President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe

scubamage writes "By denying security clearance to federal attorneys from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) seeking to gather evidence in the NSA illegal surveillance scandal, President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place. The president is apparently able to strictly control who does and does not have security clearance to examine documents regarding the program, citing that giving more people access would endanger national security. His denial is the first of its kind in American history. To quote the article, 'Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,' chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. 'In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.'"

Comments

There's your answer:

[Threni]

> President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of
> who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place

He sure as hell wouldn't have done that had it been an opportunity to point the finger at any of his rivals. Even if he wasn't responsible, he's now responsible for the cover up. If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out. I'm sure by the time of the next election there'll be some other bogeyman to deal with - presumably lebenese or syrian terrorists, angry at all the US built/paid for planes and tanks pounding lebenon.

Re:There's your answer:

[Zediker]

If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote. But the only things I can do, is spread the word, and send a letter to my congressman. Then hope my congressman helps set up the process for impeachment. So, technically, the only way this is going to get started is if my congressman wants to discipline the president. Otherwise, everything I do and say is for naught.

Re:There's your answer:

[MrShaggy]

Not being from the US, can't you indict him when its all over?

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

How can you vote out a re-elected president limited to two terms? Congress has to impeach & convict him, which has nothing to do with the voters, judging by the last impeachment.

Re:There's your answer:

[GundamFan]

Well... let me put it this way... that would be another first (I think, does Richard Nixon count?).

Besides that, if another republican is president at the time he will simply pardon GWB... that has happened before.

Re:There's your answer:

[plague3106]

No, only Congress could do that, and they have to do it when they feel it needs to be done, there's no need to wait until later.

Re:There's your answer:

[Usagi_yo]

What illegal activity? And if somebody Authorizes it, is it still illegal? If Foreign terrorists are calling you here in the U.S, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is legal or illegal. If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war. I give him the benefit of any doubt whatsoever that he's conducting this war and listening to those calls for the benefit of the security of the U.S.

Every 4 years we have an election for President. The president is limited to two terms total. I'm not worried that my presidents actions are akin to some Despotic European Fascist trying to hold on to the Presidency, or like some South American Socialist Dictator trying to take over the country, or like some Middle Eastern Islamunist seeking vengeance because of some cultural inferiority complex.

Re:There's your answer:

[MightyYar]

Yes, but it's not likely to ever happen... Nixon would have been an obvious target for indictment after he resigned, but the following president gave him a pardon for all crimes that may have been committed during his presidency. That action is likely to be pointed to as a precedent, though in the case of Nixon the following president (Ford) was both unelected and of the same party. The game could change if a vindictive Democrat becomes the next president. I doubt that would be the case, though, as any Democrat who assumes the office would presumably want to push their own agenda and not get muddled down in such a big and ultimately pointless fight.

Re:There's your answer:

[s31523]

I would agree that using this power to track terrorists is something that might have a need to be done, but, my problem is that the yahoo's in power are not that honorable and use the "great latitude" to listen in on non-terror related conversations which might be illegal in nature but were obtained illeagally. Then this information is probably used to get legitimate warrants because all of a sudden some "anonymous person" called in something. If I trusted the powers in charge I would have no problem with secret phone tapping (as if this hasn't happened in the past...), but the current administration here in the US has demonstrated nothing but dishonest behavior and lost my trust.

Re:There's your answer:

[Ihlosi]

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

Actually, they cannot. It's not possible.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war. I give him the benefit of any doubt whatsoever that he's conducting this war and listening to those calls for the benefit of the security of the U.S.

So, in other words, if the administration can make sure your country is continually at war or under threat of attack, you will stand by and let the people in that administration do anything they want and ban any and all investigations into their actions.

Welcome to Stalinist Russia. Don't touch that dial.

Re:There's your answer:

[wrcromagnum]

I personally think this is one of the most obvious abuses of power our president has dared commit. He has officially stated that he is the supreme, and untouchable leader of the United States and above all reproach. I am sorry, but I though America was voting for a president in 2004, not a Pharaoh.

Re:There's your answer:

[Tom]

Exactly!

Bush is acting like someone who has no responsibility and nothing to lose or gain. Which is exactly what's the case - he won't be re-elected anyways, so why act responsibly? His only hope of continuing to be in power is to become a de-facto dictator, by declaring some emergency situation and delaying the next presidential election, potentially forever.

And it's not like the "checks and balances" would work anymore. The same country that once almost impeached a president because he had an extramarital blowjob sits on its hands in regards to one who intentionally deceived the nation, started a war based on lies, essentially raped the Constitution and pissed on the Bill of Rights.

You did nothing about that so far. So Bush - who has nothing to gain from acting responsibly, remember - will continue down that road, and at this time I give it a 50:50 chance that there will be no presidential election in 2008.

Re:There's your answer:

[clickclickdrone]

>send a letter to my congressman
Who then reports you for being un American. How DARE you criticise the government? Clearly you are a terrorist or you'd have no problem with your Gov. doing whatever it takes to protect your rights.

Re:There's your answer:

[dragonsomnolent]

While I agree that the administration is not attempting to hold on to its power like a despotic european facist, I don't recall congress ever declaring war (point out where I'm wrong). And, while the CinC does have sweeping lattitude concerning the activities of the military and the the executive branch, he does not have the authority under the Constitution of the United States, to declare war on anything. That is the job of Congress. The president has overstepped his bounds, cost us billions of dollars and not turned up one lead with the NSA domestic spying program. Let alone the moral issues that make this just plain wrong (4th ammendment, anyone?), and the arguement that by the government treating all its citizens as if they are terrorists, the terrorists have gotten what they wanted, the complete disruption of our lives.

So please, save your "He's the president, he is above the law" line for the RNC. No man or entity in this country is supposed to be above the law. And in answer to your "illegal activity" question. If I am a buck private in the military, and a 5 star general tells me to shoot an unarmed civilian, and I do so, guess what, it's an illegal order and I get tried along with said 5 star general. If the govenor of any state in this union orders one of his state police officers to shoot an unarmed citizen who is walking down the street, unarmed and not molesting anyone, it's illegal. More to your point, if a police officer plants a wiretap on anybody's order that isn't a duly appointed and sworn in judge, it is illegal, and you bet your ass he's going to get in a world of shit.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

Well... let me put it this way... that would be another first (I think, does Richard Nixon count?).

No; the grand jury listed him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Besides that, if another republican is president at the time he will simply pardon GWB... that has happened before.

You really can't make a direct comparison between September 1974 and February 2009. The 44th President will have a lot of shit to deal with and I really doubt he'll be as magnanimous as Ford was to spoil his honeymoon to salvage his predecessor's legacy.

Re:There's your answer:

[Luscious868]

How can you vote out a re-elected president limited to two terms? Congress has to impeach & convict him, which has nothing to do with the voters, judging by the last impeachment.

It has everything to do with the voters. If there was enough of an outcry and Democrats were voted in during the mid-term elections in sufficient numbers in both the House and Senate impeachment could be a real possibility.

That is the scare tactic that Republicans will be using to try and get disenchanted former supporters out to the polls. I ended up on several Republican mailing lists because I supported and donated to the McCain campaign in 2000 and I've already seen the mailings urging donations to the Republican Party to prevent Democrats from getting control of one or both Houses of Congress. These mailing mention specifically that the danger is that if they gain a majority in one or both Houses they would then have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses. They also go on to quote some Democratic lawmakers who have spoken of impeachment. It's pretty fucking pathetic.

Re:There's your answer:

[frazell]

The activity is illegal because it violates the US Constitution. If you are unfamiliar I'll do you the nice favor of quoting the document the president swore to uphold for you.

Amendment 4 to the US Constitution
-----
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 president should not be allowed to act in a secretive and unrestricted manner, especially when we are at "war". Our system of government was designed so that no part of it supersedes the other and more importantly the president was designed to be strictly regulated by the legislative branch. The founders of our country believed the national government should not be overwhelmingly powerful and forgetful that is is an extension of the people not something that supersedes the people.

People today act like terrorism and related actions are something that are new and the founders did not have to deal with them. It only shows the lack of understanding one has with US history. If you look at the reasons for independence as well as the war of independence you will see that terrorism, as we see and define it, was very common in America. The King of England not only killed colonists and burned down whole towns, but he hired mercenaries to do the same things! Our constitution serves us well in times of war and in times of peace. After all, it was written in a time of war!

The best quote i have ever read to summarize the mindset you have is the following: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

Re:There's your answer:

[Divide By Zero]

What illegal activity?

That's kind of the point, isn't it? We can't find out because investigators can't be cleared.

And if somebody Authorizes it, is it still illegal?

Maybe. It depends on the activity. The President is not above the law.

If Foreign terrorists are calling you here in the U.S, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is legal or illegal.

If my government is spying on me, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is illegal or legal.

Now that we've gotten our wish lists out of the way, let's focus on reality. This country has elected and appointed officials and laws that govern them all. Just because the President says it's legal doesn't make it so.

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude

That's a big if. Congress hasn't declared war, and only Congress is empowered to do so. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8) The "War on Terror", as with the "War on Drugs", is a slogan, not a declared state of war. Commander-In-Chief he may be, but the President does not have the Constitutional authority to declare war in this country.

Your blind faith in the government is your right, and don't let me stop you from having it. I don't have that same faith. I believe that a government with nothing to hide does not deny security clearances to ITS OWN AGENTS. (Remember, DOJ is Executive branch.) I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power that goes unchecked and unquestioned is absolute. I believe that the administration has been doing things in my name (as a citizen) that I don't approve of, and the legislature and courts are complicit.

Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about all my suspicions regarding the President and his staff.

Problem is, I can't know, because the President has blocked investigators from finding out.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheSwirlingMaelstrom]

You are deceiving yourself: of course there will be another election in the US in 2008. It will be another joke, and another Republican puppet will be elected. The ruling party needs to maintain the illusion of democracy -- at least for a while -- or there likely will be a public backlash. =8-P

Re:There's your answer:

[CastrTroy]

Are the Americans seriously going to elect another republican president after 8 years of what bush has given them. I guess in this case its a good thing they can only be elected twice, since I never thought they'd elect him the second time. Even with an "approval rating" of 30%, it wouldn't surprise me if he got elected again (if he could run). In canada we switched sides because of a little payoff to friends of the liberals, nothing even close to as bad as denying our constitutional rights to privacy.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

If Foreign terrorists are calling you here in the U.S, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is legal or illegal.

That's wonderful, but:
        a) I doubt you get to make surveillance policy, and even if you do, there are laws specifically regulating how you do it. The laws already give the executive wide latitude in such matters, but they still must be followed.
        b) You're not in the position to decide what's legal or illegal unless you're:
                  i. a judge (federal, most likely), or
                  ii. a member of Congress.

I don't expect any members of either group frequent Slashdot :)

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war.

That's wonderful, but you don't have the authority to give away my 4th Amendment rights.

My elected officials have already passed laws that define acceptable procedures for conducting domestic surveillance, and I expect those laws to be followed, or changed according to the correct procedure. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says nothing about its provisions being suspended during wartime.

