well known for his support of miners and loggers as well as his fight against the spotted owl.

Other links:

• Sierra Club
• Biological Diversity
• Plant Societies

Or, if you don't like the House version, how about Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act (S. 2110) in the Senate, initiated by Mike Crapo (R-ID). The Republicans definitely seem to be consistent.

Other links:

• Biological Diversity

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[tom2275]

That's never happened.

Its never happened (that you know of), therefore it never will? Is that your reasoning?

You may think Bush is the goddamn devil but last time I checked he hasn't had the Secret Service quietly "silence" protesters. Sheehan is still yelling her head off about it and no one is putting her in jail.

And how would you know if they did? Who are YOU working for?

Re:meta moderation please

[HunterZ]

Why the fuck is this flamebait? Because you can see the word "liberal"?

No, because of the immature ad hominem attacks. Next time try debating the points presented in the post being replied to without resorting to adversarial name-calling and maybe the mods will be more merciful.

Re:Mod Parent +5, Hysterical

[amightywind]

I can't believe the moderators posted this story. Do they really expect a gentle discussion of the issue? The moderator should be given -1 Flamebait, along with my my last post.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[The Cubelodyte]

I think everybody who is calling for reformed/more/ruthlessly policed political parties is only seeing a partial picture. Would all those things be good? Yes. What I see as telling, though, is that almost everyone flocks to blame the government, and omits the massive culpability of the voting public in how dysfunctional the American political process is.

Despite what some cynics will inevitably say, our republic is not yet irretrievably lost, but the generally increasing apathy and/or fatalism that people use as an excuse to abstain from voting is certainly greasing the skids that lead to the abyss. Too many Americans claim outrage over corruption, incompetence, and vicious ideological clashes, but far too many "outraged" citizens can't be bothered to either move their carcasses down to polling stations or pay any attention to politics.

I firmly believe that this political inertia on the part of the voting public is perhaps one of the biggest contributors to America's (slow) decline in power, prestige, and will.

Re:WHat shocker? NSA has done this for years.

[BattleRat]

Well at least SOMEONE read the NSA charter (as well as TFA). Anyone of us who spent minute ONE in the intelligence community knows that if one party of that conversation has an international destination (to include international numbers of cell phones located stateside) all bets are off and it's 100% legal. Slashdotters running their sucks again without RTFA or understanding the topic.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[LihTox]

I'd bet more Democrats feel this way than Republicans.
That is very likely.

I notice that it's always been the liberal media's game to try and destroy GOP candidates credibility, since Nixon, and it always works.
Let's see, since Nixon we've had two Democratic presidents: Carter and Clinton. Neither of them got anything like a free ride from the media. To say that the media was "nice" to Clinton during his presidency is a joke.
Of course, if you classify everything you disagree with as "biased" and everything you agree with as "fair", then it's impossible for you to believe otherwise. To make my own (albeit limited) gesture against partisanry, I will say that 1) Ford's pardoning of Nixon was a reasonable thing to do, 2) I think Bush Sr. deserves more respect than he gets (and that whole grocery-store scanner business was unfair nonsense), 3) Bob Dole was not the buffoon he was made out to be in 1996, and 4) Bush's malapropisms are not a sign of mental deficiency, but just the way he talks. (Granted, that's probably the only nice thing I can say about the guy. :)

The WMD thing is a joke, but it works, because most of the population isn't informed enough to know that the people who're calling people liars are liars themselves. Apparently you've been taken in by it also.
I agree the WMD thing was a joke; I thought it was a joke since Bush started telling it. Too bad you were taken in by it also. I agree that people aren't informed enough to know that the people who are calling people liars are liars themselves, but I'm sure we disagree about which party is which. :)

Clinton lied to the entire country on camera and had no problem with it, the guy is a damn good liar, lies to a grand jury, lies to his wife and kid. That's about as low as it gets in my book.
One lie, versus how many? (Again, the false dichotomy of liars versus truth-tellers.)

(I realize you are probably too partisan to sway, so I only responded for the amusement value.)

Re:Uh, guys...it was 9/11.

[Travelsonic]

Does anybody remember George Orwell's 1984, where war was used as an excuse for the kind of survellience that they have? (warfare, and possible warfare and overthrowing of govt. with the spread of ideas) Where thoughts, actions, and word of mouth were closely watched?
Are you honestly suggesting that the threat of terrorism merrits that kind of future?
Terrorism is something that should be dealt with, but dammit, it is being over-used... every new TV special or documentary tries to fit in something about terrorism, now people are using it to guilt trip us into sacrificing our rights and freedoms... terrorism this... terrorism that..... TERRORISM isn't a new thing, it just happened in a way recently (4 years ago) that caught us off gaurd. We have to find a way to fight terrorism and prevent too much paranoia from allowing our rights to be taken away

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Ender Ryan]

The Supreme Court does not have to hear every case. If you don't personally have some grievance, AFAIK, they will NOT hear the case.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[isotope23]

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.

If he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to hide.
Just have him answer whether he said it UNDER OATH.

(sound familiar???)

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[laughingcoyote]

You're probably trolling, but this demands a response.

Privacy IS more important then security. Period. Freedom is what makes America what it is. Even China will defend its citizens against external attacks, every country in the world will. That's nothing unique or special. What makes America special is that its citizens also are defended against internal attacks.

Will I accept a slightly increased risk of terrorism in order to maintain our freedoms? You bet your ass I will, and happily so. Lot greater chance of dying in a car wreck, but I keep right on driving.

MILLIONS of people have fought and died to defend our freedom. Millions. Do you know what the death toll was from the World Wars? The Civil War? Ever since the Revolutionary War, brave people have risked their lives (and placed them at FAR greater risk then some nebulous risk of a terrorist attack) to defend it.

When you are willing to give that up for a slight increase (or possibly only a perceived increase) in security, you are a coward. Period. Your words do nothing less for those that have risked their lives in defense of freedom, then to spit in the face of the ones that came home and piss on the graves of the ones who did not.

That is your right. That's the whole point here! I would gladly fight and die for your right to defend the things you say. But they are cowardice of the worst type. If that is who you wish to be, then that is who you WILL be. But don't expect the rest of us to sit back and watch while your kind gives in to the very thing the terrorists wished to inspire-

Terror.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

Um. We're not in an episode of 24, dude. We're a nation of laws. The President cannot legally violate the laws of the United States. There are nutcases like John Yoo who think the President is above the law, but his opinions haven't found favor with any court.

Wow.

[scool]

How can anyone find this suprising?

sad state of affairs

[marsperson]

I think there is an important lesson in this. The key quote in the story is "the president acted lawfully". I'm not so sure the president has been legal in all his dealings of late, but that is irrelevant, the point I am trying to make is that our democratic institutions are insufficiently protected by the laws we have in place. A lot of their success in history has been the result of politicians more or less playing by a set of unwritten norms, and the public keeping on the right side of that line.

The Bolton nomination is a very good example. We have a congressional review process, which gives the congress a say in nominations. The president can short circuit the process the way he did, but that clearly goes against the spirit of the law.

I find this to be a very worrying trend in this country. The politicians have become so spiteful of the democratic process, and the public so blasé about it all, that our democratic institutions are ceasing to function.

Irrespective of wether or not you are happy with Bush at the helm, or wether or not you felt Bolton was the man for the UN post, wether you are american or foreign, the spectacle of seeing one of the world's great democracies sink into this kind of moral bog is frankly heartbreaking. People are content to let lawyers argue technical issues and are abandoning the spirit of the institutions which govern the US.

Re:sad state of affairs

[EmagGeek]

I love the "spirit of the law" crowd. The spirit of the law doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that matters, and the only thing that EVER holds water in court, is the LETTER of the law. The "spirit" of the law is something that liberals came up with in order to justify breaking whichever laws they feel don't apply to them..

Re:sad state of affairs

[marsperson]

You're absolutely right that the letter of the law ist he only thing that holds water in the courts, as it's the only part of the law about which controversy can be addressed with actual evidence rather than speculation, that's why I didn't call for anyone to be impeached. My point is rather that what holds institutions together is a series of unwritten norms and values which are commonly adhered to, a pact which states that we will all abide by these institutions because the fact that they are there makes citizens out of us rather than subjects. These behaviors mark the difference between healthy solid institutions and formal empty edifices. There is nothing particularly liberal about this notion, and if you don't believe me you should just look at how politicians from both parties have failed to uphold it.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[kimvette]

Patriot act supporters look at it differently. People who support the patriot act think it's A-OK to exchange essential liberties for a little temporary safety. I seem to recall that one of our more prominent founding fathers warned against this very line of thinking.

See Al Simpson

[plopez]

I am having problems finding transcripts at the moment, but former Senator Al Simson has been very critical of the Neo-cons (facists) now running the Republican Party. Since he is retired he can probably say things others cannot (yet). He has called the extreme right wingers 'kooks' and radicals. As such he is a conservative voice of reason. It would be work finding some of his comments and posting them online.

Yet another impeachment count ...

[willtsmith]

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.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[bhsx]

If the positions of the principals had been reversed and Gore ended up 100 votes ahead rather than behind, would the left be complaining that his election was illegitimate? Of course not.
That, sir, is the funniest thing I've read all day!
Thank you.

schrodinger's Constitution?

[Ender Ryan]

You're telling us that, if noone complains, it's not unconstitutional. If I can't see it, is the Constitution there and not there at the same time.

No, you're full of shit. Something is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitutional. You take it to the Supreme Court to prove that. But not ever case gets heard, for a myriad of different reasons, dirty politics sometimes being a reason. And the Supreme Court, AFAIK, generally does not hear cases brought by people who do not have a personal greivance. It's hard for someone to bring a case to the court, when they are denied counsel, etc.

Re:schrodinger's Constitution?

[bofkentucky]

Unless it is specifically defined in the constitution as being so (Treason, Slaveholding, denying women the right to vote, etc) then that is exactly what I am saying. All law can be challanged, but someone with standing must do it.

Re:schrodinger's Constitution?

[Minna Kirai]

All law can be challanged, but someone with standing must do it.

This isn't quantum physics. The fact that nobody has PROVEN it's unconstitutional yet doesn't mean it is constitutional. It's not enforcedly unconstitutional yet, but that's just a matter of time and paperwork. When the Supremes strike down a law, it doesn't BECOME unconstitutional at that instant. It always was, and they're just informing everybody.

Your position implies the USSC is not only omniscient, but infintely fast as well.

It takes the USSC a minimum of 1 year to hear any case. So do you intent to claim that the president can get away with violating any part of the Consitution, so long as he does it in periods of 11 months or less?

That's buying into the Bushian thought pattern (as demonstrated by Rice's torture denials): (a) We don't do illegal things (b) We're doing this (c) Therefore, it must not be illegal.

Re:schrodinger's Constitution?

[bofkentucky]

Congress could not fund a project if they feel it is unconstitutional and the SC can step forward at any time if it wants to see something solved post-haste.

Re:schrodinger's Constitution?

[Minna Kirai]

Congress could not fund a project if they feel it is unconstitutional

Demonstrably false. They've done things which are blatantly unconstitutional numerous times, banking on the hope that (a) the measure is popular enough that public pressure to overturn is minimal and (b) that the political allegiances which all justices possess (though they deny it) will be enough to dilute a principled response.

SC can step forward at any time if it wants to see something solved post-haste

If the SC truely had an obessive desire to see the Constitution rigorously enforced, you might have a point. But in reality, they're happy to sit back and take what comes to them.

Notice, for example, that the SC schedule is now set by a very recent and very grateful Bush appointee. Will he be in a huge rush to enforce the 4th amendment against these illegal searches? Of course not.

Re:No Dispute?

[millennial]

Well, there IS that whole "over 2100 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi combatants and civilians killed because of supposedly faulty intelligence" thing. But who's counting?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

The president has executive authority to do things like this in a state of emergency.

By "like this" you mean "that are illegal"? What law gives him that authority? Who decides when there's a state of emergency? If it's the President, doesn't that mean he has executive authority to do whatever he wants at any time? Don't you think that's a problem?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[kimvette]

That is actually a conservative (not conservative, not "Republican") view. Real conservatives want gubbament to butt out of citizen's lives, and want tax-and-spend-on-lazy-folks'-entitlement to end yesterday.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ought to be universal - no matter your party affiliation (or lack thereof).

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[NickFitz]

Posting AC? What do you have to hide?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Mr. Flibble]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[kimvette]

Ack! Correction: That is actually a conservative (not conservative, not "Republican") view.

Should be:
That is actually a conservative (that's conservative, not "Republican") view.

Re:Not just a BJ

[Seumas]

See, the problem with you *idiots* is that you're so wrapped up in your self-fed bullshit that you go around calling people "madlibs" and "liberals" and "right wing whackos" without any idea what the person's viewpoint is in the first place. For your information, I more or less consider myself a libertarian. A constitutionalist. From where I stand, both of your parties look retarded, self-serving and full of useless rhetorical hot-air.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.- say carnivore

[SirLanse]

So carnivore was not running under Clinton? So the FBI files where not in the white house under Clinton. You may have forgotten these, since you were grammer school back then. Washington as a whole has moved left. Look at Kennedy's speech. It would be considered wildly right wing now. It was very liberal at the time. We need to get rid of activist judges first. So the worst laws are at least made by people VOTED into office.

Re:No Dispute?

[Soporific]

Great response...What can one say to a wit like that?

~S

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

Filegate? The problem with these Republican talking points is that they remember the initial allegations but they never care about the eventual result of the investigation. In 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of criminal activity, and that "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved" in seeking the files. We should forget Filegate, because there was no scandal there at all. Just a lot of Republican blowhards making something out of nothing.

ECHELON is foreign electronic surveillance. You may object to it, but it is legal and it's the purpose of the NSA. Carnivore was a system which was still subject to getting a warrant. Come back when you have some real evidence that domestic surveillance without a warrant occurred under Clinton or was condoned.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[MrTester]

Maybe Ive just gotten cynical in my old age, but Im more inclined to think if a new party is less corrupt, its only because they have less oportunities for corruption.

For every dew-eyed idealist who joins a new party you have someone who sees an opportunity to "Get in at the ground floor"

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[LihTox]

So would you say that the current situation in Iraq is the lesser of two evils, vis a vis the situation in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

This is a non sequitur, as my previous post did not mention Iraq at all. Whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do has nothing to do with political corruption in the United States, except that some of the corruption accompanied the war.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

What your saying has merit, however you confuse freedom and privacy. During the revolution, King George was really limiting people's freedoms by taxing them without representation in pariament. The NSA spying on people isn't really comparable to that. You don't really have a right to do whatever you want in private, some things are more private than others, and it's just taken for granted that a phone call to Azerbaijan goes untapped.

During the world wars people were fighting for their right to live, same thing, you can't compare it to your presumed right to privacy on international phone circuits. Don't get all insane over this, you've got to calm down and think for a second.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[erroneus]

I have to agree with you on this. But I think it should go deeper. If more and more money incentives are taken out of the pockets of politicians, we will stand a much better chance of actually having our representatives REPRESENT us. Every time you turn around you see another company or interest group donating thousands of dollars to buy influence while the average TV-watching-couch-potato ignores the world thinking it's just another TV program they are watching.

Campaign and other political reform is in order here. When they no longer have incentive to do the will of a few with money, the will of the people will be better heard.

Re:Was I asleep?

[cnerd2025]

Don't you get this; the article is targeted at Bush, but it also raises concerns about "legal" wiretapping. I respect Bush because he's a human being, but I don't like the man, and I disagree with his attitude. I hate his uncompromising rhetoric and I hate his conservative fundamentalist pseudo-Christian agenda (a real "Christian" wouldn't support a man who calls himself a "Christian" and calls for assassinations of sovreign foreign political leaders). But to avoid becoming a political post (which is in some ways too late), let us focus on the issue: does government have the right to "eavesdrop" on its citizens. I personally do not believe so. We cannot just eavesdrop on classified meetings. No one has the right to extend his rights at the expense of others'. Today many people have this misguided view that "liberty" is the freedom to do what one wants. Liberty is, in fact, the freedom to be in control of your own life. The government can't grant liberty; liberty is a natural right that all human beings are endowed with. The government can only legislate further to protect the rights of citizens. I would personally favor a terrorist attack any day of the week over some of the garbage corruption in the government. I believe that government derives its power from concent of the governed, thus giving citizens more power to act in their own interests. In fact, Bush is President, not His Excellency. President comes from "preside". He does not lead the people, the people lead him. He is the executive, ensuring that the government is run correctly. His oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to use it to his advantage. America stands for personal liberty; that is the point of this article. The NYT may have had anti-Bush intents ("may" is a but of an understatement), but simply stating that the president can get away with murder because he or she is the president is outrageous.

As to the user who implied that Iraqi invasion was the correct course of action because the Iraqis are "better" for it. I will not disagree that democracy is much favorable to despotism, but don't you hear yourself speaking? Shun the pride, but hold the positive accomplishments close. When a sports team is too proud, it looses the championship. When a nation is too proud, it overextends its rights. Look up the US annexation of the Philipines. Americans were majority in favor of it, and history shows that the Philipines were indeed annexed. But, look through the speeches and source documents of the time; one will discover that reasons such as "the will of God" were involved. The minority claimed that a country whose foundation is freedom from Imperial rule does not have the right to become empire. We are "staying the course" in Iraq, but what the hell does that mean? How about we build a few bases, train the security forces, and pull out the large numbers of Iraqi troops. That's what the US wanted to do since the beginning, but Bush is too much of a pansy to go out and say it. It just happens that Saudi Arabia, a neighbor of Iraq, was paying lipservice to the US while turning a blind eye toward the terrorists. The US wanted to blackmail Saudi Arabia, as well as other more volitile countries (Iran, Syria, Libya). The strategy has worked. Libya admitted to the Pan-Am 103 bombings, Iran is scared as hell about the US, and Syria is going ape about what it's going to do. Saudi not only cleaned itself trim, but the fact that a couple years ago there was a spike and then crash of insurgent activity indicates that it really had been paying lip service. So now Saudi has the message, the surrounding countries are acting more in line with the US, and the violent radical muslims are losing friends. I'd say that US interest is a cause for the US to go to war. After all, every country acts for its own and only its own best interests. It may give the appearance of acting in others' interests, but it has no permanent "friends" nor "enemies".

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[timeOday]

And if you don't have anything to hide, then it doesn't affect you either.

"If you don't have anything to hide." How ironic to say that (of all things) in support of an administration that champions secrecy at every turn.

Before everybody gets worked up...

[smitth1276]

Some informative commentary:

Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the eavesdropping.

-- Mark Levin at NRO.

It really is a good idea to get out of the echo chamber on occasion and read some of what the "other side" has to say. The NYT isn't exactly notorious for giving you the full story, nor is the BBC who simply summarized the NYT article.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

No it's not a problem, thats his primary responsibility, that's why they call it the executive office. If there was an outbreak of disease and the best thing for the country is to blow up a city (as in the movie Outbreak) then that's what must be done, and guess who's job it is to order it? Yep, that's right, the PRESIDENT! Go get educated on U.S. Politics, the genius of the system will make sense to you eventually.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[miskatonic alumnus]

Going way off topic here, but...

it depends on what you mean by "like" a circle. When examined from the perspective of group theory, the more sides the n-gon, the more like a circle --- where "more like" means greater cardinality of the symmetry group.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[einhverfr]

IANAL....

The standing issue you raise is pretty hard to get around. However, I am not entirely sure that one cannot do so. One serious question might be wether a chilling effect constitutes a harm of fact. If so, one might be able to bring it to court over secondary harms relating to the general impact of these laws.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

Last I checked they won't be finding my contact info in some AQ member's phone, nor do I call anyone internationally, let alone one that would be listed.

So you're going with the "looks like it hasn't been abused so far, must be A-OK" approach. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that, and I hope a lot of Congressional members aren't either.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[Cryptnotic]

The Capitol Hill Blue article is an editorial rant, not a news source. Thompson was making a political statement by making up a story about how he thinks the White House and Supreme Court work. Bush never said anything of the sort.

Similarly, SC Justice Scalia never said, "The Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean."

Re:Have you made an international phone call latel

[Gizzmonic]

There are already institutions in place for tracking terrorists that operate entirely within the country. We don't need the army or CIA spying on American citizens.

Fighting for our freedom

[aplusjimages]

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.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[Zangief]

In the first place, America should get rid of that Electoral College, and use simple, direct vote.

I mean, since the election is crooked (you never actually vote for your president) from the start, the system cannot work at all.

Re:No Dispute?

[bored]

"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.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[poot_rootbeer]

Please type in the phrase "bush constitution just a piece of paper" into google and see for yourself.

"Google" is not an intrinsically credible source. Nor is "Capitol Hill Blue", which seems to be the primary vector of this "just a piece of paper" tale.

Find a credible secondary source that confirms this story, please.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

Yeah would you look at that. Just being in your vicinity gets me mod points (up or down, who cares, at least it's mod points!!!) You sure get a lot of mod points! High five!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[dabigpaybackski]

Correction: Andrew Jackson, despite his hatred of the native peoples, was also a bit of a populist. For one thing, he loathed the big banks and vowed to eliminate them. Not surprisingly, the banks outlasted President Jackson.

The current Republican Party is anything but populist, and as for their attitude toward banks and every other sort of corrupt corporation...well, for all practical purposes, the entities of Party and corporation are indistinguishable. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are just the corporations public sector representatives, with completely interchangeable personnel. It's just kleptocracy, that is, "government by high-functioning sociopaths." What I find just absolutely amazing is how successfully conditioned ordinary people have been to grovel before a bunch of crooks in fancy suits. As long as whatever lunacy the elite presently schemes toward is presented by dignified men in fancy suits who speak in stern, paternal tones, then the regular person nods in agreement. There's no discernment whatsoever; it's just, "Oh, well Senator So-and-so says it, and he's a Republican like me, so it must be true. Hey, are there any more Doritos in the cupboard?" *munch munch*

If the public is that fucking dumb, can you blame rich sociopaths for regarding them as human cattle? Think about how con-artists work. They snare their marks by appealing to greed, pride, lust--all the worst sentiments of humanity. Politicians are con-artists whose medium is masses of people.

Re:Was I asleep?

[psykocrime]

get sucked into publicly bashing the leader of the free world?

What does a story about George W. Bush have to do with the "leader of the Free World?"

Bush isn't a leader, he's a servant, just like all the other elected officials in the United States. His job is to serve us... "We The People" and all that.

Also, the "United States" != "The Free World." The United States isn't even the most free nation in the world, and we're becoming steadily LESS free with each passing day. In fact, by simply invoking the magic "T Word" the US government can now effectively do anything they want, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Arrest and indefinite imprisonment with no trial? Check. Torture? Check. Illegal Surveillance? Check. Secret courts with no oversight? Check. Internal passports / National ID? Almost there. Freedom is rapidly becoming an afterthought in this country, and people like George W. Bush are largely at fault.

I don't care if you like him or not, he's the president, have some respect for heaven's sake.

Respect has to be earned, and - speaking for myself - Bush hasn't done anything to earn my respect.


Didn't your mother teach you to be polite to your elders?


Being polite to the average old geezer walking down the sidewalk is one thing... standing idly by and saying nothing while GWB ass-rapes our country with no Vaseline is quite another. Personally I'm not interested in living in this Fascist Theocracy that Bush is trying to create.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Too late)

[WheelDweller]

The Freedom of Speech is tainted (McCain/Fiendgold bill) and now Private Property is under attack. And the surprise is, most people didn't notice either of these being violated. Most Bush-bashing zombies never got the word; I guess the legacy media decided it wasn't important.

I've lived through three decades of the liberals calling Republicans fascist. But when they tell us what to think, how to talk, and over stretch the "Seperation of Church and State" rules, I hear Panzers.

Arbite Mach Frei, ya'all!

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[Moofie]

What a despicable thing to say. It's almost like he didn't even read the Oath of Office before he started his campaign.

I knew that he thought some people had too much freedom, but...damn.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to wear out my tin foil hat or anything, but the math that PGP depends on has never been proved to work in a way that really makes it hard to crack, and it's a fairly young field of research outside of spy agencies that keep all their discoveries secret. If factoring is not as hard as we (the public) think it is, or there's some clever way to build hardware that's better at it than a general purpose computer is, then they can read your email just fine. Obviously, if either of these things were the case, we'd be the last to know.

Now they can sue...

[theendlessnow]

Now the terrorists can sue the U.S. to help fund their attacks!! Fascinating.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[miskatonic alumnus]

The problem is that my choices are:

[] Tweedle-dee
[] Tweedle-dum

If you don't have $$$$$$, you can't even play the political game, not at the national level anyway. Our society is so addicted to information from TV, radio, & newspaper, that if you can't afford to plaster your voice/image throughout the media, you can forget about winning any elections.

Yer .sig...

[rnturn]

``BTW -- I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't know what to call myself now.''

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'd voted Republican in the major races since Ford. GWB managed to break that string. Such is my disgust with the man and everyone he surrounds himself with.

But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[thule]

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!

Re:But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[Dread_ed]

No one cares about your silly FACTS, sir.

No one wants to hear about justification for this or any action on the part of the sitting president. At least not here.

There will be no discussion. Only ranting, raving, spin, and outright distortion will be accepted.

You have been warned. If you attempt to interrupt our apocalyptic flamefest of the president again with you references to fact, reason, and (GOD FORBID!) the linked article itself, we will have to mod you into oblivion.

Have a nice day, and dont forget to wear your groupthink beanie when you login to /.!

Re:But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[swiftstream]

The difference between this and FISA is that FISA requires prior approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, as you would have known had you actually read the first three lines of the page you linked to:

Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

These taps were done without any judicial permission, which even FISA requires. The time required for a FISC approval (as short as a few hours if a case is urgent) was claimed to be too short, justifiying this.

One of the things I find most worrying about the entire thing, though, is summed up in this statement by Trent Lott:

``I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that.''

(see e.g. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=aJFRC0JDD0lY&refer=us)

I don't want any man who puts security before freedom in my government. If I lived in Mississippi I'd try to do something about him; alas, I live in Utah, so I've got Orrin Hatch to worry about.

Re:But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[thule]

On of the questions I have is where the tap was. If the tap was on a foreign phone number, does the CIA need FISA approval? The CIA obviously needs approval for tapping domestic phones. If they tapped the foreign number of a known bad guy that was just arrested, then it would stand to reason that if a US number called that number then the caller should be looked into. Now that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act are expiring, it sounds like if the CIA found out that a US citizen called that bad guy's number, they could not share that information with the FBI.

Re:But legislative branch was informed! RTFA!

[Minna Kirai]

Hello people... the article mentions that the CIA and the Executive branch informed the Legislative branch this was happening.

They were informed, although on a piecemeal individual basis, not as one body. But they were forbidden to do anything about it. The administration said that the existence of their illegal wiretaps was classified, which is tantamount to threatening the Congressmen with imprisonment if they mention it to anyone.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

What scandal? I'll just refer you to the report issued by the Republican Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation.

The Joint Committee staff found no credible evidence that the IRS delayed or accelerated issuance of determination letters to tax-exempt organizations based on the nature of the organization's perceived views.

http://www.house.gov/jct/s-3-00.pdf

No, he didn't really say that.

[Cryptnotic]

It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson. He was just making up a story describing what he thought a conversation with Bush would be like. Note in the article that Scalia says that the Constitution can mean "whatever we say it means". That is another ridiculous statement.

Basically, if you go around repeating this quote as real (as many on the "blogosphere" have done), it makes you look like an idiot.

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[isotope23]

It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson.

From the article :
"I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." "

from the followup

"When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper," I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President's temper tantrums."

"We get tips about Bush's temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don't get used because we don't go with information from just one source. The tip about "the goddamned piece of paper" seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

"Who told you about that?" I told him I'd picked it up from two other sources.

"Look, you know how the President is," he said. "He gets agitated when people challenge him."

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."

"Yeah. He did." "

It was not an imaginary converstation

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often. When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."

That's good enough for me.

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[swiftstream]

Nice job taking quotes out of context; I hope you will put this post on your resume next time you apply to be a politician's campaign advisor.

For the record, here's the context from why the parent poster has taken Scalia's quote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have--a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[Cryptnotic]

Okay, so maybe Thompson is serious. So he prints something that is 100% unverifiable and claims that it is true. No one will ever prove that it is true (i.e., none of the "three people interviewed" will ever admit on record to having heard it), so no one can ever prove that it is false. He is very proud of the small number of retractions that he has been forced to print. However, things like this will never be disproven. It is in short, a worthless article.

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[isotope23]

If this story is true, and I mean IF, then the president has violated his OATH OF OFFICE. Are you so loyal to a political party that you would be willing to overlook such a thing?