Furthermore, how would you quantify such a state of war, and more importantly its end? Traditionally, wars conclude with an occupation and/or a treaty between the opposing nations, but we can't exactly conclude a treaty with an amorphous terrorist organization. So when would you let the Commander-in-Chief's extra-constitutional powers expire? Never?

I give him the benefit of any doubt whatsoever that he's conducting this war and listening to those calls for the benefit of the security of the U.S.

Good for you. I've learned never to give anyone in power the "benefit of the doubt". Because whether you belong to the Muslims, the Jews, the atheists, the Spaghetti-Monster-worshippers, the Catholics or the evangelicals, at some point you're going to be in an unpopular minority. At that time, will you give the executive branch the same free pass to listen in on your calls when you phone an evangelical relief charity in Darfur?

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

Bush is acting like someone who has no responsibility and nothing to lose or gain. Which is exactly what's the case - he won't be re-elected anyways, so why act responsibly?

This is a very good point. Limiting the President to two terms has caused the first term to be all about the President's re-election campaign, while the second term is filled with scandal. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Ken Starr/Monica. Though he's been extremely lucky that his opponents have been too flatfooted to get much of anything out of them, Bush has had more scandals than all of these guys put together.

For an amendment designed to prevent a de facto monarchy from taking over, the two-term limit has had the intended consequence of encouraging Presidents to act arrogantly and irresponsibly with their power.

Re:There's your answer:

[frazell]

The last time the US Congress declared war was in WWII

Re:There's your answer:

[chanda3199]

Who then reports you for being un American. How DARE you criticise the government? Clearly you are a terrorist or you'd have no problem with your Gov. doing whatever it takes to protect your rights.

Hence the reason I don't support my political party, the Libertarians, more publicly. With all the spying and neo-McCarthyism I feel like a criminal just for wanting to regain some basic civil liberties. If I were to wear my political ideals on my sleeve, who knows what Big Brother might do?

Re:There's your answer:

[Metasquares]

Our system of government was designed so that no part of it supersedes the other and more importantly the president was designed to be strictly regulated by the legislative branch.

Party politics effectively nullify the separation of powers.

Re:There's your answer:

[JDevers]

There is another massive problem too, if we impeach and subsequently remove Bush everyone gets an automatic promotion. I personally think we are better off under Bush than Cheney, holy cow...at least now he is just the "power behind the throne."

Re:There's your answer:

[deanj]

"If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote. "

Fortunately for the rest of us, there's not.

Re:There's your answer:

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

clinton was impeached because he lied to congress. not for receiving a blow job. (although, the lie was about receiving said blow job.)

I support congress impeaching a president for lying. whether or not he should have had to testify about receiving a blow job is an entirely different subject.

Re:There's your answer:

[GundamFan]

Would we? Unfortunatly yes. The voting population has a very short memory and attention span.

Re:There's your answer:

[jeillah]

> If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

Oh yeah, that'll work. We never voted him in the first time!!! Remember what happened in Florida???

Re:There's your answer:

[Coocha]

Your comment is on point. But I'd give him less than a 50% chance. To delay the 2008 election successfully, he would need a strong military backing. Based on the fact that top-level generals have been retiring due to the handling of Iraq, I don't think he and Rummy have the respect they keep saying they have in the Pentagon.

If he were to try, it'd be an interesting show. Congress would be up in arms, on both side of the partisan fence. Revolution is a mild term, but imagine how nice it would be if such an event was the catalyst for sweeping government reform. We can always dream I guess.

The beginning of your comment is more likely. Bush knows he's a lame duck, so he'll fritter away his final months in the frat-boy nonchalance we've grown accustomed to seeing. And history will look back on him as the asshat he has been.

Re:There's your answer:

[cluckshot]

The parent of this post is absolutely correct. The coming election will see any realistic choice who might dare to challenge the forming dictatorship having his character assassinated by this NSA data. Release a little private data here or there just so that it paints a picture you want and suddenly a potent political threat becomes a laughing stock in the eyes of the general voting public.

I have read the RFP's for this program. It is total information awareness. There is no limit to it. The real issue here is the construction of a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve. I know there are people here who will see this in a partizan light. It isn't the case. This is a genuine threat to the existence of a democratically elected congress. It threatens the career of anyone daring to speak up on real issues. Warning to my non-USA friends, this program knows no borders!

The program has nothing what so ever to do with fighting Al Qaeda. To prove this ask yourself the following question. What since 9/11/2001 has the United States of America done under President Bush's leadership to convince the Arab peoples that their culture is broken and that they need to do something about it in order to end this endless cycle of war and destruction so that they may prosper and live in peace? (Answer: NOTHING!) Honestly this means that 100% of the activity since that date has impinged on American Freedom or destroyed American Treasure or destroyed American Soldiers and always it has encouraged and reinforced the opposition making the situation worse. Every American regardless of party should wake up to the seriousness and awful reality of this situation. At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before.

This condition is not a press report. It is a fact known from contact with soldiers who are out there dealing with it. When soldiers fresh back from Bagram Afghanistan report that "It was better than being in jail" (a quote) and the ones from Iraq report that they are garrisoned in etc, this is a lost cause by mismangement at the limit.

Mods get a life if you cannot stand the truth. Post against the point of view if you want, but don't shut up the truth.

Re:There's your answer:

[Jedi Alec]

as any Democrat who assumes the office would presumably want to push their own agenda and not get muddled down in such a big and ultimately pointless fight.

big? definitely. pointless? dunno, what about all this truth and justice stuff...

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

This is his last term. According to the law even if Americans *loved* him he can't run again. US Presidents are only allowed 8 years in office.

Re:There's your answer:

[krell]

It also shows that we might be moving into a situation where we'll get an obligatory impeachment of a President any time the opposing party has a strong enough majority in Congress.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

If there was enough of an outcry and Democrats were voted in during the mid-term elections in sufficient numbers in both the House and Senate impeachment could be a real possibility.

Perhaps, but there will never be the same fire-breathing quality to Democrat denunciations of Bush that Republicans had for Clinton in 1998/99--they just don't have the heart for it: why the hell did Kerry never mention Abu Ghraib during the campaign? Plus, a number of leading Democrats (Lieberman the most prominent) criticized Clinton pretty harshly during that period, but there has been no group of Republicans to take that role now.

Re:There's your answer:

[MrShaggy]

I think that it shows the Puritanical nature of your politics these days;. Recently a columnist (can't remember who) was talking about how the difference between Canada and the US is just that. It comes down to how the US perceives sex has being a harmful thing. The sense when Jacksons boob hit the world, we were saying up here, what is the big deal ? Yet all these massive fines were being passed onto people. What happens when someone suggests that we go and 'eliminate' the president of Venezuela? Nothing. We gasp that this guy (name is escaping me), could say this. But nothing happens.

When one of our more interesting, and influential leaders , Trudeau passed away, his wife and his Girlfriend were there. Not to mention the kids from both mothers. We knew that he messed around, but he got the job done. Bush isn't getting the job done. Kinda sad what this crazy loon haws done to the rest of the world, and that there is no way to deal with this. I think once you guys go through your midterms this fall, (depending on the Diebold situation), you might be in a decent position to do the impeachment thing.

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

Wow what a wuss. In the past Americans have died for our beliefs. But you won't support a political party because (contrary to any actual evidence) you believe you may be spied upon and some "great unknown" may happen? Why don't you grow a pair and fight for your rights? Freedom is expensive my friend.

Re:There's your answer:

[dragonsomnolent]

I was referring to this "war on terror", and I appreciate you confirming for me that congress has not actually declare war since WWII.

Re:There's your answer:

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

that's right they voted for a president, but the polling machine got confused and thought the string "J.Kerry" was actually "G.Bush".

Re:There's your answer:

[Zemran]

If the option is another loser like Kerry there is no option.

Re:There's your answer:

[Don853]

The bigger problem is that the Democratic party has just been incredibly disorganized and suffered from a lot of infighting over the last 5-10 years. I am of the opinion that in 2004 the Democrats lost the election far more than the Republicans won it.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

clinton was impeached because he lied to congress

It was a grand jury, not Congress.

Re:There's your answer:

[elrous0]

I support congress impeaching a president for lying.

By that approach, George W. Bush should have been impeached pretty much right after taking office, and about 400 times since.

The lies themselves don't bother me so much (every politician does that). It's when the lies get people killed and shit on the Constitution where I have a real problem.

-Eric

Re:There's your answer:

[rdoger6424]

We gasp that this guy (name is escaping me), could say this

his name is Pat "666" Robertson, and crazy people go on TV all the time.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Florida....and i DID vote for G.W.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

Clinton was impeached for committing perjury before a grand jury (Clinton testified to the Starr grand jury the day he admitted on TV that he had sex with Monica) and obstructing justice (i.e., telling Monica to get rid of the blue dress), not for lying to Congress. Two counts were dismissed by the House: perjury in the Paula Jones deposition (the trap set by Linda Tripp that actually started the entire scandal) and abuse of power.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because "libertarians" fall into one of two categories: hypocrites, or "kooks".

Re:There's your answer:

[chanda3199]

I've considered your words and you are right. It will take some time to consider my actions, but thank you for calling me out in such a blunt way. What good are ideals of freedom if no action is taken to protect and regain personal liberties?
Again, thank you. I will take this to heart.

Re:There's your answer:

[Don853]

The chance of him delaying the election is absolutely, irrevocably, 0.

Re:There's your answer:

[RpiMatty]

Ummmm actually its 10 years. You can only be elected for 2 terms, but can serve up to 10 years as pres.

Re:There's your answer:

[stunt_penguin]

Um, I think your parent poster there was actually being sarcastic.

I guess he forgot the /sarcasm tag.

Re:There's your answer:

[jackbird]

Ford's pardon wasn't so much a cynical political move as an attempt to move the country onward. The deep national distrust of politicians engendered by the Nixon and Johnson administrations hadn't yet taken root in the culture, and lofty ideals could be spoken of more or less without irony. I don't know in the current climate whether a pardon or a lack of one would come off worse from a president of either party.

There's also the highly problematic fact that Bush likely has a great deal more to answer for than Nixon did.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

the yahoo's in power are not that honorable and use the "great latitude" to listen in on non-terror related conversations which might be illegal in nature but were obtained illeagally. Then this information is probably used to get legitimate warrants because all of a sudden some "anonymous person" called in something.

Uh.

Do you have any proof that this is happening, or are you holding the Administration to a different standard (presumption of guilt) than that to which you'd like to be held (presumption of innocence)?

I'm no great fan of the President, but I at least try to keep my criticisms within the realm of reality so it's effective beyond the audience of Slashdot, MoveOn, and DailyKos.

Re:There's your answer:

[tbannist]

Yes it is. So why don't you grow a pair and tell your government that you are not their bitch and you won't stand by while your rights are systematically stripped from you. You seem to be willing to sell your freedom for the appearance of security. Americans have died for their ideals, you disgrace yourself and your country by cowering in fear and giving up the principles they fought for, because you're afraid of terrorists.