Let me put it another way,

Can you HONESTLY tell me if Clinton was reported to have said this you would be so indifferent to it?

If we have gotten to a point where the president can call the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper in front of witnesses, and get away with it, we have IMO a much bigger problem than terrorism. It is the death knell of the Republic.

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[Cryptnotic]

Regardless of whether he said it or not, it is absolutely true. The Constitution IS just a piece of paper which happens to say that the government will guarantee various rights of the people and respect certain limits on itself, et cetera. Now, the government is supposed to follow the things that are written in the Constitution. If they don't, then that is the real problem. Assuming for a second that the story is true, he didn't say that he wasn't going to uphold and protect that "piece of paper". So he hasn't really violated his Oath of Office. Also, if he didn't actually do anything to undermine the Constitution, then who cares if he got a little angry?

Obviously, I still think Bush is a decent guy doing his best as best as he knows how. So obviously, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I probably wouldn't have done as much for Clinton, since I didn't really like him.

Re:No, he didn't really say that.

[isotope23]

Obviously, I still think Bush is a decent guy doing his best as best as he knows how. So obviously, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I probably wouldn't have done as much for Clinton, since I didn't really like him.

This is the problem IMO. You are willing to have two standards of ethics, one for "your" guy annd another for the "other" guy. Regardless of who the president is there should be a consistent standard of ethics.

I think it is legitimate for the president and congress to both question the limits placed upon them by the constitution. That is what checks and balances are for.

I do however find it unacceptable for an elected offical to call the constitution which he took an oath to protect, a GD piece of paper. It is especially hypocritical considering these same people support an amendment to stop flag burning.

If clinton deserved impeachment for perjury,(and he did) then Bush deserves impeachment for abrogating his oath of office. His statement was much more damaging to the Republic IMO than some yahoo burning the flag on a street corner. Frankly I think not only he, but any elected or appointed official in that room who did not immediately demand that he retract the statment and apologize, abrogated their oath of office as well.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

1) Do you really think what you replied to was "insane" or thoughtless? Seems like a pretty extreme characarization.
2) You're quite correct in saying that some rights (and rights violations) are different than others.
3) Privacy is the freedom from government surveillance.

Re:I SAID he stole the election fair 'n' square .

[greylouser]

I got what you were saying, although some seem to have interpreted it differently. I think the misinterpretation seems to occur when people misplace where the sarcasm tags were supposed to go (by the way, I think it's more effective if you imagine someone rolling their eyes during the sarcasm tags. It's also more fun!)

He stole the election <sarcasm> fair 'n' square </sarcasm>

is very different from

He <sarcasm> stole </sarcasm> the election fair 'n' square

Just a pointless thought; worth what you pay for it.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[mre5565]

> But you didn't see any violations of privacy under Clinton

Obviously you've forgotten the Clipper chip and key escrow.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[thule]

As far as I can tell, this was not made legal by the PATRIOT ACT... maybe by FISA. But the CIA monitoring calls coming into a foreign country is exactly what they do as an agency. It just so happened that people connected with these known bad guys were calling from the United States. It sounds like they were doing proper investigative work!

Re:What's the difference

[geminidomino]

Conservatives are accused of one, liberals are accused of the other.

If that doesn't give one the hint that those labels might be entirely worthless demarcations, then nothing will.

Why bother reporting this?

[koreth]

Anyone who still likes Bush will do one of (a) not believe the report, (b) blame the situation on a liberal something-or-other (or focus on some bad thing a left-wing person did in the past, on the theory that two wrongs make a right), or (c) say "we're at war, so whatever he does is okay, even stuff we would have gone apoplectic about had a Democrat done them." Hmm, or (d) say "if this turns out to be true, I will be first in line to call Bush to account for it," then when it does turn out to be true, claim they never meant it. Those seem to be the four things a Bush loyalist does at the first sign that something might be rotten in Crawford.

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.

• Moral behavior: Photographic evidence of torture by US troops. (With the Vice President lobbying strongly to stop torture from being banned by Congress, it takes a special kind of thinking to truly believe there was no official sanction.)
• Isolationism: Nation-building exercises. (Remember the term "nation-building" from the Bush vs. Gore debates? Yeah, it was that thing Bush promised never to do, but shh!)
• Frugality: The biggest, most expensive new social program in decades (the Medicare prescription drug plan) not to mention massive budget deficits.
• Privacy: Surveillance with no court orders or oversight by other branches of the government, see current story.
• Piety: Here's a fun quote for you. "But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." I defy any Bush supporter to name one instance in which Bush's foreign policy has followed this rather central tenet of the religion he claims is so important to him. I sure haven't seen it. Yet somehow he manages to hoodwink the religious right into thinking he's a born-again, devout believer.

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.

Re:Why bother reporting this?

[talksinmaths]

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 think Bush's die-hard supporters are primarily religious conservatives, and not people who are conservative in the more traditional sense of the word. As you note he fares poorly when judged by traditional conservative milestones. However when it comes to migrating America from a freedom and Democracy to intolerance and Theocracy he's doing a good job.

Re: Why bother reporting this?

[Black Parrot]

> Frugality: The biggest, most expensive new social program in decades (the Medicare prescription drug plan) not to mention massive budget deficits.

Ah, yes. The "tax-and-spend" Democrat has been replaced with the "cut-taxes-and-spend-anyway" Republican.

But it certainly plays well with the crowd that gets the biggest tax cuts.

Re: Why bother reporting this?

[True Grit]

with the "cut-taxes-and-spend-anyway" Republican.

You have to give 'em credit though, the Republicans' plan is clever because the people who are going to have to pay for this spending haven't been born yet. Now here is where I actually find myself in an odd kind of agreement with the anti-abortionists vis-a-vi the unborn: the unborn are being punished because they have no legal representation in our system. We can "just say no" to taxes and vote accordingly, but the Republicans figured out that no one would stop them if they shifted the burden 2 or 3 generations into the future. So the Republican moral of the story is I guess: Don't worry about the future, the future is our grandkids' problem! By the time the bills come due and the lights are turned out for good, we'll all be dead anyway, so party on!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[CrowScape]

Where are Dubya's defenders now?

Why we fully expect the New York Times to call for an independent council to figure out who in the CIA leaked this information naturally. As per their standard for the Valerie Plame story, whoever leaked it should be fired, prosecuted, and hopefully imprisoned, plus perjury charges for any CIA official who is not 100% accurate in his statements to the investgators.

I'm sure New York Times editorialists are penning their missives calling for this as we speak.

Wear red, walk in a straight line

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

At least they are moving it to the digital age

[the eric conspiracy]

In the '70s when my wife sent regular mail to Chile it would arrive with the envelope flap taped shut. LOL. At least now it isn't so obvious.

Re:Was I asleep?

[sbillard]

...and I beleive the vast majority of our politicians, including Mr. Bush, are actually doing their best...

Doing their best to do what, exactly?
1. Remain in power?
2. ???
3. Profit?

These are crimes against the constitution! Something needs to be done - and I'm about as politically indifferent as one can get. Enough already.

PS
If any NSA folks are recieving this, please don't send me to Gitmo. I have a family and I would very much like to see them again.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

What? Branch Davidians? Elian Gonzalez?

The Branch Davidians were subject to very serious weapons charges. Possessing a machine gun or IED is a federal crime subject to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. I'm glad that the law was enforced in that case. The only person responsible for the deaths of those people is David Koresh.

Whose rights were violated in the Elian Gonzalez case? Don't you believe that a parent has a right to custody of a child? If your child were held by someone, wouldn't you want the police to get them back?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[kimvette]

Mod parent up!

Gain is nice but not the issue

[jscotta44]

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.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[Rei]

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.

Don't give me that - even Goldsmith determined in private correspondence that justifying the invasion based on the 1991 cease fire. We're talking Tony Blair's own government, let alone the governments who opposed the war. No country possesses the right to arbitrarily declare, on their own, another nation in violation of a cease fire from an arbitrary point in time in the relatively distant past, and thus reactivate a war under UN auspices. If that were the case, the Netherlands could declare the ceasefire that terminated the Korean war as being violated, and thus go to war with it under claimed UN auspices. The argument degenerates further when you look at what Resolution 687 was: it was a cease fire ending the authorization to war under resolution 678. Even if resolution 678 was reactivated by a country arbitrarily deciding that 687 was violated, resolution 678 "authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area". Resolution 660 "demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990". So, calling Iraq in violation of 687 merely reactivates the ability to force iraq to "withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the posiutions in which they were located on 1 August 1990". I.e., it gives you the right to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

Of course, that's all moot, as it wasn't the US's personal perogative to decide whether the cease-fire was violated.

However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US.

The Lancet study found 84% of the additional 100k deaths in the first year and a half (determined with the same methods used for epidemiology studies the world over) due to the actions of coalition forces, 95% of those being from airstrikes, and of those only 46% were men between the ages of 15 and 60 (likely fighting age). 46% were children younger than 15 and 7% were women.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[smooth wombat]

We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Saddam may have been in violation at one time but he did cave to all the demands. He did let UN inspectors in to inspect any site they wished. In fact, the US gave specific sites to the inspectors to look at because, to quote Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, "we know he has the weapons and we know where they are". Yet amazingly every single site came up empty. Not only did they come up empty but there was no evidence that any time the sites housed any banned weapons programs.

Further, the inspectors were in Iraq checking every site they could get their hands up until the last possible minute until Bush, because no weapons were being found which was throwing a monkey wrench into his plans, forced the issue.

Don't forget also that Saddam did produce a detailed listing of every banned weapons program and what happened to it and 10 minutes after it was presented Rumsfeld was already saying Saddam was lying because, wait for it, "We know he's lying. We know he has the weapons and we know where they are."

This whole nation building exercise, and yes, it is nation building despite Bush saying explicitly that the US would not be involved in nation building, was planned long before he came into office. These plans were laid down years in advance and were dusted off when he came to power. We know this because of documents that have surfaced and from people who were involved in the planning.

So stop the right-wing fantasy claptrap that Saddam was in violation. He wasn't. He did cave, he did provide complete, unfettered access and he did account for every banned program. Just because one puts their fingers in their ears and yells LALALALALALA at the top of their lungs so they don't have to hear the facts doesn't change things.

However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US.

It's a perfectly valid point. The people who have died, both Iraqis and US soldiers, would not now be dead if we hadn't invaded their country for political purposes. In fact, if things stay on course, by the end of next year Bush will have been responsible for as many american deaths as Al Qaeda did on 9/11.

For what purpose? None. Despite the billions of US tax dollars being sent down the black hole, despite all the chronyism of Halliburton, despite all the deaths, Iraq will devolve into two, possibly three, constituent parts. The Kurds are already setting up a seperate governmental system and since they have most of the oil supplies in their region of control, they have the resources to back up their separation.

Add in the vendettas by the Shiites and Sunnis and you have a recipe for a nice civil war which will cause more stability.

Don't forget also that the DoD has admitted that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has provided a wonderful training ground for terrorist groups to perfect their attacks.

You can also stop using the word terrorist in quotes as if you're trying to make a point. The overwhelming majority of people doing the bombings and attacks are Iraqis. They're defending their country against the occupation and have evey right to do so. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with their political stance, they are still entitled to defend their country against the occupiers. I suppose if this country were invaded and the folks of the KKK were fighting you'd call them terrorists too.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[jscotta44]

I'll start with your last comment first. I am using quoting the word, "terrorist", precisely to make a point. Since the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by their own countrymen (and women) and by invaders (people from other countries), you can stop with the righteous left-wing fantasy that the US is the cause. Yes, some Americans have died. But the vast majority of the deaths have been otherwise peaceful Iraqis.

Now to the Saddam Hussein stuff. No, the UN inspectors were not given free reign to investigate the areas of interest. I remember quite clearly following the statements made by the Iraqi government and the UN about the progress of inspection. I don't care a rat's posterior about whether or not they actually did have any weapons of mass destruction. The point was that they failed to live up to the agreement and they paid the price.

The terrorists have a great training ground - right. They are dying. If you call that training, then so be it. On the other hand, the Americans are also getting in a great deal of training in how to deal with terrorists. Is it bloodless? No. But then that is impossible.

As to the violation of the Cease Fire by the North Koreans, had the world (or a single capable country with the will and the means) enforced those Cease Fire terms, then we would not be in the situation we are now with North Korea and the threat of nuclear arms.

I'll refrain from the personal attacks you seem to like to make. We may disagree, but if you want to exchange ideas engage in further debate, then you'll need to refrain, as well.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[True Grit]

The terrorists have a great training ground - right. They are dying.

And so are we. We're killing more of them, but then we were doing that in Vietnam too, and we still lost. However, you're the one who said earlier that you didn't "care about the numbers" so I really shouldn't be at all surprised.

the Americans are also getting in a great deal of training in how to deal with terrorists.

Oh really? How pray tell? How does fighting an insurgency in the urban environment of a foreign country help us at all from keeping bin Laden from slamming any more planes into our skyscrapers here at home? You need to actually proof-read for rationality before posting, because honestly this post sounds absurd.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[jscotta44]

Have you every actually been in a military unit? I have. I'll assume that you have not for the rest of my comment. I can redirect later if I find I have been mistaken. But my bet is that you are the typical geek armchair general/politician that thinks that anyone's ideas but yours are absurd.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[Minna Kirai]

Have you every actually been in a military unit? I have.

Way to "refrain from personal attacks"! Hint: by declining to offer even the shadow of a substantive point, you have just conceded the argument.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[jscotta44]

Since we are having a discussion regarding military strategy and the training of the combatants, asking about your personal experience is very relevant and substantive. I wish to understand your experience. No personal attack was intended and I apologize if it was perceived as such. I was merely pointing out the normal audience on this particular board and making a guess regarding your experience based on that normal population.

Had this discussion been about Einstein's theories, I would not be as quick to doubt your ability to competently discuss it. However, after reading this the posts here on /. for years, I have concluded that the vast majority of posters have no real world understanding of the military, its purpose, and usage beyond there own personal agenda whether it be hawk or dove (and on this board typically anti-American).

Oh. And you did not answer the question.

Re:Gain is nice but not the issue

[True Grit]

Since we are having a discussion regarding military strategy and the training of the combatants,

That's funny, I thought we were talking about protecting the country from terrorists. Oh let me guess, you're one of those typical neocon armchair politicos who thinks he's a general and believes every talking point that comes from the current administration including:

• Everyone we're fighting in Iraq is a "terrorist" (hint: the ones blowing up Iraqi civilians are terrorists, the ones blowing up our kids are not)

• Terrorists can be defeated solely with the use of a military (hint: calling it a "war" doesn't make it one - its nearly as meaningless as the neverending "war on drugs")

By jumping on the military angle, you've only proven your own ignorance of the real nature of the conflict we face.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[laughingcoyote]

There is no form of "confusion" between freedom and privacy. There are really only a few core freedoms-privacy, the right to think, speak, and express yourself as you wish, and freedom of movement.

The current King George is every bit violating the people's express right, just as the one 200 years ago was. In fact, more so-as far as I know, the colonists were not guaranteed they would -not- be taxed without representation, while we are expressly guaranteed freedom from searches without a court order upon probable cause. Other rights have also been violated-free speech/expression (protest zones, gag orders on National Security Letter recipients), speedy trial and no imprisonment without conviction of a jury of your peers (Guantanamo), and the allowance of countless other due process violations, some that we may not even know about.

Freedom -is- your right to conduct your business without interference from or surveillance by the government, unless there are good, solid reasons to believe you have broken the law. In the end, that's all it boils out to.

Re:Clinton used the IRS

[ortcutt]

That's a urban legend. Look at my reply to another person bringing up this baseless charge. The Republican Congress investigated this charge and found no evidence of any such thing.

Re:It is amazing...

[agent dero]

You're damn right I'd be mad as hell if an attack occurred taking out the Brooklyn Bridge, that's besides the point.

I could be killed in a car accident tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'm going to re-arrange my way of life just to be sure a minutely possible accident might happen at some indetermined time in the future.

We shouldn't surrender ourselves, our lives just to allow the government to tell us that we're safe. The government is fully within their provisions to draft me in the future if we go to war, to protect others' rights, that's fine; the government becomes illegitimate when it's trying to "protect us, from us" which is what domestic spying essentially equates to.

If you still don't believe me, I run a security service, just send me all your financial, and personal data, and I will ensure that you'll live forever. (I am however not responsible if you somehow don't...)

Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Too late)

[laughingcoyote]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

Clipper was a bad idea but it never went anywhere. Clinton did also repeal the export restrictions on strong crypto.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[Arandir]

That post was a rant, a sarcasm, a fiction, a collection of invented quotes. It was made up. It's obvious that it was made up. *YOU* know it was made up. Yet you present it as factual quotes.

People wonder why Bush and Co. can get away with the stuff they do. But it's easy to get away with stuff when your opponents are habitual and compulsive liars. If you don't want Bush to get away with this crap, THEN STOP LYING ABOUT IT!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

One lie, versus how many? (Again, the false dichotomy of liars versus truth-tellers.)

The media tore into Clinton, I agree, but that was juicy stuff they were after! They'll eat their own if it means they'll make a fortune off of it, plus he was a lame duck. As for one lie, it was only one lie he got caught telling. There was whitewater and his last minute pardons that tarnish his credibility rating in my eyes, but yeah, Clinton did get beat up, and if it's any consolation to you I thought he did a satisfactory job as president, unlike Carter.

You didn't think the WMD was a joke, you thought to yourself, "oh ya, those same biological weapons he used against the kurds." By the way, that question is still open whether or not it will turn out to be true. The weapons purchase from Nigeria turned out to be boggled by Joe Wilson and wife and their political agenda, too bad the CIA has been infiltrated by people with an agenda. The border with Iran and Syria was always available, bombs could still be in Syria. It's always surprising to me to find people like you who are convincd you know the real story. There are defectors that were at task building a nuclear bomb. It is also neighboring Iran's goal to build a nuclear bomb, just like it was Iraq's, or wait, do you believe them when they say they just want to generate power? When we bomb their reactor are you going to pick up your sign and protest it?

You tell me how many lies G.W. has told, and give a rational justification as to why they were lies. We found lots of chemical and biological weapons, and components and facilities for nuclear weapons, so rather than argue with you about what constitutes a lie, we can both just agree that G.W. was right on that one.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

ECHELON is a system for foreign electronic surveillance. That's been going on for decades and is a great deal different from domestic electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Barret report

[thule]

... and what about the Barrett report? Domestic spying at it's finest! Clinton was such a constitutional angel!

Re:Barret report

[ortcutt]

What was domestic spying? The Barrett Report hasn't been published so you must be clairvoyant to know what's in it.

source

[tacroy]

up the thread they discussed this, the quote comes from http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml and the general opinion is that it is a editoral piece of fiction.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html The court wouldn't be the one to stop the President from making an EO, it would be congress, with impeachment. Dude.

"Lawfully" is only part of it

[mdavids]

Here's how it will play out:

1. "The President has acted lawfully."
2. "The President's advice was that he acted lawfully."
3. Gonzales retires to "spend more time with his family".
4. The White House carries on as before, getting the advice it wants to hear from a new secretary of state.

And that's the way it will stay as long as the American people expect their elected officials to behave lawfully rather than ethically. I agree with Bush; the constitution is "just a piece of paper". He should be held to a higher standard of accountability than that.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

1. Yes. It was a bleeding heart plea, talking about millions of people dieing so Joe Shmoe can grow pot in his closet.

3. You're not free from government surveillance. You are however free to practice whatever religion you want to practice, no if's and's or but's. Freedom of religion is unique like that. You can't say whatever you want to say, such as "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You can't hide from whoever or for whatever reason either. If you sent an encrypted communication with details on a terrorist nuclear plot, I would hope the authorities could track it to you and torture the passcode out of you. Someday we'll be tested with a situation that will really stress this issue, it hasn't happened yet. This spying on international phone lines is small beans.

Re:meta moderation please

[cortana]

No. His insightful point was negated by his angry personal attack. I wish people could be more civil when online. Maybe once Trusted Computing becomes widespread, web sites can enforce a cooling-off period that must pass before one is allowed to reply to a comment?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[bishop32x]

Just because they informed a few congresional leaders and the head of FISA that they were implementing this program does not mean they are clearing any of the actions taken under this program with anyone. Briefing != oversight. In fact according the the NYT article, the judge overseeing FISA complained about how the information was being used in mid-2004.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

Executive Orders are subject to the courts. If they violate the laws, then the Federal Courts will strike them down. This happens all the time. I recognize the necessity of Executive Orders. We need a way of making policy in the Executive Branch which determines how the laws are implemented. But Executive Orders can't direct government agencies to violate the nation's laws. That's totally illegal, despite what the commenter zardo claims.

Illegal and Unconstitutional

[ortcutt]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu al/2005_12/007789.php

This is against the law. I have put references to the relevant statute below the fold; the brief version is: the law forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally.

Bush's order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

There much more there, so read the whole thing.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[Thomas Miconi]

You elected him because you were scared. Scared people do not act rationally. People who live in mortal fear choose the guy who talks and acts like a strong leader, regardless of the consequences.

Israelis vote for Ariel Sharon (a guy who's ready to wage war forever to keep East-Jerusalem and the main settlements in the west bank, even though most Israelis are not) because he shows "strength" against terrorists. Palestinians vote for Hamas (the guys who convinced Israelis that every Palestinian spends every waking minute devising new and interesting ways to kill Jews) because they showed "strength" against the occupier.

Americans voted for Bush because he showed "strength" against "terror" (a codeword meaning "all those dirty Arabs who don't like America"). "Bin Laden attacks us ! Quick, let's invade Iraq !" The obvious non-sequitur was quite simply disregarded, and countries which tried to point it out (such as France and Germany) were rewarded with the worst campaign of hate ever launched against allied countries.

Man is not a rational animal. Man is an animal capable of being rational, when they want to. People like Bush (or Ahmadinejad, for that matter) illustrate the gap between those two very different concepts.

Thomas-

What a crock!

[Turbofish]

Aw man! You guys had me all worked up! I was about ready to start calling all of my Libertarian buddies and fire off some nasty letters to Washington.

Then I read the actual New York Times article (the whole article) and find out that the names and phone numbers of these few hundred "Americans" were first retrieved from the cell phone and laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, and that they were only monitoring international communications, no domestic calls at all. And to top it off, the intel they got from this operation helped them catch a sleeper who was planning to bomb a New York bridge and subway.

So, they really did nothing wrong, immoral, or un-Constitutional at all. They are not "reading all of your email", and you have nothing to worry about unless Osama Bin Laden is in your IM Buddy list and you exchange recipies daily. If that is the case, let me know and I'll be glad to save the Men in Black the trouble and take care of you personally.

BTW... yes, I put the word American in parenthises above on purpose. Regardless of resident or birth status, anyone who helps foreign powers plot and commit acts of sabotage and mass murder against this country is a traitor and deserves prison or deportation at the very least. If they want to listen in on a few phone calls first, or even throw him in a hole for a few months to cook some intel out of him, that is fine by me.

Re:No Dispute?

[onemorechip]

Manipulated intelligence, you mean. This was reported by Knight-Ridder long before the Downing Street memo came to light; in fact it was reported even before the illegal invasion itself.

Safety or Freedom

[ppp]

Choose wisely, America! With all of the insanity that's been sweeping this country since 9-11, wha't s going to happen when (not if) a *real* Weapon of Mass Destruction is set off in the U.S.? As much as I sympathise for the tragic loss of life that would occur, I fear for the direction this country will take when that happens.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

The laws are not so simple ortcutt. The wording in the constitution is for the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", but his duties as an executive agent require that he respond promptly to a national emergency. I would expect the president to skip the overhead of a federal judge in a time of national emergency. Like it says in that document, "Congress often gives the President considerable leeway". Members of congress knew what the President had done when he did it and it was nothing out of the ordinary. If it had seemed unusual to any of them, they would have voted to stop it. Our country relies on this executive power in times of crisis, that sort of flexibility to make quick decisions is needed in any government. It certainly won't be the courts that investigate this, it will be congress, and they will find that he acted in accordance with the laws governing HIM.

If there were a free press ...

[tizan]

If there really were a free press and not journalists coniving and hobnobing with political powers then there would not have been the war in the first place.

Journalists would have gone in iraq and showed that there were no wmd or that the aluminium pipes were not of the types to be used in nuclear weapons or that there was no yellow cake deal or.... No they were busy whipping patriotic feelings.

When is it last that NYT did some real investigative journalism and came promptly to the public about it ? I can't seem to remember !

Capitol Hill Blue

[commodoresloat]

It's from a column in Capitol Hill Blue called "The Rant" that seems to be satire or sarcasm; it does not seem to be real. Capitol Hill Blue published a lot of questionable stories that the rest of the media never picked up or even bothered to acknowledge, such as that Bush was popping pills like crazy and slipping into a paranoid delerium reminiscent of Richard Nixon; that he throws scary and obscene tirades (again, reminiscent of Nixon), and more. It's hard to tell if this stuff is a poor attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes or some kind of obscure satire, though it certainly is repeated often enough on the internet. But in either case I would be hesitant about believing much of this stuff or spreading it around.

Clinton and civil liberties

[commodoresloat]

And let's not forget, long before the Patriot Act, there was the Omnibus Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which sailed through Congress in the wake of Oklahoma City, and contained many restrictions on privacy and civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. I like the Clintonistas better than the current crop of imbeciles too, but let's not paint his administration as some kind of bastion of civil liberties.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[ortcutt]

Executive orders cannot overturn statutes. If the President violates the law, then that is illegal, period.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[slashmojo]

BTW -- I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't know what to call myself now.

NSA case file #4653268137 ? ;)

Bush Backed Spying On Americans

[dysonapr]

> Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'

Of course, in American "lawful" & "loophole" are synonyms...

Re:Ortcut's Responses

[ortcutt]

There should be an investigations of allegation of misconduct in the Bush administration. If there was no crime then so be it. I'm just pointing out that there have been investigations of the Clinton White House and these many allegations have turned out to be nothing at all.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Jerry Coffin]

Did you even read your own link?

Obviously not! Thanks for the correction.

I'd remembered when the original decision was made, but (obviously enough) not when it was reversed. I remembered poorly enough that I looked for a reference, and clearly should have read through it better.

Again, my apologies. Nonetheless, I (for one) put a lot more trust in encryption than in people not reading it just because they're not supposed to...

Your Lancet Study

[jscotta44]

Sorry. I just don't believe your numbers (i.e. the numbers provided by the Lancet study). My belief is that they are trumped up to justify an anti-war position.

As to Korea, if a country had acted on the violation of the Cease Fire, then we would not be having an issue with Korea over nuclear arms today.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[geekoid]

No actually, it is a quote confirmed from three sources.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[geekoid]

The cliper chip was in response to parental concerns.
You will notice however, that when a lot of people didn't like it, it went away.

Wow, that's Communism!

[GeneralAntilles]

Communism doesn't work and, no matter how much you warp reality to your viewpoint, it never will.

I think now he's ignoring you.

[theflyingdingleberry]

I think maybe now he's ignoring you because you're a moron. hehe. moron.

The REAL question

[hkb]

The question isn't whether this is lawful. Unconstitutional laws are passed behind our backs all the time.

The REAL question is: are these laws constitutional?

Re:No Dispute?

[killjoe]

Are you saying nobody was tortured by Bush? That not one person was tortured during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you further saying that not one civillian was killed during those wars?

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[killjoe]

"That post was a rant, a sarcasm, a fiction, a collection of invented quotes."

No it wasn't. He confirmed it from multiple sources. Other people have reported it too.

You can stick your head in the sand but it doesn't make the world go away my friend.

Prior Restraint

[jefu]

If the article was held up for a year either on request of the government, or because of an implicit threat by them, is this not "prior restraint" on the press? Prior restraint has generally been held in the US to be a serious no-no.

If the NY Times held up the article "just cuz", then they are well on their way to losing any credibility they might have retained over the last few years given the serious lapses they've had in journalistic ethics.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I think that's what he was trying to say.

As long as a new third party keeps gaining power every couple of decades, that could actually work out pretty well.

Re:Well...

[YetAnotherLogin]

Didn't you know? There's an early beta available from http://www.nsa.gov/software/eavesdrop/gaim-2.0beta /

If you called Brezhnev from Mao's phone in Peking

[technoCon]

I happen to know that back in the (post-Watergate) Reagan 1980s, if any American citizen were to pick up the phone in Mao's office, and ring Brezhnev in the Kremlin for a chat, that the NSA was prohibited by law from intercepting that call. That's the way the law worked back then. (If you think of how NSA works, you can see how stupid this was.) I don't think the Clinton administration or anybody else changed this until after 9/11.

When I heard this story, it was pretty clear to me that this is what the Feds changed.