Re:There's your answer:

[rts008]

I surely see your point, but to not try is just as criminal as what's going on.

Not that it carries much weight, but if you do so, then at least your mind can rest easier that you done all you could.

I know it seems futile, but if we all don't do anything, then no changes take place- keep some hope, try to do your best, and maybe it will work out okay.

BTW, the "If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote." idea is a good one, too bad that will probably never happen, the congresscritters would be too afraid it might (and should) apply to them also.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

The president has overstepped his bounds, cost us billions of dollars and not turned up one lead with the NSA domestic spying program.

Got any proof for that last little assertion?

Re:There's your answer:

[mysticgoat]

Clinton was impeached because a powerful clique within the Washington beltway thought that he just had to be culpable for something illegal, somewhere along the line. After spending a couple of years and more than $50 million on an incredible investigation, the Monica Lewinski episode was all they could come up with.

Lying about the blow job wasn't the cause of Clinton's impeachment. It was simply the only excuse for impeachment that the Lord High Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr could find.

Re:There's your answer:

[lbrandy]

Freedom is expensive my friend.

You are god dammed right it is. In the words of one the greatest American poet/philosophers: Freedom isn't free. There's a hefty fucking fee. If you won't throw in your buck 'o five, who will....

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

Step 1. Repeat that exchange for every other person you know that has said the same as you were saying. Step 2. Have each of them who start to stand up like you do the same. Step 3. Wait for this to generate enough people standing up to be taken seriously.

Re:There's your answer:

[kalirion]

The coming election will see any realistic choice who might dare to challenge the forming dictatorship having his character assassinated by this NSA data.

Why bother when the electronic voting machines make it so much easier to change the vote count to anything they want?

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

"I support congress impeaching a president for lying. whether or not he should have had to testify about receiving a blow job is an entirely different subject."

But there within lies the problem.

If forced to testify about doing something that is not illegal, serves no purpose but to embarass, and the two individuals that have a legal right to know (i.e., the wife and the object of the adultury) have stated they want nothing to do with it...would you answer truthfully?

I know I wouldn't. I also wouldn't put myself into a situation that required me to lie, but that is beyond the scope on this rebuttal.

In this, I too support the congress's right to impeach a lying president. But where does the line start and stop? Fat Clinton claiming on television that he was exercising in the White House weight room, when you know he was stuffing his face in the kitchen? Is that impeachable? Bushes statement about finding all life sacred and thus vetoing the stemcell bill, while killing over 30,000 Iraqis and leaving 10 times that disabled? Is that impeachable?

What is the scope for a president being impeached for lying?

Personally, I find it inexcusable that Clinton cheated on his wife, and I find lying about it a tragic thing for a president to have done under oath, but even the worst critics admit that the line of questioning had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case (i.e., he inappropriately hit on a woman that came to his hotel room in the middle of the night knowing full well that he was a notorious horndog -- and yes, I lived in Arkansas in that time -- and that he didn't want anything other than a roll in the hay...if you know that, you tell the guy you aren't interested and move on...God knows I pulled out the willy at in appropriate times, and no one ever had to take that to the supreme court -- a nice smack across the face was enough to let me know to put it away). In the end, it wasn't something that should have been asked as it went to no relevance, the case should have been thrown out and woud have had it been any other public figure, and it should be expected that if anyone asked this question, no matter what the truth is, the answer would be "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" -- regardless. I don't hold it against him for lying about this -- I hold it against him for adultury, but that should be between him, his wife, the adulturer and his God.

Re:There's your answer:

[Skjellifetti]

Nixon was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator because he was still in office at the time. The prosecutors and the grand jury concluded that the Constitutional process of Impeachment made the President unindictable. But there was nothing to prevent indictment after he resigned. Ford's pardon prevented that.

Re:There's your answer:

[jo42]

> If I recall you were in the minority.

By something around 1%, no? Damn close if you ask me.

Re:There's your answer:

[Alexandra Erenhart]

The name's Hugo Chavez. And I don't like him either. One thing is to have balls to say what's wrong, and another completely different is to be blunt, rude and to look down on other people.

And all the posts that I've read so far are making me scared to go live there. My fiancee is texan, and next year we're getting married and I'm going to live there. My country might not be the best of the world, but at least our politics still work, and we still have privacy in our personal lives. And we don't pick on fights with other countries, even if Bolivia wants our sea or Argentina refuses to sell gas to us =/

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you "vote out" Bush? He can't run for another election and the vote for impeachment isn't a vote by the people. Of course this was marked as "insightful". Yes, very insightful to say that we should do something that can't be done. When you finish voting out bush why don't you fly up to the moon and get me some green cheese to fuel my anti-grav car?

Re:There's your answer:

[Ender Ryan]

Speaking of Canada... Please get that fascist Bush-wannabe OUT of public office, so I can again consider Canada to be a progressive nation, a place that I could move to if the U.S. continues to slide into... this shit.

Harper Watch: http://bushwatch.org/harperletters.htm

There is seriously something very frightening about that man.

Re:There's your answer:

[Opportunist]

And the alternative is...?

Re:There's your answer:

[Roody Blashes]

If you are a miswired conservative lunatic and will mistake this post for some sort of anti-right-wing bashing campaign, or a miswired liberal lunatic who will mistake this for a sweeping acquittal of left-wingers, kindly skip to the last paragraph, then come back to read the rest. Thanks.

It's not that the dems are "disorganized". This is a lie, and a very effective one, perpetuated by a group of people who have something to gain by the loss of others: republican politicians and their supporters.

The problem here is that the republicans have realized that propagandistic nonsense made into a platform through the use of empty platitudes like "liberal senator from Massachussettes" and "with us or against us" and "cut and run" are far more effective campaign platform statements than actual plans. Democrats, like Kerry, who compiled and published a vastly detailed series of positions, continue to assume that the voting population is intelligent and interested and so they continue the uneffective campaign strategy of actually putting forward a platform.

Republicans, on the other hand, have spent the last ten years crafting devious ways to boil ultra-complicated issues into stupid, insultingly simplistic sound bites. As a result, they come off as "speaking to the common man" (in fact, they're simply assuming the typical voter is an idiot incapable of absorbing and understanding and forming an independent opinion on a complicated topic and talking down to them) while the Democrats then come off as "elitists" (another empty piece of slander used against any republican foe who attempts to take in a complete view of any topic rather than boil it down into troglodytic black and white views) for trying to honestly discuss matters openly.

That's why people like Hillary Clinton get so little support from democrats. They're trying to abandon the honesty platform and mimic the republicans, which is insulting, and so we tell them to take thier stupid little campaigns and shove 'em.

The Democrats are not "disorganized", for the most part. They're simply engaging in the same old-time campaigns of the 40s and 50s when people expected their candidates to be open and honest about their opinions and didn't expect them to simply say "trust me, you don't need to know anything because I can handle it all for you, honest, oh, and by the way, I saw my opponent picking Stalin's nose on the train in this morning".

When it comes right down to it, republicans and republican supporters rely primarily on propaganda. They seize on sound bites and meaningless slander ("idiotarian", "moonbat", "elitist") while the democrats - generally speaking, not all of this is entirely true of all memmbers of each party of course - continue to make the mistake of assuming that they can treat voters like competent people who are interested in honest participation in the political process.

Naturally I feel obliged to point out that all this is merely observation, not a damnation of republicans and veneration of democrats. I in no way particularly trust either party when it comes to actually being elected to power, and if you think that the dems aren't going to be just as corrupt and stupid as teh republicans I might remind you that CALEA, Communications Decency, and the DMCA all came into being under the watch of, primarily, Democrats, and that the primary reason for the takeover of the republicans in the 90s was disgust with a Congress run by democrats that was just as corrupt as the current republican Congress is today.

Re:There's your answer:

[redragon]

Right. And right now about the only people with "freedom isn't free" ribbon bumper stickers are people who support Bush. Those things piss me off royally, because this administration has done more to make me less free than any other, and it just keeps getting worse.

However that ~50.5% of the people who voted for Bush are going to read this and think, "oh, that liberal press," or "they'll (? who is they anyway ?) say anything to make little old Bush look bad," or "but he just seems no nice and down to earth." Really, we just don't want to hear anything that doesn't fit with our already held beliefs.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

US presidents are currently limited to two terms in office and dubya is in term 2. He doesn't have to worry about reelection. He is, however, creating a lot of ill will for anyone (especially fellow Republicans) that come after. The only option at this point is impeachment and that takes an act of Congress (literally).

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So it is ok for the founding fathers to stop their government from abusing its power, but it is not all right for us?

Re:There's your answer:

[dragonsomnolent]

Fair enough and well played. My assumption is based upon the fact that they have not announced capturing anyone based upon this NSA wiretaps. Of, course they might have and not announced it, so I'll give you that point.

My other two points in that statement I will stand beside. Sorry for being a bit trollish.

Re:There's your answer:

[xfmr_expert]

"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before."

We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC. I'm not condoning the actions of either side, but it's our unrelenting support of Israel when there bombing the beejeezes out of a largely innocent country that bugs me. If we provided $2.5billion in aid to Lebanon, what kind of political power would Hezbollah be then?

Re:There's your answer:

[Alexandra Erenhart]

Is sad that you cannot vote out someone who don't represent the people. After all that's democracy. Of course democracy won't work very well if half of the population is "sheeped"

Re:There's your answer:

[Greyfox]

The race is the Democrats' to lose. Dean's been much less evasive in recent interviews -- I think the last election cycle left him rather afraid to speak his mind. I'd have a hard time voting for someone who can't get out of the rut of barfing a lot of talking points at me when asked a serious question. I bet I could come up with a set of interview questions that would leave both candidates in tears.

Anyway, it kind of looks like McCain's the front runner on the Republican side and I kind of like McCain. He's fallen somewhat in my esteem in recent years, but he seems like a smart guy who actually wants to do something about the ramapnt corruption in our political system. I'd have a hard time voting for any of the Democrats who are likely to run against him, with the exception of Dean. I think Kerry would make a capable leader but he has no charisma and comes across as being made of wood. Edwards has the charisma but he's still too young -- he got his ass handed to him in his debate with Cheney last time around. Hillary... well I've always got this very creepy vibe off her. It'd be a risky move nominating her at this juncture in the narrative, and I'd say it's probably not the time for the party to take a risk like that. Now Obama on the other hand... he seems happy where he is and he's still pretty young too, but I really like Obama too and would be pretty happy voting for him. Might not play well in the south, but it might also encourage more voter partitipation down there too.

I still wish we'd seen a Kerry/McCain ticket last time around. A bi-partisan ticket with two war vets running on the platform of eliminating corruption in Washingon would have been an easy sell to the American people. At least I think so. Perhaps we're more ready for it this time around. It'd probably never happen, though.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Bush needs to be charged with obstruction of justice.