There's 9/11 and then there's bureaucrats. Thus I'll bet that the people bugging my telephone are from the FBI, not the NSA, simply because the bureau's "turf" is domestic and the other agencies "turf" is international. But what happens when an enemy has part of its operation based locally and another part based overseas? No doubt we need a THIRD set of bureaucrats to cover this contingency.

My experience was with the post-Watergate "reforms" of a generation ago and I thought then that they candicapped the intelligence community for no good reason. They didn't stop the Clintons from using those FBI files that came in so handy during Impeachment. My suspicion is that when DIA did the data mining project called "Able Danger" they used open records in such a way that they violated at least the spirit of the post-Watergate rules and thus the product was destroyed before it could be used to thwart the USS Cole bombing or 9/11.

The real problem is that you have one set of domestic rules that protect the accused of a crime, and necessity dictates that there be a second set of international rules that advance the interests of nations. We can pass laws locally to set the first set of rules, but we can't set the second set of rules without considering what other nation-states are doing against us. The rub comes when these two rules sets differ and get applied inconsistently.

Just something to remember...

[baudbarf]

Hitler acted lawfully in every step that he took as well. Look it up. It's true.

Re:Just something to remember...

[True Grit]

Ohh if I only had mod points!

The rabid right would have modded you back down though I suspect, history is not one of their strong suits.

Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised?

[John Hurliman]

Unless something new surfaces, it's not real. There have been three articles; the original that alleges three anonymous sources verified a quote, another article quoting the original article that cites the anonymous sources, and a rebuttal article from the original author defending his journalistic integrity, but without any new information on the story itself. On that same note, I have FOUR anonymous sources that confirm Doug Thompson is paid by FOX News to distract people from the real issues at hand with gossip and FUD.

Re:George Lucas's finest moment questining the sys

[incabulos]

How the hell do we consider the Constitution a good thing, when it allows a person like Bush to be elected into power in the first place?

It didnt though, thats the thing. His 'election' was neither democratic nor constitutional. It was in every sense of the term a coup d'état, where the correct and legal processes were ignored and the 'president' siezed power by some criminal means. Many coups have the military taking control, arresting and executing dissidents, and appointing their own representive as President ( as was the case with Pakistan in October 1999 ), Bush though was granted the position via the Supreme Court who suspended the democratic electoral process, and 'awarded' the office of president to him.

The correct course of action to take in these circumstances were for Bush, his party members, and the Supremes to be placed under arrest on charges of High Treason ; obviously the law was not followed and hence America has suffered under a defacto dictatorship since that date.

If you still dont believe America to be a dictatorship then ask yourself why Bush is seemingly able to commit treasonous crimes against his countrymen with impunity, when previous democratically elected presidents would have been imprisoned for doing the merest fraction of what Bush has done.

And revise your understanding of what constitutes a dictatorship.

Re:Not just a BJ

[Seumas]

Because neither of your parties support the constitution. You both complain about the other invading the bank accounts or privacy or autonomy of the citizens, yet you each reach into the bank accounts, violate the privacy and override the autonomy of the citizens. Libertarians and consitutionalists would prefer to stand on the ideals that the country and freedom was supposedly founded on rather than compromise our ideals just so we can join the parties with existing influence that clearly can't handle their influence without corruption.

Re:MOD THIS COMMENT DOWN

[periol]

Look - you can choose to believe what Bush says, or pay attention to his actions. His actions say that he's willing to undermine any and/or all core values that make America what it is in order to win this war. Personally, I'd rather lose this war on terrorism than sacrifice our rights and principles.

Some things are worse than death. I wish our president thought about that sometimes.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Mr2001]

Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party.

And that means electoral reform. The plurality voting system we use today simply will not get us to a state of having more than two viable parties, according to Duverger's law. If we want parties that really represent us, we need proportional representation for Congress and a better system (approval or Concorcet voting) for filling single offices.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Descalzo]

The Constitution grants Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited time, but Congress has seen fit to extend the copyright limits indefinitely. So what's the limit? That's my take on it. But the courts seem to agree with Congress.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[east coast]

I have no problem with a third party, but what on earth is there about a third party that is going to be any more or less corrupt than the existing two?

It creates more competition which means the parties will have to work for the vote instead of simply say "we're not as bad as the dems/GOP" and knowing it will get them the votes.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[Brandybuck]

And what are those sources? The rant in question doesn't mention any sources at all, doesn't even acknowledge that there was a source. There's not an "unknown sources say..." or even a "I heard from a friend that...". Instead he just blurts out a fake quote.

So what are those sources? Name them. Show us reputable evidence for all of those quotes.

Re:Uh, guys...it was 9/11.

[pintomp3]

darryl worley?? is that you?? http://www.countrygoldusa.com/have_you_forgotten.a sp

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[east coast]

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".

Do you care to NOT make the assumption of what I or anyone else thinks? It's the ultimate form of arrogance and frankly it makes you look like an ass.

I doubt a third party would get rid of many to start actually. But of course you know what I think so why don't you fill in the blanks? What about the number of times I supported local and state office level third party canidates? What was I thinking at that time?

I guess mr "i know exactly what you're thinking" should have known that I've always supported local offices before federal offices in the building of a third party. I guess he doesn't know as much as he presumes.

No. Give ME a break. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Let me get this straight...the president of the United States of America approved security agencies to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications in a period of time when we were at war against an enemy that refused to identify itself and chose to attack civilians. Said enemy also had obviously been communicating covertly in order to coordinate their surprise attacks.

Let me get this straight. . .

You actually believe that the powers that be weren't lying through their teeth about how the whole 9/11 thing went down? The President is a confirmed manipulative liar. Anybody who hasn't figured that one out is being deliberately dense. Heck, there's a Slashdot article to that effect in today's edition.

9/11 was committed under the sanction and direction of U.S. powers so as to forward the current war and social control agendas. Again, anybody who hasn't figured that one out is being deliberately ignorant.

-FL

Yeah, except. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

The problem is that the booked laws and what actually happens in the real world have exactly zero bearing on one another. For instance, where does Echelon figure in? The point is that there is always SOMEBODY willing and able to keep an eye on you and they don't care what the law happens to say. This is because the laws were made for us chumps in the civilian stage-production of the world while the people with real power created the law to keep us distracted and controlled, so why should they care if something is 'legal' or not? The concept of 'legal' is a sham sold to us. Sheesh. So I don't really care what publicity-face label, (FBI, CIA, NSA, ETC.), happens to be quoted. The agencies which hold all the strings don't have names you or I have ever heard of.

Armchair theorists seem to consistently trip over this little aspect of reality. In their dear little heads, everything works according to the instruction manuals and the news casts. Because there's no power to be had in, oh, LYING to people, is there?

-FL

OK, that was pretty good, but...

[patiodragon]

can you deny this resemblance, hmmm?

http://kimbriggs.com/images/jaba-hill.jpg

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[raoul666]

That's amazing! I have the same combination on my luggage!

How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[mathmathrevolution]

"How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? How do we know? Do we have their names?"

If anybody wants real information about how many Jews were killed in the holocaust, they can get more information at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Also, here is a project for collecting all the names of holocaust victims

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[einhverfr]

My concern is what we mean by holocaust. In general, the term Holocaust has been used to mean specifically the attempted extermination of the Jews from within the Third Reich. Hence most of the efforts to account for those who perished in the death camps make no attempt whatsoever to track those from other ethnicities (such as the Roma who were *far* more heavily devistated percentage-wise than the Jews were), the Volkische groups, and more.

As I said in my original post, I am not about to speculate on figures because I don;t think we have complete data. The legitimate historical research done on the part of those documenting the Jewish experience should not be demeaned, but it is a very limited picture of what actually happened.

Note that in my original post I never said the death camps never happened, or that many Jews were not killed, but the idea of the Holocaust as something that "happened to the Jews" is largely propaganda *we tell ourselves* in order to avoid the difficult questions it raises. The harsh reality is that the death camps were far more inclusive than any single ethnic group, and they were an intrinsic part of the way that large parts of the Nazi party, particularly the SS and Himmler, asserted control over the German populace.

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[Dobeln]

The "percentage wise" argument doensn't cut it - it's the same one used to create spurious megadisasters for political benefit. Read: "12 dead in Israel is like XXXX dead in the United States", etc. Face it, the main objective of the Holocaust was eliminating the Jews, who were seen as powerful, decadent, , and seditious. Add in good old Christian / Lutheran jew hatred, and you have the makings of a genocide. The Gypsies were merely parasitic annoyances to be cleansed from society. Being successful is often much more dangerous than staying near the bottom of the social pyramid.

It is also true that Jews have a very strong position in the US media (as they did in pre-Nazi Germany - a reason for them being hated by the Nazis), and thus have been able to put their spin on the Holocaust to a far greater degree than ethnies who don't do academics. Still, to say that mainstream history has somehow erased, or even seriously diminished the fact that the Nazis went after Gypsies, Homosexuals and political opponents, and so on, is hardly backed by any hard facts.

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[einhverfr]

You have some valid points, but I don't think you understand my points at all.

What has been largely erased was the role of the concentration camps in political persecutions and the scope and bredth of these persecutions. Consequently, you don't hear stories like those of Fredreich Bernard Marby.

Marby was a nationalist who was heavily involved in the Volkische movement. He had written books attempting to create a national German form of yoga called Runenyoga, and these books had some antisemitic content (which is why you never hear his story, I am convinced). Marby was never a member of the NSDAP. Early in the war, the SS approached Marby and requested his involvement in their organization. Marby declined and was subsequently imprisoned in Dachau. He was repeatedly threatened with his life, and told that if he joined the SS, that he would be let out. He was still in Dachau ten years later, when the Allies arrived.

There are several reasons why the Volkische persecutions get no coverage in history books. These include:
1) The persecutions were entirely authorized and organized by Himmler, and there is little evidence of other high-ranking Nazi party member involvement.

2) Many of those persecuted espoused antisemitic sentiments between the wars and were often considered part of the problem both by the Allies and later by many of the scholars interested in the Jewish experience of the death camps.

3) These persecutions were wide ranging and included religious/mystical/occult groups (Eugen Groshe was imprisoned because of his leadership of the Fraturnitas Saturnii), nationalist groups, and many of those that crossed these lines (The Guido von List Gesselshaft, the Armanenshaft, etc).

4) While many of these individuals were imprisoned in concentration camps, ordinary jails and summary executions were often used as well.

To appreciate why these persecutions occurred, however, it is important to understand that the NSDAP itself was a hybrid of Hitler's Marxist DAP and a number of Volkische-oriented nationalists (such as Himmler, Hess, and others). Many in the Volkishe movement did not ascribe to the vision of a great German empire (von Lebenfels, for example, had an alternative vision of a large number of small, German-run states in a loose confederation, and Guido von List while strongly nationalistic was hardly cheuvanistic about it--- he maintained extremely good relations with a number of Kabbalistic schools and collaborated with some of the Rabbis there on comparitive mystical works).

In essence although most of the nationalist movement was fairly racist, at least in believing in the superiority of the German people, there were a large number of beliefs about the role of nationalism in the future of Germany. Many of the Volkische simply saw Hitler as a new sort of German quasi-communist and wanted nothing to do with him. So what Himmler did was use the SS and the concentration camps to ensure that no Volkische vision of Germany could exist outside the SS. This was largely a power play on his part and it is likely that Himmler was attempting to take over the Reich at some point. Note that towards the end of the war, Hitler attempted to fire Himmler and was unsuccessful which gives you an idea of how powerful Himmler was (after Hitler's death, Doenitz successfully fired Himmler, and he recounted in his memoirs how terrified he was of Himmler during this encounter). After his dismissal, Himmler used the SS as his private army and negotiated his own surrender apart from the general surrender of the German military negotiated by Doenitz.

Several other oddities which are worth noting:

1) There is some evidence that Hitler asked Churchill for permission to send the Jews to Madagascar as an alternative to killing them.

2) A terrorist organization known as the Stern Gang in British Palestine, led in part by Yitzach Shameer (later PM of Israel for a brief time), attempted to enter into a military alliance with Hitler and broker a de

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[Minna Kirai]

Do you know the definition of "holocaust"? Hint: it has something to do with fire.

was subsequently imprisoned in Dachau. He was repeatedly threatened with his life, and told that if he joined the SS, that he would be let out. He was still in Dachau ten years later,

Yeah, he was still in there- and STILL ALIVE. Whereas 99% of the Jews who came into Dachau during his time there had been burned or buried by that point.

Persecutions such as you describe were known world-wide from 1940 onward. Everyone knew about the Nazi's political supression. The Holocaust was a separate operation, only marginally connected.

You are simply trying to argue that people don't understand "the Holocaust" by using "the Holocaust" to refer to something other than what they're talking about. Arguments of the form "You understand $XYZ so badly, you don't even know what it's really called" never carry much weight. They just signal that the speaker has decided to make up a private language, disjoint from typical human meaning.

After his dismissal, Himmler used the SS as his private army and negotiated his own surrender apart from the general surrender of the German military negotiated by Doenitz.

This is another typical example of rhetorical misdirection, the "non-sequitur". You simply have to enter in some voluminous factoids, overwhelming the audience with their truthfulness, while not giving them time to ask if they're relevant in any way.

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[einhverfr]

"Holocaust" means "Disaster" in Yiddish. I am not sure that fire has anything to do with it.

My main point is that the Holocaust didn't occur in isolation, and it wasn't merely a crime against the Jews committed out of the hatred of the party rulership as most of us are taught to believe. This is what I mean by the Holocaust *as we normally think of it* as a product of late war and post war propaganda. I am not even saying that their experience wasn't real or worth studying. I am just saying it is but a piece of the picture.

Instead, the system of death and work camps were an integral part of the system of social and political control that the Nazis imposed on the citizenry. I mention Marby because his account raises serious questions about the way in which the persecuted ethnic groups were used to attempt to intimidate those who the SS in particular wanted to control.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that millions of Jews were not killed. Just that the story we are told about it is fairly flawed. In reality, the real story of the attrocities that the NSDAP committed against their own people if *far* larger and *far* worse than our history books are willing to discuss. I believe that part of the problem is the way in which eugenics was practiced in the UK, Canada, and US as well, and I think another part is that most of the Volkishe groups that were persecuted (most who went into the death camps here never came out either) were ignored as a part of the problem rather than the victims of the system as well.