Re:There's your answer:

[FellowConspirator]

Nice idea, but we Americans can't "vote him out". His office is for 4 years and, presumably, he can't run again after that because it is his second term (and I doubt he could pull off anything that would change that). We have to wait.

We don't get to vote on impeaching a president -- impeachment is a task at the discretion of the Senate, and the majority of them are Bush allies. Even if you could convince you senator to move toward impeachment, if the only evidence to convict him is classified and he prohibits access (and you let him do that), how could the impeachment go forward. Heck, even if you started today, the wrangling would last for months, even years, during which time they'd spend lots of money and do less than they do now (perhaps that would be a good thing). Worse still, it would make Dick Cheney president -- and nobody in their right (or left) mind wants that.

We the people made the bed, now we've got to lie in it.

Re:There's your answer:

[mjeffers]

big? definitely. pointless? dunno, what about all this truth and justice stuff...

The pointless bit, I'd guess, would be due to a future president who persues an indictment being quickly bogged down constantly explaining how it wasn't partisan politicing to go after an ex-president for "protecting the country from the nasty terrists". It's kind of funny (in a "wow, I've underestimated the human capacity for evil" kind of way) that because the republicans went for a partisan and politically motivated impeachment of Clinton there's a perception that impeachment is a partisan and politically motivated process. Now, when we need it most, we can't use the impeachment process without being accused of doing it solely as political revenge for Clinton.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

I know how it played out, thanks.

The question was whether or not he was ever indicted, and he wasn't.

Re:There's your answer:

[Muramasa]

I have read the RFP's for this program. It is total information awareness. There is no limit to it. The real issue here is the construction of a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve.

*golf clap*

Bravo sir, good work there with the completely baseless comparison between the Bush White House and the Nazis. You'd fit right in at dKos.

Re:There's your answer:

[jocknerd]

And right behind Cheney is, gasp, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. I feel better already.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

My other two points in that statement I will stand beside. Sorry for being a bit trollish.

Indeed.

I've long been of the opinion that there's enough real stuff to bitch about without having to risk losing credibility by just making shit up.

Re:There's your answer:

[Tom]

What happens when someone suggests that we go and 'eliminate' the president of Venezuela? Nothing.

The funny thing is that if the same guy had said the same words at the same time and place (i.e. public television), except he had talked about the president of the USA, chances are there would've been a major shitstorm, at least one arrest and very probably another proposal to restrict free speech.

I guess even some presidents are more equal than others.

Re:There's your answer:

[orielbean]

This is why voting is tantamount to throwing away your righteous anger. Take to the streets if we care enough and if we aren't kept too busy with making ends meet and being endlessly entertained. Bread and circuses, my fellow proles. Impeach? He could eat a baby and be complimented on his good taste at this stage of the game. A 3 year lame duck presidency.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you muslims. The entire world is tired of your shit and needs to surround and bash in your fuckin heads like an Australian rabbit hunt.

Re:There's your answer:

[jfern]

How do you intend to "vote him out"? He's not up for election again. The best you can do is vote Democrat in House and Senate elections this year, but there's a good chance that the Republicans will retain both. In order to win either branch, there needs to be very high anti-Bush turnout to make up for the fundies who love him because of his stem cell veto.

Removing him from office will never happen, it requires a majority of the House, and two thirds of the Senate. I don't think we'll ever have 67 sane Senators.

Re:There's your answer:

[Andy Somnifac]

"If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote. "

Fortunately for the rest of us, there's not.

[sarcasm]Yes, 'cause how dare the public have a voice.[/sarcasm]

The only reason that I can even imagine for holding such a position is because one is afraid that "their side" would lose.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Middle Eastern Islamunist"

I appreciate this is feeding a troll, but I really hate this right wing islam/communism conflation shite. It's disturbingly common in the discourse.

Re:There's your answer:

[IAmTheDave]

How is it fortunate? Even the right side of the isle is starting to leave support for this president in droves. Illegal wiretapping, two (that's right, two) botched wars (the Taliban just took back two towns in Afganistan), extreme secrecy, Vallery Plame, calling for the State Secrets privledge across the board, botched operations after Katrina, Scooter Libby, Carl Rove, prosecution of reporters, prosecution of private citizens under the Espionage act, Free Speech zones, Halliburton, $7 trillion national debt, between $200-$400 billion spent in Iraq against estimates of $8B, depletion of the National Guard, NSA blanket collection of phone records, NSA collection of airline records, secret laws that dictate conduct at airports, secret laws that you are governed by but CANNOT READ. The tip of the iceberg.

And now the ability to squash investigations against himself. It's like killing someone and then having the power to say "um, no - you can't investigate me".

This presidency is perhaps the worst in the HISTORY of the United States. Its abuses of power, power grab, secrecy, and corruption know no bounds. The president has lost the support of all but the most extreme NWO right wing. Clinton was impeached for "lying" to the public, but Bush has been involved in every scandal listed above, and sits atop his throne with pure immunity against the checks and balances of this country.

Never before have I come to expect to learn of some new executive branch abuse on a daily basis.

Besides, over 700,000 people already HAVE voted to impeach him, as useless as this website may be.

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

This presidency is a farce, and I shudder when I think that 2.5 years remain.

Re:There's your answer:

[budgenator]

The last election was the biggest farce since Nixon vs. Humphery, remember how that one turned out, see how this one is going, notice the possiblity of a trend; opposition party folds like a house of cards, the dominant party abuses its people. Politicians need a credible opposition to fight or they will make one up or turn on their own.

Re:There's your answer:

[Joe The Dragon]

video of it
http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/BoomChica goVotingMachine

Re:There's your answer:

[vokyvsd]

No no, the comparison does have a basis. The Nazis gathered information on their citizens, and so does the current administration, so there is a basis for comparison.

Just like there is a basis for comparing the Eisenhower administration with the Nazis. After all, didn't Eisenhower also build "a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve?" I suppose we ought to tear up the entire highway system because it was directly inspired by the road system the Nazis built...

No, that doesn't make any sense. Just because one metric is comparable doesn't mean that any other metric is comparable. But I'm sure that the original poster knew that, and just picked Nazi Germany out of a hat. After all, as he says, he's not "partizan."

Re:There's your answer:

[n-baxley]

If I remember, the same crazy rumors were circulating when Clinton was in office. Of course they were circulating in more "Red State" circles then. I guess it just goes to show you that there are extremist wackos in all political parties.

Re:There's your answer:

[mpsmps]

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war. I give him the benefit of any doubt whatsoever that he's conducting this war and listening to those calls for the benefit of the security of the U.S.

Since the "War on Terrorism" is no more likely to end than the "War on Crime" or the "War on Drugs", are you proposing that the President should now have permanent dictatorial (i.e., not subject to judicial or congressional review) powers? Do you think that is what the Constitutional had in mind when creating the Balance of Power between governmental institutions?

Re:There's your answer:

[MattW]

Are you sure Bush won either election?

He definitely *only* won in 2000 on a legal technicality. It has now been proven that had all the votes been counted, Gore would have won.

In 2004, he somehow managed to carry Ohio despite exit polls showing he should lose and massive discrepancies in data (counties that polled 80% Democrat voting 80% Republican).

Is it possible this is coincidence? Yes. To mangle Arthur C. Clarke, in fact, "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from conspiracy."

But frankly, even if I'd supported Bush (which I did marginally in 2000, though I voted for Browne because I was in TX and knew he'd carry it), I'd be inclined to vote for a Democrat now just as a check against his wild beliefs about executive power.

We're not at war, and whatever we are "at", it isn't supported; not by Congress, and not by the people. At best, there's a fairly large contingent who would LIKE to see Iraq stable when we leave. But frankly, I'm about ready to leave, stable or not, before our own country suffers a catastrophic economic collapse because of the problems this war is causing the economny. (Inflation and massive deficit spending, in particular)

Re:There's your answer:

[skarphace]

If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote.

Fortunatly, there is(sort of). It's a petition to try and make congress act. Technically not a vote, but congress can't ignore 729,455 signatures. Or maybe they can...

Re:There's your answer:

[IAmTheDave]

Oh, did I mention "wartime powers", No Child Left Behind (both the horrible failure that it is, along with the complete lack of promised funding by the fed gov.), 2500+ dead Americans in Iraq, ignorance of the Geneva Convention, use of government funds for political propoganda...

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, every other religion gets along with others be they Advent to Zoroastrian. Yours is the only scourge upon the face of this earth. I'm not even a christian and I walked into what is a Baptist den of vipers the other day and didn't spit in anyone's face even though I vehmently disagree with them.

Re:There's your answer:

[Tom]

I support congress impeaching a president for lying.

Then why hasn't Bush been impeached for lying about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? As it stands, not only have none been ever found, the search has long been abandoned as well.

Re:There's your answer:

[Richy_T]

You're not wrong about the Republicans but you fall into the standard Democrat trap of believing that your ideals are correct and are merely misunderstood by the electorate and it's just a matter of bringing people around to your point of view. Democrats need to realise that several of the ideas they support *are* understood and simply rejected by the electorate. You guys need to start understanding *why* people reject certain of your positions and not simply assume it is to poor education or low intellectual capacity or other such condescending and, yes, elitist standpoints.

Re:There's your answer:

[Tom]

Good point. I see there are actually three options, and I amend my estimate as follows:

40% say Bush bends the law and stays in power
40% say you'll have another forged election, with the Republicans having landslide victories in all states where lots of Diebold voting machines are used
20% that you get an honest election. 19.9% of that say you don't get much of a choice because both candidates are the worst kind of scum.

Re:There's your answer:

[dragonsomnolent]

I appreciate your honesty and integrety in this matter. Please feel free to call me on the carpet about trolling in the future. (I am being dead serious, not trying to start anything, and could only figure out how to get this message to you by responding. Kinda new to /. (like my user # didn't give it away). Anyway, thanks again, and see ya round.)

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting AC because I can't remember my password)

Even more insideous than that, who was in charge of the White House transition team from Nixon to Ford? Dick Cheney. Who were the three people in contest to become Ford's VP? Dick Cheney (favored to win at the time), Donald Rumsfeld, and Rockafeller (who, of course, actually was picked because Cheney and Rumsfeld were considered to be too ideologically right-wing for the party at that period).

Re:There's your answer:

[ATMD]

Step 4: ...
Step 5: Profit!

Re:There's your answer:

[Tom]

Why bother when the electronic voting machines make it so much easier to change the vote count to anything they want?

The public smear campaign will make the faked vote results believable.

Re:There's your answer:

[gnuman99]

Why don't you grow a pair and fight for your rights? Freedom is expensive my friend.

Freedome is *priceless*. Slavery is expensive.

Anyway, welcome to 1984 (the book). Better brush up on that doublethink. "Yes sir. NSA ALWAYS monitored ALL communications. The President NEVER allowed ORP to conduct any sensitive investigations. Never!" or "The terrorists are everywhere! They even tested their nukes in Nevada! On American soil!!! Nuke them terrorists!" and of course "Saddam Hussein masterminded 911. Everyone knows that!". Now repeat it and *believe* it.

Re:There's your answer:

[awol]

The coming election will see any realistic choice who might dare to challenge the forming dictatorship having his character assassinated by this NSA data.

Crap. Character assassination only matters when the character is willing to let it embarass him. Owning up to past (or even current) indiscretion has a long tradition of acceptance in public life. Sometimes it doesn't work but those occasions are normally due to the actual nature of the incident or specific hypocracy... Child rights activists and "inappropriate" child oriented activity, Anticorruption crusaders taking a bribe...

The sooner the "crypto military industrialist cadre" or whatever evil conspiriacy vehicle you belive is forming the dicatorship tries this crap the better since it will result in a seachange in the public perception between public and private life that can only improve things

Re:There's your answer:

[Millenniumman]

700,000? Out of 300 million? I think they can safely ignore that.

Re:There's your answer:

[Descalzo]

That's bull honkey. People talk all the time about how much Bush sucks, and some go to extremes, even calling for him to be killed. Rallies are held just to inform everybody how much Bush is hated, and the people there feed off each other to increase their hatred. You never hear of any mass round-ups, or even arrests until someone gets hurt.

The erosion of our liberties is a serious issue, and hyperbole like this only blurs the issue further.

Re:There's your answer:

[VON-MAN]

"[he] just picked Nazi Germany out of a hat"
Probably, no. But Soviet Russia or any of its satelite states would have been a better comparison. The soviets also had a mighty and secretive state machine for spying on its own populace. And, what's more, the peoples of these countries were also hopelessly divided into factions that totaly didn't trust each other.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

(contrary to any actual evidence)

Actually, there are signed affidavits that provide ample evidence of the illegal NSA spying by the United States government. I know you have to deny this to maintain a consistent world view (Bush can do no wrong, he is the second-coming of God and the Republican party's messiah) but you appear weak in doing so. Your denial runs contrary to evidence that is moving forward legal cases around the country. Of course, spying on phone calls of your citizens is also a weak thing to do.

We used to ridicule Russia for doing it. Now a Republican controlled United States government is doing it.

Re:There's your answer:

[ozmanjusri]

You do not even know basic grammar and you want us to listen to you? Thanks, but I'll vote for another republican.

Make the Pie Higher

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

But keep in mind there has traditionally been something of a correlation between the number of "scandals" and party dominance. Were the Democrats to have more power in Congress, they would likely become as complacent as the Republicans were during the Clinton administration. There are a lot of things Bush is criticized for that Clinton also did. I honestly think the best explanation for this is that under Clinton, there was not an opposition party trying to regain lost power.

Also, look at how the political spectrum has shifted. Bush is far to the left of his father and Reagan. The Democratic Party is now dominated by those much further to the left like MoveOn.org. Such things serve to explain the current power of the Republican party -- with Bush's shift to the left he has gained many more supporters than former Republicans while still retaining the bulk of his base, whereas the Democrats have abandoned the moderates that Bush now appeals too and are now focusing on groups traditionally much closer to, for example, the Green Party. Although they have been successful at appealing to Libertarians who, despite being more to the right on a lot of issues, fear a 1984-esque government from Republicans now. (Ironically, Orwell was a Socialist and for the most part diametrically opposed to what we call Libertarianism.)

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

Step 5 doesn't exist for the voter. Step 4 certainly does...but Step 5 is reserved for the campaign contributors and the politicians themselves. I suppose by proxy if an employee of a fine dining establishment, or a call girl voted then maybe you could say voters had Step 5, but that is only becaue the lobbyists give them so much money in the process of purchasing a politician :)

Re:There's your answer:

[MightyYar]

"considered to be too ideologically right-wing for the party at that period"

Nothing that a little dose of Carter couldn't fix...

Re:There's your answer:

[EllisDees]

The administration is not a person, and it should not receive any presumption of innocence. We should assume that it will do anything that it thinks is within its power to do, and therefore should make damn sure that it is as legally limited as possible.

Yes, the government needs to try to stop terrorism, but if the cost is all of our freedoms, it's not worth it. "Live free or die" and all that jazz.

Re:There's your answer:

[jZnat]

You think 300 million people voted in 2004's election? More like 122 million, and that's if you count all the dead people and other illicit votes that were counted. Don't forget the Diebold election machines that gave Bush the votes of many otherwise non-Bush voters.

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

Personally I could care less if the NSA wants to spy on everyone. Good luck with that. I have nothing to hide.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
- Cardinal Richelieu (translated)

Re:There's your answer:

[Linux_ho]

What since 9/11/2001 has the United States of America done under President Bush's leadership to convince the Arab peoples that their culture is broken and that they need to do something about it in order to end this endless cycle of war and destruction so that they may prosper and live in peace? (Answer: NOTHING!)

By GOD, that's IT!!!! All we have to do is tell all the towelheads their CULTURE IS BROKEN and they'll say

"How silly we've been, perpetuating this endless cycle of war and destruction. You know, I think those Jews should just keep all that "holy land" they stole from us when they corralled us up, and moved us out to lovely, serene West Bank and Gaza. All these tyrranical dictators dominating our peoples for the past fifty years or so, supported by the West... Hey. Live and let live, I say. The Saudi Family isn't all that bad. We toppled the Shah all the way back in the seventies, that's like ancient history. And sure, the West put Saddam in power. But you gotta admit, they only killed a few tens of thousands of us getting rid of him!"

Or maybe not. The VAST majority of muslims already are peaceful regular folks. The violence is caused by an active and vocal minority, who gain new recruits so easily because the governments of the West really don't give a shit about the Arab peoples, they only care about how much it costs to extract oil from the region and whether Americans and Israelis are getting killed. Which may be how the situation degraded to where it is today. Killing or kidnapping Americans and Israelis are the only things that get the attention of the people in power these days

At least we can agree that the years since 9/11 have been horribly mismanaged. The history of the West's meddling in the region's affairs have made us an easy scapegoat for all the problems of the Arab peoples. The past five years have only reinforced that, making it ever so much easier to paint the West as the Great Satan when recruiting impressionable young Arab men to terrorist causes.

Re:There's your answer:

[LilGuy]

He won't do shit. I talk about this shit with everyone I know. It's amazing how many people have no idea what's going on. They usually don't believe me at first until I bombard them with things to check into. Sooner or later they wake up though and so far I've gotten in no trouble. Hell I went to the 9/11 convention in LA.. so if anything my name's on a list somewhere.

Re:There's your answer:

[Theaetetus]

clinton was impeached because he lied to congress. not for receiving a blow job. (although, the lie was about receiving said blow job.)

Actually, Clinton was impeached, but never convicted of perjury. Additionally, the judge in the case never placed him in contempt for perjury. He faced penalties for obstruction of discovery, but never actually lied under oath. This is a myth that has been passed around because most people never actually read any of the documents in the case.

I repeat - Clinton never lied under oath, and was not convicted of perjury.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Duuuude... If you don't see the resemblance you are so ignorant that I feel sorry for you. If you want to wake up I invite you to start looking for this topic on the internet: Reichstag fire. The Reichstag was a building set on fire back in 1933 and was used as an excuse to start the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Here's a Wiki excerpt: "This (the fire) proved to be a valuable excuse for the Nazis to suspend most human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution in the Reichstag Fire Decree."

I don't know... that sounds pretty much like 911, stolen elections, the war on terror, illegal wire tapping and the whole manipulation of the constitution. Face it. We are on a fascist state.

BTW.. Don't bring me liberal or conservative crap. I'm tired of it already. Let's stop labeling objectiveness.

Re:There's your answer:

[Ronin Developer]

How does that line spoken by Padme in Star Wars go? I think goes something like "So this is how democracy ends - with thunderous applause."

In the 30's and 40's, there was a charismatic (however, very misguided) leader who achieved power in much the same way. Today, that power is achieved and retained through a perpetuation of FUD, granted impunity to do as they please and hidden from scrutiny in the interest of National Security.

In the 80's, I stood behind a president that stood for building this country's military back into greatness (I am former military). Now, I can't wait wait to see the whole lot of them voted out of office - assuming that we have elections in 2008 that aren't rigged to ensure certain people stay in power. That goes for a lot of democrats who don't have the balls to stand for what's right and in the best interest of THIS country. Assuming that our voices are truly heard via open and free elections, we might actually start to see us getting this country back on track and restoring our national dignity after the next round. That, of course, assumes that people aren't put off by the whole process and actually vote their conscience.

RD

Re:There's your answer:

[Lehk228]

more centrist republicans are turning against bush in droves while he and his far-right buddies have their little anti-gay anti-science circle jerk the republican party is splitting away from the fundies. the stem cell fight and the HPV vaccination fight have become a wedge issue on the right,

more specifically, more bush supporters are becoming former bush supporters as he proves himself to be a total fecking moron. at least the WMD thing we had numerous intelligence agencies going along with the claim that iraq had WMD's. now we have bush claiming he knows better than climatologists, medical researchers, and doctors (not to mention his own Generals)

Re:There's your answer:

[evil_Tak]

The bigger problem is that the Democratic party has just been incredibly disorganized and suffered from a lot of infighting over the last 5-10 years. I am of the opinion that in 2004 the Democrats lost the election far more than the Republicans won it.

No, the problem is that people see Democrats as the only alternative to Republicans, and Republicans as the only alternative to Democrats. Republicans, Democrats, if you're disgusted with the elected officials of one party, and the candidates of the other don't seem much better, vote Libertarian! Vote Green Party! Put your vote someplace that shows you're not just a mindless, party-line-voting drone, and that your party had better get its collective act together if it wants to retain your vote in the future.

Re:There's your answer:

[Don853]

I agree that both parties have their problems. It's probably a natural consequence of a two party system that both parties end up more or less in the middle, and most people, when voting, can't find a party that meets all or even most of their needs. However, the Republican party seems to make it very clear where exactly they stand on issues, and the Republicans who disagree are rogues and outsiders. The Democratic party doesn't have this sort of central leadership - granted, it's much easier to have a strong central leadership when you have the President in office.

The fact that Kerry lost in 2004 is a direct result of a poorly run campaign. Anyone would have gotten 35% of the vote on the "I'm not Bush" platform, and that's not a bad start. Whoever let him ever get away with sending people to his website to see where he really stood on positions was an idiot. Bush could get away with calling him wishy-washy because he never acted in a resolute enough manner to refute in, and IIRC, the site wasn't easy to navigate anyway. Edwards was another choice blunder - he didn't help carry any of the southern states he was expected to. It didn't matter if we could relate to his upbringing - we can't - or don't want to - relate to lawyers worth tens of millions of dollars. He came across as a phony. Another Clinton - charismatic and appealing to the people [disclaimer: I hated Clinton when he was president] would have won going away in 2004. The Democratic party, for whatever reason, seems unable to understand the Joe Schmos from podunk towns that make up a large part of the voting body of the country.

Re:There's your answer:

[The Spoonman]

because you're afraid of terrorists.