But I think that the bigger problem is that it is more comforting to think that this was a crime that was committed by a few people out of simple hatred against a minority ethnic group. In reality, it was a complex political manuver that was done, I think on the part of both Hitler and Himmler *solely* for political gain. I am not saying that Hitler didn't hate Jews, or but the stark reality is that the death camps were an integral part of the dictatorial system of the Nazis. As I have said elsewhere, I think that the Jews and Gypsies were intended to be expamples for the other detainees and simultaneously a way to appease a certain segment of the Nazi party (which was far from homogeneous).

You have to remember that in his early career, Hitler was basically a slightly more nationalistic version of Stalin. He never bought into this Wodan worship and believed that science was the religion of the future (we have quite a bit of surviving correspondance between Hitler and Himler on this regard-- this was an area where they sharply disagreed). The NSDAP which was formed out of Hitler and his jail buddies was really a fusion of the Deutche Arbeits-Partei (German Workers' Party), run by Hitler as a sort of communist party independant of the Soviets but looking to people like Stalin as role models (but why shouldn't Germany be the new center of the Communist world?), and a few extremists from the right wing Volkishe movements (Himmler, Hess, and others). The conflicts inherent in this union never went away. I personally think that the death camps were used in different ways by different factions of the party (this is evidenced by how many side-persecutions Himmler engaged in without acting on the orders of Hitler).

In short, the problems with the current view of the death camps are:
1) The assumption that the NSDAP was a homogeneous entity under the absolute control of Hitler. This is demonstrably false.

2) The assumption that the main and only motivation of the death camps was racial hatred. This is demonstrably false.

Hitler was without a doubt the most evil figure in the twentieth century. Even those who killed more people than he did (Chairman Mao, for example) failed to have such a totally psychotic system as the Nazis. The truth about the Holocaust is that the death camps were bigger than just the hatred of an ethnic group. This doesn't diminish what happened there, rather it expands it. And every citizen of the Reich was a victim either directly or indirectly of the horrors there. Indeed, they were used to attempt to strip *Germans* of their cultural heritage on top of everything else.

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[Minna Kirai]

"Holocaust" means "Disaster" in Yiddish.

And it doesn't mean anything in German or Romani-speak. That's why events relating to those other groups have other names.

fairly flawed. In reality, the real story of the attrocities that the NSDAP committed against their own people if *far* larger and *far* worse than our history books are willing to discuss.

Strawmanning. You have, at best, selected a small number of bad history books, and decided they represent everything.

2) The assumption that the main and only motivation of the death camps was racial hatred. This is demonstrably false.

More rhetorical misdirection. "Main and only" is a redundant clause, because "only" implies "main" as a subset. But removing "main" to leave it as "that the only motivation of the death camps" reveals your technique for what it is: strawmanning.

No historical topic that's even slightly-complex truely has "only" one reason, so it proves nothing for you to point out that this one doesn't either.

The main reason for the "Holocaust" was racial/ethnic hatred*. That is true, and you can't even begin to "demonstrate" otherwise.

Nobody assumes that the ONLY reason was racial hatred. You're arguing against a position created from your own imagination.

* What some people don't know is that Hitler had below-average Jew-hatred, compared to the normal citizens of his country.

Re:How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

[PHPfanboy]

Holocaust is a Greek word.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=holocaust

If Yiddish speakers refer to the holocaust they will probably call it by the accepted Hebrew term "shoah" (2 syllable, emphasis on the "ah" bit) which means "disaster".

Actually, real Yiddish speakers these days are basically only the Hassidim, so they'd probably pronounce it "shoioh".

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[executioner]

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, no law was broken.

it may have been stated but that does not mean no law has been broken last time I checked it was still ILLEGAL to spy (eavesdrop, etc.) on american citizens without a duly executed search warrent, the president is not authorized to order it done. ( thats unless we just throw out the bill of rights and turn this country into a dictatorship and I haven't seen that yet as much as bush would like it.)

As far as the NSA reading my email, I'd be honored. But then, I sincerely doubt they'll find anything worth going to the trouble

personally I'm happy you'd be honored as far as i'm concerned if they want to read my spam mail go ahead please delete it all while they are at it so i don't have to. but i do have issues with doing it outside the laws. I don't have anything to hide BUT i do live in the united states and there are laws providing me with a certain EXPECTED amount of privacy, and if there is anyone spying on me, listing to my phone conversation, reading my email (and by that I mean goverment people, I understand that email is able to be read by most anyone with half a clue) they better have a damn good reason and a warrant.

Anyway, it's the nature of government to have to do some things in secret. I understand, accept, and approve of this. I remain unconvinced that Bush is doing anything out of the ordinary for presidents to do, as I remain unconvinced that he's doing anything particularly egregious.

yes it is ordinary for SOME things to be done in secret, illegall things NO they shouldn't be done at all. there is more then enough things bush has done that have come to light that make me question whether there is anything he has done that is illegal. the domestic spying (if without the proper warrants) would certainly warrant charges. there are many questionable things he has done but 99% of the things this white house has done will stay classified probably beyond our lifetimes and he will hide behind executive privelage for the rest.

and i don't care that it is bush doing all this if any president handled himself this way i would say the same things bush has earned the low approval rating on his actions.

Re:No Dispute?

[killjoe]

"f you're the boss of a company, and one of your employees goes out and robs a store during work hours - who's at fault? Look, I dislike Bush quite a bit. I think he's a real dipshit. But without one shred of any fact that you claim "can't be questioned" - can you honestly put someone to death without any proof? Are you saying that we should become those that we consider terrorists by killing someone without proper truth or because that's what you believe?"

So by your reasoning there is no basis for trying saddam hussein for the massacres and the torture that happened during his reign. After all he didn't drop the bombs, he didn't torture those people, his minions did.

"But without one shred of any fact that you claim "can't be questioned" - can you honestly put someone to death without any proof?"

I realize that due to your republitard freeper status you are not allowed to read actual data or consider actual facts which do not fit into your idealogy but you may want to refer to the investigative document put our by the US army. Yes the same army you worship has admitted that people were tortured and killed under their custody. One presumes that they would only admit to the ones where there were eyewitness, picture, or video collobaration to, after all there is no use admitting you torture people in secret prisons when nobody who has seen the inside of one of those prisons has spoken out yet.

"I can't say either way whether George Bush ordered such things or not or is responsible because there's no proof - not now at least."

Well he is either a dupe and a dunce or he ordered it. Either way it doesn't look so good for him. Only if there was a forum where there could be a way to find out. You know only if people could be deposed, witnesses could be interviewed, documents could be suphenoed. You know like a trial or something!.

"Things are always more complicated in the world we live in. Well, maybe not your world. But for the rest of us, it's never that simple."

I find it offensive that you want to release Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Sure the world is complicated but that doesn't mean rat bastard murderers like Osama, Saddam and Bush should be let off so easily.

Re:If you called Brezhnev from Mao's phone in Peki

[nsaspook]

Unless there is a known subject of an intercept all recording are just stored for later interpretation. Lots of US citizens calls/e-mails are in intel bulk storage. It's what you can do with that information that most laws govern. The NSA is like a massive ringbuffer of data. I sure that Jane Fonda's phone calls from Hanoi are still there.

Re:Constitution just a piece of paper.

[killjoe]

"And you can continue to believe whatever you like, that doesn't make it true, even when a WHOPPING THREE sources say it!"

Dude Bush went to war with less then three sources saying Saddam was going to nuke NY.

Re:No Dispute?

[edunbar93]

That's priceless. He's clueless because the war in Iraq, well, isn't illegal, and was done with the blessing of the UN. Hell, American troops *haven't* been slaughtering civilians just because they can. And they haven't violated the Geneva convention at all. Hell, this war very clearly wasn't about breaking the UN embargo on Iraqi oil, either. Or about finishing what daddy started.

Oh no, this war was all about fighting terrorism. Because you know, there have just been *so* many Iraqi terrorists in the past little while, that we just had to go out there and hunt them down. And hey, we were done with Bin Laden anyway.

Where is he again?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[The Cubelodyte]

Right, sometimes races are held between equally unappetizing candidates, but the core problem isn't about money. I argue that a big reason you're often stuck with a couple of turkeys or political hacks as candidates is because the vast majority of voters isn't taking an interest in what's going on, and not voting in the primary elections.

This makes it easy for small but organized and motivated factions within parties to steer things the way they want them to go, because the bulk of the voters, who disagree with these small but vocal groups, are too damned lazy to effectively use their numbers to interject their views into the political debate.

I mean, look, most Americans are disgusted with the way money warps the political process, yet what do they do when their Senator or Representative equivocates, knuckles under, or basically wimps out when attempting to tackle real reform? Do they get recalled in the next election? No. Constituents simply aren't holding their representatives responsible. There might not be easy answers to our problems, but we shouldn't be tolerating a line of bullshit - or no answer at all - from the people we send to Washington, your local statehouse, or even your city council.

I urge you to think about it this way: if your boss at work gave you some task to complete, and you never really did any work on it, and every time he asked for a status update, you fed him a line of crap, eventually you'd be fired (how fast depends on the temper and intelligence of the boss). Nonetheless, most of us are expected to actually deliver when we're asked to do something at work. Why should we let our government, which is working for us, slide, when the stakes are so much higher?

Paperwork?!

[Grendel Drago]

... 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?

Re:Paperwork?!

[cold fjord]

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?

Yes, there is a difference between being accused and convicted of a crime. There is also a difference between surveillance and arrest and detention and trial and conviction and punishment. Nothing has changed. The uproar over the NSA article is about surveillance, not arrest, detention, trials, conviction, or punishment. That is what the article was about. (You did read it, right?) From my reading of that article, and related prior material, there is both oversight, if somewhat spotty, and what is being done is arguabley legal, even if hair-splittingly so.

You may be aghast, but you're also apparently confusing the NSA / surveillence issue with the Padilla matter. They are completely separate. Maybe you should read those links too. His case was controversial, but understandable.

Some people are alarmed and confused because they do not recognize or understand the difference between criminal law, military law, and the Law of War, or for that matter, the President's powers to prosecute the war as Commander in Chief. The US is not in any immediate, meaningful danger of becoming a dictatorship, or even a .... "theocracy".

Re:Uh, guys...it was 9/11. Update.

[WheelDweller]

I couldn't have written it better.

All the debate that's happened here, and this story was a media ploy all along. It appears that "The once grey lady" of the New York Times shows how transparent it's become at propoganda.

http://drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

Yes, this whole thing was a farce; that article was to promote a book.

This is what I'm talking about. Very nearly 50% of Americans have been convinced, despite clear history to the contrary, that America is *the* preiminent source of evil in this world. If you think it is, you've been programmed, period.

Who's maintaining the Geneva Convention? America, Australia, Britain, maybe Canada? Everyone else, it seems uses wholesale torture and could care less. Well today McCain just bound our hands EVEN FURTHER by legislation intended to make him president. Worse yet, the fact there IS legislation suggests we use torture as a daily constitutional or something.

We lost 40,000 men pushing Hitler's troops out of France, for example; little boys, who's life was just starting...given a gun and told to climb the hedgerows. Now, France acts as if doing so for their freedom was an imposition. They didn't feel that way when the survivors liberated them.

These are end-times. You should already know that by now. Things are about to spiral out of control, helped partially by the press who'd sell out their own country for the sake of a political ideology. So now we're evil, now we need to be stopped, and Bush is a terrorist for giving freedom to oppressed people.

Well, believe it, if you must.

How effective has it been?

[FryerTuck]

Is there any objective way to measure how effective President Bush's methods have been. Putting aside the unconstitutional nature and invasion of privacy; have these tactics actually produced the intended results or do they just take us back to 1984 for no apparent reason?

If you read the full article...

[TheStonepedo]

Then NY Times has placed you on a list of people who read the articles that may go against the ideas of the current ruling party. Then your IP may be traced from each location in which you use your NY Times account and this data can be used to triangulate your expected position. The men in black will come snatch your body next time you're on wireless network X in your favorite internet cafe. You will disappear without a trace, and so mandatory registration to read articles will once again serve its purpose.

If that doesn't happen before you get this, could you post some of the wording in the manual for the less google-savvy types such as myself to read? Cheers

You forgot Poland.

[marcoz]

"Bush alienated every country except Britain getting us into Iraq."

No, u fscking idiot! MechaS, this means u!

[theflyingdingleberry]

You are the moron, MechaS. Don't think my sympathies lie with Kafka_Canada. God, you have just proven my point, you are too incompetent to understand how the Slashdot posting system works. My parent post is Kafka_Canada, you fscking moron. There are many ways that you can figure this out, but you would have to be halfway, just halfway competent, to pull it off. You are a perfect example of neocon idiocy crashing through life with blinders on and experiencing your own highly subjective reality. idiot.

France and Germany helped with Kosovo

[jotaeleemeese]

Germany, to the dismay of the local population and of people in the Balkans, sent troops out of their country since WWII

So tell your ass to shut up, it is not very accurate.

Some people don't consider felatio real sex.

[jotaeleemeese]

They would consider real sex only intercourse using the genital area.

Clinton was using that in a slimey way to get out of trouble.

I agree there should be no fear.

[expro]

But you talk as though you think I am a proponent of the left. That is the problem with most Republican supporters. Their only defense is holding up the left and pointing out how bad they are. There is hardly a dime's worth of difference between the left and big-government anti-states-rights Republicans are extremely dishonest for attacking the left with their own tyrant in the white house.

Re:Something's missing....oh yeah, a brain?

[argStyopa]

Wait, so if I understand it:
1) someone can post a story based on/linked to entirely unattributed quotation that's 100% pure slander = "news" and front page posting on slashdot
2) I use the exact same standards and it's flamebait.

No hypocrisy there, I'm sure?

get over it

[mre5565]

As long as you decide to use unencrypted communications you have no privacy anyway; get over it.

You think foreign countries aren't listening in on your communications?

Why should anyone on slashdot care? You guys don't know how to properly encrypt your email, voice comms, wifi, internet traffic? Probably not ... you're just a bunch of nerd wannabees.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Kymermosst]

But you didn't see any violations of privacy under Clinton.

Were you living under a rock while Clinton was president? WTF do you think this was?

May they be prosecuted...

[C-Diddy]

...that is, may those who have undermined the national security of the United States be prosecuted. As amply demonstrated by the NYT and the Plame incident, those involved in this leak should be jailed.

The President's response, delivered live during the weekly radio address, if anyone in the radical privocracy cares to know:

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States."

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[mre5565]

> The cliper chip was in response to parental concerns.