Only the ones that run the US. I stopped being afraid of Osama a looooong time ago.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

Are you actually suggesting that the political spectrum in this country has moved leftward in the last 20 years? Well, points for counterintuitiveness, but that's just absurd.

When universal healthcare was attempted, it failed miserably and Clinton had to declare that "big government" was finished to regain any footing after Republicans took over Congress. Bush has hardly appealed to moderates, ever--the gay marriage amendment was introduced simply to inflame his fundamentalist Christian base in the 2004 election, for example. Liberal politicians have virtually zero chance on a national level in the U.S. The Democratic party is hardly "dominated" by MoveOn (and they most definitely do not appeal to Greens--Ralph Nader is a complete pariah because of the 2000 election); every Dem politician tries their best to run away from people like Michael Moore and even Howard Dean (look at Obama's recent comments about Democrats and religion). Only Russ Feingold is the closest to a national liberal politician right now.

Yes, under Bush, there is more government than ever, but this is hardly left-wing, unless you consider libertarians to be right-wing. Conservatives want to expand the reach of government as well, to get the terrorists (which is why we're talking about the NSA wiretapping right now), to stop Terry Schiavo from dying, to prevent gay marriage, etc. The budget has exploded out of corruption and Bush's constant requests for more war funding.

Re:There's your answer:

[jZnat]

Think of it this way: Stevens is so hopelessly corrupt that if he were to become president, the people of Alaska might wake up when he gets impeached and convicted of corruption. Besides, if tube-man is busy being president, he's not in the Senate talking about tubes anymore.

Re:There's your answer:

[uberjoe]

When you start talking about impeachment (mmmmmmm peaches) just remember who the number two and three in this country are. (shudder) For the non-americans, or clueless americans in the /. crowd that's Shotgun Dick Cheney, and Dennis Hastert. Neither of whom I would want to be President.

Re:There's your answer:

[jZnat]

Wait wait wait wait wait...

You almost had me there. Since VP is P of the Senate, the next in the line of succession (sp?) is Hastert (R, IL), the Speaker of the House. Then it'd be Stevens. We don't really need to worry about Stevens, m'kay?

Re:There's your answer:

[Ansonmont]

As long as you VOTE your conscience when given the chance, you are not all bad, so don't be too hard on yourself.

-A

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I could care less if the NSA wants to spy on everyone. Good luck with that. I have nothing to hide.

So you don't care about selling other people down the river so long as it's no skin off your hide. Good to know.

The more we know, the better we can craft a believeable patsy.

(Never trust a government further than you can overthrow it.)

Re:There's your answer:

[mrmort]

Yeah, he's right. And anyone who says that "I don't care if the NSA spy on me" is living with their head in the sand and has no idea what totalitarian means. Read 1984, or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich or any literature dealing with totalitarianism and you see that the trouble with domestic spying is not what you are guilty of but what they decide you are guilty of and how it surves their arbitrary purposes. Totalitarian power leads total corruption. That's why people who think that what this administration is up to is OK are lambs to the slaughter. Frank Zappa described the attitude best: It can't happen here. America is full of people who think that they are exempt from politics. And then when something bad happens as result they cry and stomp feet and call no fair. This Administration that leads the poor around by the nose with their religious BS, meanwhile making the richest richer, bankrupting the working/middle class, and turning its nose up at science and technology, all while rapidly expanding Executive power. And in their spare time they may just have fostered WW3. Why are there still people resting on their laurels for voting for a 'strong decisive leader' last election?

Re:There's your answer:

[Darby]

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.

The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.

Let me guess, you think that because the Repugs are spending like drunken sailors that they're "left"?!?
Seriously, wake up.
The right and the left *both* stand for big oppressive government and always have by definition. The only difference is what they want to use the power of government against the people in order to accomplish.

The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".

Nowhere in the makeup of either the left or the right does freedom, liberty, small government fiscal responsibility or anything of the sort even exist. Those are the things that they are *both* absolutely opposed to.

Here is an article that lays it out very clearly.

If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.

Re:There's your answer:

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> You are deceiving yourself: of course there will be another election in
> the US in 2008. It will be another joke, and another Republican puppet
> will be elected. The ruling party needs to maintain the illusion of
> democracy -- at least for a while -- or there likely will be a public backlash.

Either that, or the Democrats can't put together a coherent response other than Buchcheneyhaliburton!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!one voteforusinstead.

What do the Democrats offer in response? I'm not talking about rhetoric that the faithful lap up, I mean the middle of the road people you need to switch to win?

Re:There's your answer:

[Roody Blashes]

...trap of believing that your ideals are correct...

I would argue that only mental illness would result in a different position on the matter. Why, after all, would a healthy, rational mind continue to hold a belief it thought to be inferior? That is, you're correct: where you and I differ, I believe my opinion to be superior to yours, which is why I continue to hold it. Were you to convince me that my opinion is, in fact, inferior, I would change it and again believe that my opinon is superior than somebody who held my prior one.

Primary example: I used to be staunchly anti-gay. Now, however, after thoroughly reviewing my position, I feel no particular need to treat gay people any differently from straight people, and I am staunch supporter of allowing gay people to do all the things straight people do (although it should be noted that within the context of marriage I think that the concept of marriage the government recognizes must be a government-sanctioned institution and that churches should merely have access to the paperwork and be able to perform religious ceremonies on the matter however they see fit)

Also, being a member of a political party is not a matter of being a borg-life entity in a larger collective. I in no way agree with all the things the democratic party does and says, but on the whole I support them in certain circumstances (in reality I tend to prefer a jointly controlled Congress with a Democratic president because it usually seems to promote moderation).

There is really no "elitism" in any significant, non-localized sense. The elitism charge stems from the right from people who reject education as a means to improved leadership qualities and it stems from the left (in its modern form) from people who reject experience as a means to improved leadership qualities. In reality, most people simply disagree on things and there's no elitism at all. They just believe what they believe for whatever reason they have, and either side would be equally valid in claiming "elitism" was to blame.

Re:There's your answer:

[Durandal64]

Yeah, like your congressman gives a shit about what you have to say. Unless that letter you send him is accompanied with a suitcase full of cash or a weekend golf outing, you might as well piss into the wind.

Re:There's your answer:

[lymond01]

Just got back to planet Earth, did you? Illegal phone taps of all Americans without warrant, American citizens winding up in Guantanamo Bay without trial or due process. There's evidence, and now the government is pulling a Half-Life 2 and saying, "You're not allowed to look into our obviously suspect activities." Not even hiding it anymore. Do you get what that means? Don't shrug it off as another "news" story from "mass media". If you do, you'll probably be in some secret prison in Europe before you realize you should have thought, "Oh sh-t!"

All that being said, you're damn right people should speak what they believe. Good words.

Re:There's your answer:

[Richy_T]

It also discourages impeachment. If a president only has a year or two to go, impeachment is hardly worth the bother. If there was a real chance he might get reelected, it would encourage congress to attempt to stop him.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that was a comment from what is now commonly referred to as "The Backwash"

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody has it as his sig : "So this is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause." It's too good a line to think Lucas didn't steal it from someone who's a better writer.

Anyway, you've got my complete respect, as a man who served his country, and as a man who can change his mind when he sees things going wrong.

Re:There's your answer:

[lynx_user_abroad]

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

I must point out the obvious: Anyone who contemplates running for office in opposition to the current administration will be doing so under the survelliance of the current administration. This has been true since the program began.

And one might suspect that part of the reason this administration doesn't want anyone from the Justice Department investigating this program is because anyone from the Justice Department who does investigate this program may discover that they, too, have been under the survelliance of this administration.

Total Information Awareness is a double-edged sword: when you gain knowledge of everything, you lose the right to claim plausible deniability.

I wonder if Mr. Bush has thought this through completely: the next time something bad (like a terrorist attack) happens, someone is bound to start asking why, even with all the privacy invasion, they couldn't spot it coming.

Re:There's your answer:

[1lus10n]

Freedom implies being free. If the government controls everything you do and can selectivly persecute based on random unknown criteria then you are not free by any english definition of the word that I or oxford am aware of.

Furthermore making the statement that only people with something to hide should fear the government ignores 2000 years of governments taking any chance they get to increase their power and violate citizens rights. Do you really think that the party in power would be able to resist the temptation to spy on citizens who would pose a threat to their political power and/or policies ? Not terrorism, just plain old politics. Hell the republicans have already been found guilty of spying once in the past generation, now they have gone hi-tech and tried covering all of the bases for anyone to find out whats actually going on. No, the democrats are no better, and thats a large part of the problem. With two ultra-corrupt all-powerful groups like this, how can anyone stand against them and fight for their rights.

The govenment doesnt need to know everything to investigate terrorism. Not to mention that even with the computers analyzing the calls and emails it doesnt change the fact that we knew a good deal about 9/11 before it happened. Having knowledge means NOTHING, the most important thing is what you do with that knowledge. The government is too damn big and full of know-nothings to be able to handle information correctly, especially large amounts of information. Just look at katrina, iraq, social security, global warming and countless other things they continually fuck up because they mishandle or misunderstand the simplest data sets and concepts.

We need a smaller government who handles our country and its needs first. Freedom is not free, but sacrificing freedom for security is a bad exchange and will make our entire society bankrupt.

Re:There's your answer:

[Darby]

The game could change if a vindictive Democrat becomes the next president.

No, the game could change if a person with a scrap of integrity got elected.
It doesn't take a "vindictive Democrat" to not give one of if not the worst traitors in our nation's history a get out of jail free card.
All it takes is an honest person.
Now, the odds of getting that are pretty slim, but your extremist partisan view that only a "vindictive" Democrat" would give a shit about honesty, integrity, decency, or any of the list of supposed "American Values" is really pretty sickening to people like myself who have too much integrity to have ever voted for one of the major party candidates.

Re:There's your answer:

[Richy_T]

No, I believe that there are areas where I might very well be wrong and areas where reasonable men may differ. The Democrat flaw is believing that any difference is always because the other person is flat out wrong or deluded.

Take, for example, the Democrats, until recently, anti-gun stance. The reasons people are pro gun are very real and have a very logical basis yet the democrats continued to push an anti-gun agenda (despite even many of their own (like my state representative) being pro gun. When you do this stuff, you alienate people. [BTW, anyone who now proceeds to turn this into a pro/anti gun is retarded. I was just illustrating an area where the Democratic party advances a condescending and elitist attitude on a complex issue. There are several others]

Rich

Re:There's your answer:

[DaggertipX]

Thank you, I needed a poster child for for the apathy our country is showing in defending the liberties and freedoms we fought so hard to attain.
By the way... Do you see any correlation of the criminalization of daily civil activites that are occurring? DMCA, Patriot Act, etc types of restrictions... Do you think the progression towards that type of restrictive lifestyle is going to reverse on it's own?
Ok, so - with that in mind - it is easier and easier to label pretty much anyone a criminal, these days and getting worse. Next, firm documentation that you did the "illegal" act in question (wiretapping, etc -check).
If everyone is a criminal, there is no one left to challenge the incumbent authorities.
Wiretapping alone, while I still wouldn't want it, isn't the evil. The evil is behind all of these connected events that you so naively think could never come back to haunt you, or one of your loved ones.
But don't worry, keep your chin up, YOU haven't done anything wrong have you? No, of course not. None of your friends and family have either, right?
So when our rights to criticize our government go out the window, at least you'll be sleeping easy. Safe from terrorists and communists and any other 'ists' the administration deems the proper scapegoat to further their own agendas.
For what it's worth, I have nothing to hide either, my life is pretty much an open book. For anyone I care to share it with, that is - and that just so happens to not include the NSA.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I was never afraid of Osama or terrorism in general. The U.S. has an absurdly low incidence rate of terrorism. Even with people in the U.S. funding the IRA and with considerably more terrorism, the UK was quite safe. If with much more terrorism people could live normal lives, I think we would be complete fools to live in a constant fear of terrorism. Odds are, a car accident will kill me way before I end up the victim of a terrorist plot.

Re:There's your answer:

[bahwi]

I'm sure he'll claim he wasn't actually elected the first time, and thus can run again. :)

Re:There's your answer:

[Roody Blashes]

But, that's what I'm getting at. It's not that they "don't understand them", it's that they don't pander to them. Bush's campaign was specifically designed not to contain much actual information. Instead, it was meant to convey the idea that Bush was in control, had all the answers, and that he understood the needs of the people so well that they didn't need to know about their needs themselves.

Kerry, on the other hand, took on more of an inclusive role by providing a lot of information and then explaining his position, apparently assuming that people either knew what was going on, or were willing to find out. In a sort of sordid irony, Kerry's approach was exactly the OPPOSITE of elitist: he presented the information with the belief that he was talking to intelligent people who wanted to be involved in the political process and who would understand how he had reasoned his positions.

Bush, on the other hand, ran a campaign of emotion where he talked to the people like they were children who simply needed hand-holding. His campaign was EXTREMELY elitist and conveyed the idea of a supreme leadership that would care for a flock so the flock, which was too ignorant and weak to understand, didn't have to worry about things.

For whatever reason - I'm not a psychologist so I don't understand it - Bush's cooing beat out Kerry's inclusionary approach. Maybe people just need to feel sheltered from a problem rather than a part of the solution to that problem, I don't know. Whatever the reason, the point remains: Kerry and democrats ran a (relatively) honest and straightforward old-fashioned campaign whereas Bush and the republicans ran a campaign largely based on emotional inclusion. Kerry's approach was almost that of a business-first task force and Bush's was more of a nurturing, familial campaign. Bush's was largely "trust me" and Kerry's was more like "join me".

Now, mind you, I didn't directly address any of the procedural complaints you made against the campaigns. I don't necessarily disagree with the points you make on them though. I'm just less interested in that than I am in the psychological approaches of each campaign and how that seemed to impact things.

Re:There's your answer:

[The Man]

Actually, the system as a whole has failed. Bush is no longer a President but effectively a Dictator; he has wilfully and arbitrarily disregarded the law and claimed that he has the authority to do so at any time he desires. There is no reason to believe he would abide by the result of the impeachment process or even the next election. Anyone have an idea that would actually work?

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

But what you're describing goes against the unreasonable search w/o warrent part of the constitution. Yeah, freedom isn't free, but you're not getting freedom. At least not the freedoms you were told you were getting.

Re:There's your answer:

[IAmTheDave]

If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.

I couldn't disagree more. Power corrupts completely, and the left elite fancy themselves as much as the right elite. Classes will always exist, and the rich will always get richer. While the left trys to portray itself as Robinhood in a social sense, new taxes that "benefit the poor" rarely tax the top of the tax bracket in any fashion.

I do, however, agree that both try to control, just through different methodologies.

Re:There's your answer:

[HTH NE1]

Assuming that a sitting president can't pardon himself, upon an opposing party winning the election, before the power transfer the president pardons the vice president, resigns, and then the pardoned vice president is sworn in as president and pardons the former president.

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

I am not arguing that the left is not opposed to Bush. I am arguing that Bush is to the left of previous Republican leaders. Left and right are not defined by things like same-sex marriage. Bush has done many things to appeal to people who used to be moderate Democrats and left the Democratic base to be composed of primarily what used to be known as extreme.

Howard Dean is the DNC chair. A select number of ambitious Democrats who want to distance themselves from him are not terribly germane and hardly indicative of differing politics. Beyond him, look at the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Do you think Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Reid are not to the left of their counterparts from 10 years ago?

Terry Schiavo, terrorists, and two fat guys tongue-kissing at the alter have nothing to do with this. These are hot-button issues that are not differentiating points between the left and right unless one side takes one up and the other decides to oppose them. None of them are in any way compatible/incompatible with left and right political philosophies. If I were to name a President that most closely resembles Bush in terms of philosophy, I would have to say FDR. Look at the huge spending on social programs, the increased executive powers (although admittedly FDR had considerably more), stacking the courts to assist in policy making (again, FDR did this a lot more than Bush), not following due process for detainees (FDR did this with American citizens though), and involving the country in warfare without being attacked (I think WWII was a lot bigger than OIF, although the lend-lease program was big, it was also quite passive).

Look at how hard Joseph Lieberman is having to fight to stay in power. Look at how much support Hillary Clinton has lost. Look at the traditional heavyweights of the Republican party catching flack for not being left enough.

You don't think it is curious that Clinton involved this country in enough foreign combat that resulted in more American soldier's deaths than the current administration is likely going to surpass, yet we are constantly reminded about Bush's death toll, but never Clinton's? You don't think its interesting that Clinton claimed to want to take out Saddam, but blamed Republicans in Congress for distracting him too much? Why was the Democratic position on regime change suddenly abandoned when i t was initiated by a Republican?

To paraphrase my previous post, the left's opposition can be compared to that of a cornered animal lashing out.

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

Apparently part of my comment was a bit ambiguous. I meant that the poster didn't (likely, this is an assumption on my part) have actual evidence of spying on himself and that that would lead to 'bad things' should he voice dissent. I didn't shrug anything off.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that the Republicans went through so much trouble to develop a coalition across the country in order to retake the Congress and Presidency, and then promptly destroyed it pandering to the Bible Belt. The Party apparatus selected the PNAC people and surprise, surprise, they manufactured an irrelevant war in Iraq destabilizing the Middle East. They road in on the backs of the Moral Majority crackpots and catered to such pressing issues as denying equality to homosexual coupling, banning Federal funding for medical research on embryonic stem cells, funneling government money into "faith-based initiatives," and interfering with the "morning after pill" and opposing the HPV vaccine. Their rise is funded by companies that sponsor proganda outlets like junkscience whose intentions are to discredit science in the public mind to prevent being held responsible for externalities.

The uncrazy members of the Republican Party need to regain some control over its decision-making processes. The Republican Party is handing out pork, retarding scientific progress, potentially endangering the welfare of the environment of the U.S., and making the global condition more like 1984 than anyone should be comfortable with.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to the last paragraph and generally agree with it. That said, here is my response to the DNC...

The problem isn't that voters are stupid (thus responding better to propaganda). The problem is that the Democrats' platform is mushy goo with no distinct identity or purpose. Go see the agenda on DNC.org and tell me what kind of person really supports all those points. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to be a Democrat these days.

Democrats want better health care but aren't willing to nationalize it; they want "better" national security but also want to pay down the debt; they want fairer elections but say nothing about making Election Day a federally-recognized holiday (forcing companies to pay overtime for workers who can't reach the polls between 8-5pm); they love the troops but can't acknowledge the atrocities the troops are committing in our names; they love Social Security but don't care about unemployment insurance or welfare; they love higher education but still think we should all pay individually for it.

It's a platform that says essentially: we want to help America, and we're convinced that we can do so without incurring much more taxation or changing much about how we go about doing things. On foreign policy we are Republicans except for a few quibbles; on domestic policy we are Republicans except we don't cater to the Christian Right in name or deed (prayer NOT in schools, abortion legal, homosexuality ignored) and we want minor tweaks to medical financing and some minor environmental legislation. In other words, the DNC is still Diet GOP.

Here's a real platform:

1) Make impeachment functionally easier via Constitutional amendment. (And pass the Equal Rights Amendment already.) Allow criminal charges against both elected representatives and appointed officials for actions that violate the law while in office (such as passing FDA approval and then taking a position on the board of a company that benefitted directly from that approval (time-shifted bribery); or deliberately disregarding the FISA statute for mass wiretaps).

2) Make Election Day TWO days and make them both federal holidays. Hype them up like July 4. (We can celebrate ancient military victories over BBQ, but we can't vote without making special arrangements at work?) Also make any US citizen anywhere in the world eligible to vote regardless of past criminal history; when millions of people can't vote on the very issues that stripped them of their right to vote, democracy is broken.

3) Roll Social Security payroll taxes in with both income and unearned income taxes and lift the $85K ceiling on it already. Acknowledge that SSA is here to stay, and we ALL pay for it (even those wealthy investors technically earning "nothing"), and it helps everybody; roll welfare and unemployment into SSA. Begin sending SSA checks (even if only $15/mo) to everyone over 18. Pull the retirement age back down to 60.

4) Put an end to the American Empire: begin a serious phased withdrawal of US troops at all overseas bases. Prepare to close many (but not necessarily all) of the bases not on USA soil. Acknowledge that with the Cold War over the international US military is now a diplomatic liability. Relocate the personnel to USA bases and use the money saved for a general pay increase.

5) Begin denying funding for many military boondoggles (especially jets). Use the money saved (which is VAST) to increase public school teacher and administrator pay 2X make them more in line with corporate pay standards. (Did you know that a school superintendent with 2000 white-collar report-to's makes only about $80K? In corporations you'd have to pay at least $150K for a manager at that level.)

6) Increase funding for both science research and science education. Vastly increase funding for EPA to hire real engineers. (EPA is notorious for having bureaucrats close down businesses based on blatantly faulty science reports; more

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

"...as he proves himself to be a total fecking moron.."

Something taken for granted globally from the day Bush stook before the world and proclaimed "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Americans have had the misfortune of living the last two terms inside a PNAC alternate reality bubble which is finally starting to fester from within. The real question is whether they'll have the strength to overcome the emotional investment of raising party over nation, personality over self-benefit, and do what needs to be done in the next elections.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war.
Ah... now I understand the 3 step plan! The question marks stand for What The Fuck!

Step 1) Declare war on another country.
Step 2) Suspend due process of law in the home country. (??? aka WTF!!!)
Step 3) Profit.

Re:There's your answer:

[ozbird]

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

Doesn't the 22nd Amendment mean that voters won't get a chance to vote Dubya out? (i.e. He can't run for a third term as President.)
They can, however, vote out the Republicans.

Re:There's your answer:

[budgenator]

I've decide that any support I give will not be party based but issue based and I will be very vocal about letting the particular candidate know which issues stimulated my support and I'll probably CC the letter to the opponent as well. I bet I'll be getting a ton of junk mail from numerous parties assuming that because I supported a particular candidate, that I'll support their party in general.