The clipper chip was an encryption key escrow system. Why would parents care about clipper?

> You will notice however, that when a lot of people didn't like it, it went away.

Yes, we got CALEA instead.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[jdclucidly]

The President admitted this morning that has has authorized this 30 times; every last part of the NYT story has turned out to be true. I don't forsee such a retraction in your future...

Why Bush can be sent to jail for this

[Brushen]

Mod me up. A very long and drawn out explaination. Skip on down to the bottom for a summary:

Section 209 of the USA Patriot (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) redefines "wire communication" in Title 18 of the United States Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_ch apter119_.html) so that it strikes out the part saying "and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication" from the definition.

Sec. 2511 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg i?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) of the Title 18, United States Code states, "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited."

Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.

However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.

Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:

"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication

...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."

In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.

Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.

Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.

I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.

Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.

The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2006/74/

In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.

I think that George Bush could avoid it, however, by argueing against the interpretation of the word "procure." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure)

If George Bush has procured another person to wiretap, meaning "to

Re:Why Bush can be sent to jail for this

[thedletterman]

I skipped the whole post. This went before the house intelligence committee at least a dozen times for approval as well as the FISA Court. Bush isn't going to jail for this, that entire premise is retarded. This (year old) story was released to the New York Times 10 days before the (New York Times Staff) author of the story is due to release his book (for which this article is given an entire chapter) about the CIA and the Bush administration. It's those little details the New York Times feels it is entirely ethical to omit or otherwise avoid.

Re:Why Bush can be sent to jail for this

[Brushen]

I'll repeat the main point. Because of the provision of the USA Patriot Act, specifically Section 209, Subsection 1, Paragraph A of that Act, yes, he does currently have a ground for it. That provision expires December 31. He said in his radio address he intends to wiretap past that date. My arguement has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act itself, but you wouldn't know that, not having read it.

Re:Why Bush can be sent to jail for this

[True Grit]

at least a dozen times for approval as well as the FISA Court

Uhh, dude, the whole point is that his orders allow the NSA to *bypass* the FISA court. Avoiding judicial oversight is Bush's GOAL.

Second it didn't go to a whole committee, just to select members, and many of them (Dem AND Rep) seem to be crying foul on this right now, so I wouldn't be so quick to say they approved Bush's action "a dozen times".

And I'm not sure yet what USA PATRIOT has to do with this, I first saw it mentioned here, not in any of the stories I've read so far elsewhere. I'd be shocked if that act allowed wiretapping on US citizens without any judicial approval, since that would have caused a firestorm from the privacy groups (as this story is doing now). If its true that the act gives Bush an out though, then this event will at least guarantee that the Patriot Act (in its old form) stays dead and buried, so *something* good will come of this at least.

Would be nice, however...

[ta bu shi da yu]

... this is a direct Presidential Executive Order. Have the U.S. courts actually decided whether this is something he is allowed to do? However, to me it seems that the fourth ammendment has been violated. The 4th ammendment states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The operative part that it violates here is that they must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If the U.S. President is allowing for surveillance and searches without search warrants through a FISA court, then he is clearly violating the 4th ammendment. I'm not sure how you could spin it otherwise!

So my question is: can a Presidential Order override the U.S. Constitution? And if not, how can the President be stopped from violating the 4th ammendment?

TBSDY

Re:Would be nice, however...

[Brushen]

Sorry, I didn't take into account the 4th Amendment into my post because courts haven't decided if the provision of the USA Patriot Act I describe in the beginning of my post violates the 4th Amendment yet, which I'm certain it does. No, a Presidential Order cannot override the U.S. Constitution. I will examine the part of the USA Patriot Act that deals with extending warrant time and FISA warrants tomorrow. I spent 9 hours today researching what I already posted.

What bothers me more...

[thedletterman]

Don't we have an independant investigator Fitzpatrick actively investigating CIA leaks to the press? Doesn't this story qualify? Are we going to see fair and equal treatment? Are we that complacent that as a public we can tolerate leaks of classified information to the New York Times intentionally and at the author's whim? Also why are congressmen who were fully aware of what was going on suddenly "shocked" and "disgusted" at this "inappropriate" behavior they have had a hand in all along? It was the government that approved the NSA to spy on international calls, which should be devoid of constitutional protection in my book.. especially if the signal is interecepted outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Yes, it is rather ironic

[ta bu shi da yu]

I had to research Title II of the Patriot Act for Wikipedia (mainly to start to fix up the main article, which is a dogs breakfast as it currently stands) and what I find especially ironic is that under the Patriot Act, the FBI or other govt agency can get a surveillance order at any time from a FISA court, and they can:

• Delay notification of the order
• Present evidence before the court ex parte (without having the party who the orer is made out against present) and in camera (in secret).

The mind boggles when you realise that this isn't enough for Bush! Apparently, the President should be able to do as he pleases without any checks or balances applying. It was only just the other day that I heard that he and Condeleeza Rice outlawed the CIA from committing torture! This was done reluctantly, because Rice told the EU that it was "stopping terrorists" and that the EU should be grateful for extraordinary rendition of non-U.S. citizens on non-U.S. soil!

The land of the free indeed.

TBSDY

Yes.

[ta bu shi da yu]

They do. This is classed as "foreign intelligence", and is covered under Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act. "Foreign intelligence" is further defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (20 U.S.C. 401a) They still need to go through a FISA court. More info can be found here.

TBSDY

By all means!

[ta bu shi da yu]

I would definitely encourage you to research further. It took me a bloody long time to get my head around Title II, so if you want to see what I found out, have a look here. Heck, if you're that keen, then why don't you help out? I need to document what the EFF says about the title, what the ACLU says about it and what the U.S. Govt says about it.

Be aware that there were three cases before the United States District Courts before section 213 (Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant) amended the US Code to allow the notification of search warrants to be delayed: United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990); and United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000). Each determined that, under certain circumstances, it was not unconstitutional to delay the notification of search warrants.

TBSDY

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Minna Kirai]

No this is standard practice. The president has executive authority to do things like this in a state of emergency.

Aside from all the other ways you're wrong, there is also no state of emergency...

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Syberghost]

Wake me when he ties Clinton.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Minna Kirai]

If it's truly so obviously unconstitutional that any layman can glance over the Bill of Rights and find the problems

Presuming that the Justices of the Supreme Court are uniformly inerrant and unbiased is unsupportable. For evidence to the contrary, just look at any of the many non-unanimous decisions they hand down each year. If, as you claim, the Supreme Court was guarranteed to issue a correct ruling, then how can they disagree with each other so often?

Every major party, on the left, right, or looney, has benefitted from a blatantly unconstitutional act or ruling. From Wickard to Roe to Bono, you'll find no shortage of concise breakdowns.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

If there was an outbreak of disease and the best thing for the country is to blow up a city (as in the movie Outbreak) then that's what must be done, and guess who's job it is to order it? Yep, that's right, the PRESIDENT! Go get educated on U.S. Politics, the genius of the system will make sense to you eventually.

Well, you seem pretty sure of yourself. So what statute or article of or amendment to the Constitution gives the President the authority to violate any law at any time? And if all you have is "executive authority" or some such hand-waving, you needn't bother. I'm interested in exactly what law authorizes this. So educate me!

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

3. I didn't say we are. You said privacy is not a freedom, but it is. Whether we actually have that freedom is in doubt. The problem with torture (or at least a problem with it) is the slippery slope. Would you be willing to accept being tortured (I mean you yourself getting tortured) if the feds were 65% sure you had information that had a 90% chance of saving 10,000 people? How do we decide who to torture and who not? As for the surveillence, I'm more concerned with the fact that the President considers himself above the law than with the specifics fo what he did. Obviously that doesn't concern you since you think he's above the law as well.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[Le Marteau]

not to mention the 'flaws' of the electoral college system..

*** sigh ***

OK, since you still don't seem to get it, I'll use a sports analogy, and then maybe even you will be able to grok it.

See, presidential elections are like the World Series. It's not who get's the most runs ('votes'), it who wins the most games ('states'). So just like how a team can score more runs over the seven game series, and still lose the series becaues its GAMES that counts, someone can be elected president by winning more states (electoral votes) even though his total runs (votes) was less.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

Ok, I'll play lawyer for a bit. The laws governing the 3 branches of government are not as clear cut as the one's that govern you, because so many different sides can come into play, your liberties, someone elses liberties, the liberty of one man vs. the liberty of a thousand men, life vs. liberty vs. the pursuit of happiness. It is implied that the president can do whatever he wants provided that it is in the best interests of the citizens, and that it meets the approval of congress, the judicial branch and/or public opinion. He is obligated to "protect the constitution", which is extremely vague, and was the basis for much of the controversial measures president Lincoln took during the civil war. It was written in the constitution that all people have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not "liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness", it is accepted that life supercedes liberty, and that in order to protect the constitution and see that the "laws be faithfully executed", the president did what was necessary, using his direct control over the armed forces, with the notification and consent of congress (particularly as it is done in this day and age, with a small council of intelligence authorities), during a time of "declared national emergency", in accordance with the oath he took when he went into office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". These powers have already been tested in practice time and time over. All the justification the president needs, in my opinion, is that he was protecting the lives of innocent civilians from a known threat the best way he knew. Look at it this way, when he gave the order, the NSA was *READY* to do it, this sort of action has always been in our arsenal, it is nothing new, and it probably has been utilized in the past, you just weren't supposed to know about it. Here we have a dangerous leak of confidential information that in my opinion has a worse impact on our country than the necessary invasion of privacy, instead of an orwellian style government that tromps on civil liberties, we will end up with an impotent, U.N. style government and rampant crime and civil chaos, which is a worse scenario.

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[WidescreenFreak]

Right. And true democracies are never crooked, are they? Our elections are only crooked because we have a democratic republic. Your statement is spoken like a true non-American who's apparently ignorant of the purposes for the Electoral College as designed by the "founding fathers".

Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him..

[Zangief]

I'm just saying that the college is just getting in the way now, despite what intentions had the founding fathers.

One person, one vote. That way it should be.

WRONG - on many counts [Re: Wow there's a shocker]

[rm3friskerFTN]

Partial FICTION - "We acted in concord with NATO, the UN, and our allies, and we got the job done without alienated every other country in the world."

There are no UN Resolutions explicitly authorizing either US or NATO military action in the former Yugoslovia as there were with the recent Iraq War (key phrase "serious consequences" - diplo-doubletalk for WAR)

23 Sept. 1998: UN Security Council Resolution 1199 does not authorize military action ... the Iraq War phrase "serious consequences" is missing

24 Mar. 1999: The Kosovo air war begins.

Three-months elapse

10 Jun. 1999: After NATO's unilateral not authorized by the UN attack of Serbia, the UN kinda gets around to authorizing what has already happened as things are winding down dead UN link ... alternate link

20 Jun. 1999: The Kosovo air war ends

FICTION - "We are *done* in Kosovo." Visit the US Army Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo *today* as in like *not* done

TRUTH - "We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents"

Having never deployed any ground troops to the combat zone there were no US combat deaths.

partial FICTION - "Clinton never lied to the American people, and never relied on cooked up intelligence to sell the war. We went in to stop genocide and get rid of the bad guy. We did just that."

If "Bush Lied" on Iraq then so did these characters, Clinton included. Rather funny to see what Clinton & Co said about Iraq & Saddam. Reads identical to what Bush2 was saying.

I will not dwell upon the domestic aspects of Clinton lying or otherwise although "[Clinton] admitted that he had made false statements under oath [lying] about his relationship with the former White House intern [in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit] and surrendered his law license for five years" CBS News

What is the "real nature" then?

[jscotta44]

Fine. What is the *real nature* of the conflict we face?

Re:What is the "real nature" then?

[True Grit]

What is the *real nature*

What it definitely isn't is purely military. Afghanistan was an exception, not the rule, because the Taliban weren't terrorists in the normal sense (they weren't attacking *anyone* outside of their own country), and obviously Afghanistan is where the architect of 9/11 is hiding out, and its going to take the resources of an army to find him, so a military presence there makes sense. However, Iraq has little to do with a "war on terrorism", considering that the terrorism now there was created *after* our arrival, *by* our presence and is now primarily aimed at *Iraqis*, not us.

Defending against terrorists will require occasional military action in the future, especially the use of covert special forces nearly anywhere in the world, as well as non-stop police activity and intelligence gathering. However, although we can kill terrorists, defeating terrorISM can't be done with bullets, for the same reason we will never win the "war on drugs" without ever coming to grips with our society's own demand (and addiction) to those drugs. Protecting ourselves from the *current* terrorists will require bombs and bullets, but to prevent *future* terrorists, that will require dialog and diplomacy and responsible behavior on our part, and most of all it will need *peace-making* in the Middle East, *not* war-making. Had we solved the Israel-Palestine conflict we would have eliminated the source of bin Laden's hatred of us. Had we not stayed in Saudi Arabia after the '91 war, we never would have gotten bin Laden's full and undivided attention. Without the I-P conflict and our presence in the birthplace of Islam, he'd still be busy trying to destroy the Saudi Royal Family rather than attacking America.

Most terrorism directed our way comes because of the I-P conflict, but Bin Laden, admittedly, is a religious zealot who had already turned to terrorism (against Saudi Arabia) before he ever looked our way. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to that, just as there was no easy (or quick) solution to the religious fundamentalism of either Christianity prior to the Reformation, or Judeaism prior to the destruction of ancient Israel. But this is primarily a *Muslim* problem not an American problem. Fix the things that keep bringing us up in their discussions, like our support for Israel while the I-P dispute continues; and a military presence in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, and their obsession over us will diminish greatly.

In the end we can do the most to make ourselves safe simply by helping to alleviate and end the I-P conflict as soon as possible and acting like a rational responsible member of the global community rather than an arrogant bully. The remaining religiously inspired terrorism will be almost exclusively directed at other (moderate/secular) Muslims, and in the end that terrorism will be (and can only be) ended by those other Muslims (just as with Christianity and Judeaism during their periods of fundamentalism).

Thank you

[jscotta44]

First, let me thank you for a well reasoned response. Please don't mistake that for agreeing with you. But I do appreciate the tone and depth. Now to the meat...

Few things are pure. That includes military, political, or religious responses, while we are on this planet. The military response from me was motivated primarily by the talk of training terrorists and some other comments I read on this article's thread. The solution for America and for the world is not just as simple as pulling America out of Iraq and ceasing all support for Israel. I wish it were that simple, even if I do not agree that we should abandon Israel to the mercy of its enemies. And make no mistake, there will be no peace there whether with our without America involved.

But, even if we did do the above, we and the world would still be a target for the current extreme Islamic leaders and nations. Do you really think that there is anything that prevent a fully nuclear capable Iran from unleashing an atomic salvo against nations that it contends are "satan"?

Something that our presence in Iraq provides is the ability to increase our intelligence (a lack of which led to a failure to find alleged weapons of mass destruction, in Iraq) and to our ability to respond if needed. I doubt you would agree with any American military response. But understand the need for that ability in this world.

I must go now. The family requires my presence. But perhaps I can continue my response to you post, in the very near future.

Re:Thank you

[True Grit]

not just as simple as pulling America out of Iraq and ceasing all support for Israel.

I never said ceasing support for Israel, but pushing both sides back to the peace table, and doing anything to facilitate peace, like loans/investments for civilian development in Palestine, especially Gaza, as well as help to Israel.

As for Iraq, I just disagree. Whether we're there for another month or 10 years, our kids will continue dying, and the moment we pull out, whether next month or 10 years from now, Iraq will simply implode. It was an artificial creation of British and French colonial powers, who drew arbitrary lines on the map without any thought to the different tribes and religions they were bisecting. Like Vietnam, our presence can't secure a victory, only hold off the inevitable end-game, which is either civil war or a radical Islamic state.

And make no mistake, there will be no peace there whether with our without America involved.

On the contrary, I believe the mistake is assuming no peace is possible. Don't let the religious rhetoric of the last 20 years fool you, that conflict is all about LAND. That the religious extremists are the ones yelling the loudest right now is only an indication how unresolved conflicts can appear to morph into something much bigger if allowed to fester. Polls in Palestine show that most of them are willing to give up their "jihad" in exchange for their land back and their own state, and polls in Israel show that most are ready and willing to trade land for peace. The solution is there, but first you have to clear away the religious extremism (on ALL sides) to see it. I'm not saying it will be easy but it can be done, because just as many Palestinians want peace as Israelis.

even if we did do the above, we and the world would still be a target for the current extreme Islamic leaders and nations.

If "extreme Islamic leaders" == "terrorists" then yes. Once created, these folks can only really be dealt with by killing them. However, in terms of nations and religious leaders not participating in terrorism, then I disagree. Iran has the most extremist Islamic government, but this extremism is not shared by its people. For the same reasons I predicted Iraq would turn into another Vietnam when we invaded, I (and many others, BTW - including Iranians) believe the "problem" in Iran will be solved shortly by the Iranians themselves. The hardliners in Iran are all old men now, and out of touch with a very young Iranian population; in less than a generation they'll all be dead, and when they die so to does Iran's Islamic extremist government. Iran's young people have clearly showed they are not interested in continuing along the path the old leaders chose to follow.

PS: The issue of Iran and nukes is not as straightforward as Bush wants you to think. In actuality, having a nuclear capability is the one thing most Iranians DO agree with. For them this isn't about terrorism (or using their nukes in an aggressive way), its about national pride, and anger that they can't join the artificially created "nuclear club" because the didn't get there "quickly enough". Same issue as in Pakistan and India. There are now 4 nations outside of the NNPT who have nukes, Iran is just one of a half dozen who are a year or less away (its an open secret that Brazil could have nukes in ~3 months, they've just held off taking the last few steps, but could rapidly do so at any time). Bottom line is nuclear non-proliferation has simply failed, there are still hotspots in the world where nuclear weapons would be sought after no matter what because of the local situation (Korean peninsula, India-Pakistan-China). Besides, I think North Korea would be more likely to actually use their nukes, or sell them, than Iran would. NK's current enemy, South Korea, doesn't have nukes, but everyone knows Iran's enemy, Israel, does (several hundred, with the missiles

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

It is implied that the president can do whatever he wants provided that it is in the best interests of the citizens, and that it meets the approval of congress, the judicial branch and/or public opinion.

Implied? That seems like an awfully weak defense.

in order to protect the constitution and see that the "laws be faithfully executed", the president did what was necessary, using his direct control over the armed forces, with the notification and consent of congress (particularly as it is done in this day and age, with a small council of intelligence authorities), during a time of "declared national emergency", in accordance with the oath he took when he went into office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

So in order to execute the laws faithfully the President has to break them? Which ones are supposed to be executed and which ones broken? As for the declared emergency, who declares it and how?

All the justification the president needs, in my opinion, is that he was protecting the lives of innocent civilians from a known threat the best way he knew.What if the President decided that the best way to protect the US is to intern all US residents of Middle-Eastern descent or appearance? Would that be OK even though it clearly violates the Constitution, beacause of this executive authority he has?

it is nothing new, and it probably has been utilized in the past, you just weren't supposed to know about it.

The fact that somethung has been done before does not justify it.

Here we have a dangerous leak of confidential information that in my opinion has a worse impact on our country than the necessary invasion of privacy,

Yeah that's what Bush says too: it's shameful that someone exposed his violation of the law. Ridiculous.

instead of an orwellian style government that tromps on civil liberties, we will end up with an impotent, U.N. style government and rampant crime and civil chaos, which is a worse scenario.

I'd rather risk losing my safety than my liberty.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

Implied? That seems like an awfully weak defense.

Read the whole message before you start thinking out loud. There is no specific wording in regard to what the president can and can't do. It is intentionally vague.

So in order to execute the laws faithfully the President has to break them? Which ones are supposed to be executed and which ones broken? As for the declared emergency, who declares it and how?

The president didn't break any laws. The president has the authority to MAKE LAWS with executive order. LIKE I SAID, the only thing that matters is the opinion of the legislature and public opinion (they are the same for the most part). The president has the ability to, and did declare a national emergency after 9/11. Google "national emergency presidential powers", and more specifically those invoked after 9/11, to see how it's done.

What if the President decided that the best way to protect the US is to intern all US residents of Middle-Eastern descent or appearance? Would that be OK even though it clearly violates the Constitution, beacause of this executive authority he has?

It made more sense during WW2 to intern the Japanese because of the nature of the threat and the strange times, with Hitler and the Nazi's and all. President Bush could TRY to do something like that but he probably wouldn't get very far, that would be ridiculous, Muslims in the U.S. have very little in common with terrorist extremists.

The fact that somethung has been done before does not justify it.

If you knew the whole story you would probably understand why it was justified in each case. Is the NSA going to lobby congress to change the laws if they are doing something top secret? I could think of numerous justifications. People don't give the United States much credit for all the good we do. I have a little puppy that had to have his coat of fur shaved off because it was all matted, so he gets cold and starts to shiver lately. Sometimes I try to wrap a blanket around him but he thinks I am trying to confine him or something, all I'm trying to do is keep him warm, but he doesn't understand.

Yeah that's what Bush says too: it's shameful that someone exposed his violation of the law. Ridiculous.

To sell a book, no less!

I'd rather risk losing my safety than my liberty.

Remember, life then liberty. What good does liberty do if you're dead, or fearing death? Sure the odds are slim that you will be killed by terrorists, but you're essentially saying you want to have freedoms that you will NEVER ENJOY OR BENEFIT FROM PERSONALLY at the potential cost of human lives.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[nasch]

Read the whole message before you start thinking out loud.

Let's try to be polite here. I did read the whole thing.

There is no specific wording in regard to what the president can and can't do. It is intentionally vague.

"Intentionally vague" is not the same thing as "the President can do whatever he wants".

The president didn't break any laws.

That's the administration's position, but there is no consensus on that matter. Keep in mind also that Bush's primary justification for all this is Congress' authorization of the use of military force in Afghanistan after 9/11. Does this look like a use of military force?

The president has the authority to MAKE LAWS with executive order.

Executive orders cannot controvert statute or the Constitution.

The president has the ability to, and did declare a national emergency after 9/11. Google "national emergency presidential powers"

Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)

It made more sense during WW2 to intern the Japanese because of the nature of the threat and the strange times, with Hitler and the Nazi's and all. President Bush could TRY to do something like that but he probably wouldn't get very far, that would be ridiculous, Muslims in the U.S. have very little in common with terrorist extremists.

But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.

If you knew the whole story you would probably understand why it was justified in each case.

Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.

Is the NSA going to lobby congress to change the laws if they are doing something top secret?

No, but the President should. There are procedures for such things.

People don't give the United States much credit for all the good we do. I have a little puppy that had to have his coat of fur shaved off because it was all matted, so he gets cold and starts to shiver lately. Sometimes I try to wrap a blanket around him but he thinks I am trying to confine him or something, all I'm trying to do is keep him warm, but he doesn't understand.

Not a good analogy unless your puppy speaks English.

Remember, life then liberty. What good does liberty do if you're dead, or fearing death?

And what good is life without liberty?

Sure the odds are slim that you will be killed by terrorists, but you're essentially saying you want to have freedoms that you will NEVER ENJOY OR BENEFIT FROM PERSONALLY at the potential cost of human lives.

I benefit from the liberties this nation provides every day, and so do you, whether you realize it or not.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[zardo]

Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df [state.gov] "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html [findlaw.com] '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)

Ok, it looks like you're a genius on the subject after a bit of googling. Whatever you're reading from, it's wrong, you're picking and choosing and you happened to pick some inaccurate quotes. Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus clause when he had the army arrest some guy running for governor for coming out saying he was a tyrant and stuff. Now that was way back during the civil war, the country was still in it's infancy. Nobody has ever come close to taking advantage of presidential authority as much as Lincoln did. Lincoln violated all sorts of rules during the civil war, he called for a naval blockade before he had even declared war on the confederate army, which is illegal and Bush faced with the same decision to strike at Saddam with a tomahawk before the war had officially started, turned down the opportunity. So the quote that each national crisis leaves us less democratic is complete bullshit. That may be the authors opinion but it's completely baseless and he aught to study history more. Furthermore, if you think the president doesn't have the authority to suspend the constitution during a national emergency, look into the topic of marshal law.

But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.

Once again, you must have a really short memory. I said the only thing that really matters is that the President is going with the consensus of congress and public opinion when he makes these decisions. I have repeated public opinion over and over, and really I think congress matters very little, congress right now is a joke, see what people think about wiretapping foreign phone calls, I think this will blow up in the face of anyone trying to use it against the president. No I'm not OK with deporting or otherwise rounding up all muslims in this country. That is a stupid question. You would make a good white-house reporter ;) If only the president (or press secretary) could be as blunt as I am.

Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.

What the hell does that mean? Is that like trying to say that it was justifiable to go to war in Afghanistan after 9/11 but now it isn't and we should be prosecuting people for wanting to go to war? This is an example of the short term memory of the public, that the public opinion can be influenced outside the scope of a certain duration, this is a political tool and I don't see any use argueing with you about this. It's all the same to me because I'm not your average dumb-ass who gets hi

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Syberghost]

The President admitted this morning that has has authorized this 30 times; every last part of the NYT story has turned out to be true.

Except the part about it being unprecedented; Carter first authorized it in 1978. Every President since has done it. The New York Times knew ALL of this, the entire time. They didn't tell you, though. Wonder why?

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[jdclucidly]

What you say is not true. The 1978 law making this illegal didn't come until after the Carter administration. Raegan tried to authorize such actions but the courts reined them in during his administration. Neither the first President Bush nor Clinton authorized such wiretaps. Clinton's administration (wrongly) argued before Congress in 1992 that they should have that authority but Congress (correctly) did not agree and thus they never conducted these warrentless searches.

Secondly, your post is the most childish 2-year-old-ish piece of bullshit I've heard in quite a while. "But he did it tooooo!" is not an excuse for breaking the law no matter how much you like his political party. The 1978 FISA law is 100% clear on the legality of these actions; the President decided that the law didn't apply to him. There is NOTHING less American. We are nothing if we are not a nation of laws. To spit on our system of government and declare one's self higher than it is the most disgraceful thing a President can do.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Syberghost]

Read the law yourself, hotshot.

Title 80, section 1802, subsection a:

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless--
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.

They can wiretap someone without a warrant for up to a year, if the AG certifies he's an agent of a foreign power, and they can keep the notification to the FISA court under seal, I.E. no FISA judge sees it unless they later apply for a court order or attempt to use the information in a trial.

That's the law since 1978. It's in black and white. READ IT. Then, ask yourself why the New York Times is pretending they don't know this, when they've covered the story dozens of times; albeit never on the front page during the Clinton administration.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[jdclucidly]

You glossed over the most important part of the section you quoted:

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

Are you so blinded by your ideology that you do not see? This is the most frightening thing that our government has done in recent history. There is nothing worse than throwing out our American due process. It's the very foundation of our system of justice. We cannot be America without it.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[Syberghost]

You glossed over the most important part of the section you quoted:

        (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

And you skipped subsection a, which refers you back to the definition of a US person vs. a foreign power, and specifically states that an agent of a foreign power living in the US is a foreign power.

Are you so blinded by your ideology that you do not see? This is the most frightening thing that our government has done in recent history.

They did it in 1978. Why are you suddenly frightened about it now? I knew about it in 1978; why didn't you? Why was it not frightening when done by Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton? Answer; because the New York Times found a way to phrase it to make it scary, and you bought in.

Re:Well, that's a big shocker.

[jdclucidly]

Okay, I'm starting to suspect that you are blinded by your ideology but I'll spell it out for you just in case you really are this nieve about this subject.

The 'certification under oath' that a person is an 'agent of a foreign power' does NOT unmake someone an American. Just as a person can hold citizenship in a myriad of countries at the same time, the Attorney General waving his hand and declaring that someone is an 'agent of a foreign power' doesn't suddenly undo your constitutionally given rights. Although that would be convenient, wouldn't it? Subsection (a) is irrelevant with regard to U.S. Citizens.

As to your second point. I already addressed former President's actions (which you ignored). And again I'll accuse you of responding like a toddler. You cannot use "He did it too!" to excuse this disgusting illegal behavior.

Bush Owns Democrats at Impeachment Hearing

[s2002]

Bush: Wiretapping? Wiretapping?

Son, we live in a world that has liberals.

And those liberals have to be stopped by men with wiretaps.

Who's gonna do it? You?

You, swiftboat Kerry?

I have a greater responsitivity to defend our oil interests than you can possibly fathom.

You weep for the Constitution and you curse the NSA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing how much I don't know: that the Constitution's death, while tragic, probably gave record profits to the oil companies.

And my reelection, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves profits... (read more) http://www.onlinepokercenter.com/blogs/poker_addic t/2005/12/bush_impeachment_hearing.html Sorry, couldn't resist. =)