Re:There's your answer:

[lynx_user_abroad]

Right. And right now about the only people with "freedom isn't free" ribbon bumper stickers are people who support Bush.

It's a great line: "freedom isn't free" It's got such a great ring to it most people don't realize it's completely false.

Freedom is free. It's Liberty which is not.

Freedom is granted to every living thing. Both the bird in a tree and the bird in a cage are free to fly as far as their wings will carry them. One the one in the cage lacks is Liberty. And it lacks that Liberty because we have taken it away.

This administration has made a partcularly profitable joke out of mixing up freedom and liberty to confuse people. Orwell would have recognised it as thought control by destroying the language. If Freedom and Liberty are used interchangably, neither retains it's meaning; they both become, literally, unthinkable.

Those things piss me off royally, because this administration has done more to make me less free than any other, and it just keeps getting worse.

This is not correct. This administration has neither made you more free nor less free, because your freedom is not under their control. They're just claiming credit (and apparently in your case they've been effective) for something they didn't do. But your liberties are. And it is correct to say that your civil liberties are being impacted.

Watch the language. In other words listen. There's some very revealing words being used.

You'll hear quotes about "Coaltion Casualties" (that's our side, right?) and "Insurgent Casualties" (that's their side, right?).. But even Fox News will tell you about that "other" force in Iraq: the "Civilian Casualties" (whose side is that? Wait a second, I'm a civilian.).

They won't support any increase to the minimum wage because that would be an infringement on our Freedom to work as cheaply as we might want to, or our Freedom to hire people on the cheap.

And don't even get me started on what "Family Values" and "Personal Responsibility" relly mean.

Re:There's your answer:

[Zxsw85]

That was a intresting link. Thanks!

Re:There's your answer:

[timeOday]

You left out "sanction of torture," "secrect network of East European prisons," "alienation of our Allies (other than ones small enough to bribe)," and "a doubling of gas prices due to destabilization of the middle east."

Re:There's your answer:

[Brandybuck]

The comparisons between Bush and Hitler are so numerous only a rabid wingnut in the employ of Karl Rove could deny them. For example, both Bush's and Hitler's fathers hated brocolli!

Re:There's your answer:

[mutterc]

If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote.

Impeachment might set a good example. However, I personally don't see any value to the end result, President Cheney.

Re:There's your answer:

[hacker]

Congress has to impeach & convict him, which has nothing to do with the voters, judging by the last impeachment.

Correction, only the House of Representatives can begin impeachment proceedings, not Congress.

Re:There's your answer:

[packeteer]

It seems like a lot of people are really scared they are going to die. Those people just dont understand terrorism. The reason why the biggest attacks in the US were SYMBOLIC ATTACKS was for fear. The WTC and the Pentagon were the symbols of US imperialism. When will people wake up and realize nobody wants to blow up a dirty bomb, set off a nuclear bomb, or release smallpox into the US?

Of course there are some people who advocate mass destruction of the US but there are also people in the US who would honestly support a carpet bombing of the middle east. We have uninformed belligerant zealots on both sides but those people need to be more or less ignored when making policies.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past Americans have died for our beliefs.

Don't you mean the beliefs of the power elite? Common sense tells me that individuals who fly off to faraway lands to fight other individuals whom they've never met in their lives cannot possibly be fighting in self-defense. When you consider the absolute certainly of innocent deaths, the notion that those individuals are "dying for their beliefs" is simply absurd. They die for the agenda of government, plain and simple.

I hate to rain on your parade, but soldiers who agree to be sent to faraway lands to fight and die -- at the request of their rulers who run the business of government -- do so because they're gullible. A standing army employed for offense abroad, instead of defense at home, couldn't possibly be formed through any other principle.

Re:There's your answer:

[darkhadden]

Freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

Yes, the House begins impeachment proceedings, but the Senate holds the trial (later convicting or acquitting the Prez of the charges), thus Congress.

Re:There's your answer:

[kabocox]

Even if he wasn't responsible, he's now responsible for the cover up. If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out.

I'm thankful that we pretty much limit our Presidents to two terms now a days. I'm actually ready for 4 years of Gore now. I was really divided between Bush and Gore, and for the most part I believe that Bush was the safer choice. I think that Gore would have invaded Iraq for the same reasons that Bush did except with widespread republican and democrate support. I think Gore could have actually gotten some secret black government project started to make the US completely energy self supporting. Bush has too much vested interest with the present energy companies to want the government to fund something radically new that would free the US from ever needing oil again. We don't need anything radically new; we just need to retrofit/or rebuild our current autos so that they'd all be fueled only by fuels/energy sources that are in the US. After 9/11, the government had enough public anger at the middle east, the public would have happily funded a project that would kick all the oil producing countries in the teeth by making energy efficient housing (would reduce energy consumation in heating/cooling to below 1/3 current levels if all older structures could be modified), getting rid of the internal combustion engine for all US transportation methods within 5 years by converting to electric or hybrid vehicles, or funding every little US project to reduce oil usage. Remember we could have done all that in anger and to forever punish the Middle East. That sort of effort would have destoried the entire Middle East if we could get rid of our oil need.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

Personally I'm tired of hearing this news. Just an opportunity for people to whine some more. I dont' think he's worried about being impeached or sent to jail or whatever you idiots want to see, he just doesn't want people making a spectacle of the USA.

One of these days there'll be spy drones flying all over the globe looking for terrorists. Least intrusive way to effectively find them and prevent terrorist attacks. Wait for it...

By the way, the original post is full of bias. Calling his actions illegal is premature. He doesn't think it's illegal, YOU do... so you call it "controversial", not illegal. The man is our leader and he's acting in the nations best interest, you think he's just doing this to protect his image, like Nixon?

Re:There's your answer:

[aunticrist]

I wish I had points to mod you up. :)

Re:There's your answer:

[roystgnr]

Left and right are not defined by things like same-sex marriage.

That sentence would be just as accurate if you deleted all but the first six words. "Left" and "right" are not defined. They are a failed attempt to map the many-dimensional space of political beliefs into a single-dimensional variable. This sort of either-or thinking is one of the reasons we're in such a mess today. People are willing to support the most heinous acts by someone they perceive as being on "my side" and condemn the most trivial transgressions by someone they perceive as being on "their side".

I have hope that someday we'll change our voting systems (starting locally, but ending up with a Constitutional amendment for federal elections) to use something smarter than plurality counting and thus end the two-party system... but it's a slim hope. If we can't even talk about politics in a way that admits more than two alternatives, how likely are we to be able to redesign our elections that way?

Re:There's your answer:

[Rhipf]

Unfortunately Bush cannot be voted out of office (by the general population). He is serving his second term of office and is not able to run for a third term. Your stuck with George W. until 2009 whether you like it or not.

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

Your comment is just stupid. Did I say "soldiers" or did I say "americans?"

Dr. King died for his beliefs. As did others in the civil rights movement. Were they following the lies of the power elite?

Re:There's your answer:

[Politburo]

Kerry didn't mention Abu Ghraib because he didn't want to be seen as anti-military, imo. He already had enough problems with his testimony in the 70s.. highlighting Abu Ghraib would have practically written a campaign ad.. "John Kerry, 1973".. "John Kerry, today" etc. Not that I think it was the right move.

Re:There's your answer:

[blugu64]

I've got nothing to hide. I'm innocent of any crime (ok ok I got a ticket for doing 53 in a 45 2 or 3 years ago, hardend criminal I know.) So why if I'm presumed innocent do they need to spy on me? If I am presumed innocent my personal affairs are none of their business. Sure I've got nothing to hide, but so what? Don't I have a right to do whatever I want to do, provided it is legal, in the privacy of my own home without the fear of being watched? What am I suspected of doing that makes the governemnt want to spy on me? It's really quite insulting.

Re:There's your answer:

[macdaddy]

Another way to put it is this:

Democracy is not a spectator's sport.

I wish I had the funds to post that on billboards across the country in the weeks leading up to an election.

Re:There's your answer:

[Moofie]

What does voting have to do with anything anymore?

Re:There's your answer:

[Moofie]

"In the 30's and 40's, there was a charismatic (however, very misguided) leader who achieved power in much the same way."

Are you talking about Roosevelt, or Hitler?

Re:There's your answer:

[Aadain2001]

There was never "numerous intelligence agencies" agree with WMD's in Iraq. It was just a few field agents and even they said they think their intel is circumstantial and weak. But that was enough of an excuse to get thousands of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens killed.

At this point there is enough evidence to at least start an impeachment, and this time have to go all the way. Bush has committed actual crimes here. There might even be a few in there that can be considered treasonous! But will Congress even whisper the word 'impeach'? Nope, because the Republicans have the majority. Even if, as you say, there is a big fracture in the Republican party right now, they won't lift a finger to actualy do anything to stop Bush or punish him.

This is Bush's last term, he knows this, and he knows he is pretty much untouchable, so he does as he pleases. This was actually my greatest fear in giving him another term. His behavior during his first term was horrible and put the safty of the American people in more danger than any terrorist with bombs strapped to their bodies.

And yet, the Republican party cheered him! They called him our savior and a good leader and a good person. And they came out of the woodworks to vote for him again. And now you are saying that a big chunk of them regrette their decision? You'll excuse me if I don't find this reasuring or think very much of Republicans right now. They helped get a criminal elected to office. If they really hate what he is doing, they have the power to remove him, legally. But I double we will ever see a Republican Congress convict a Republican President.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

That was before Big Government conditioned the average individual to believe in Big Government: Problems with government are never due to power itself, but simply due to having the wrong people in power. Individual apples may be bad, but the barrel cannot possibly be rotten itself. Therein is the foundation of all successful government PR campaigns. If people actually believed that the barrel could rot, Big Government would be in big trouble.

If Big Government didn't/couldn't engage in conditioning, it wouldn't last very long as Big Government, would it?

The founders lived in a time of Small Government, which simply didn't have the resources to condition the populace to believe in Big Government. The transformation, of course, was achieved one little step at a time, over some 200 years. Eventually Small Government acquired the recources to condition the populace, and in doing so, embarked on its objective to become Big Government.

Really, it shouldn't surprise you to hear a conditioned individual -- especially one ruled by the most powerful world empire in history -- spout off about how we have no right to challenge government or even the very concept of power (holding the unique "right" to employ coercion against others). After all, he is conditioned, same as the majority of individuals under any Big Government.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

damn straight!

Re:There's your answer:

[HTH NE1]

20% that you get an honest election. 19.9% of that say you don't get much of a choice because both candidates are the worst kind of scum.

I don't know, 3.98% seems a rather small group holding that opinion (19.9% of 20%).

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

I called nothing illegal. The original post shouldn't either. It's not the fact that the NSA is spying that bothers me as much as the fact that they see no need to report to *any* higher authority. There must be oversight to such projects!

Oh, I really don't care what his motives are. Motives only matter if I trust the person. The President telling me his motives says nothing about whether his motives are misguided or not. Crazy people have killed their families to 'save them' from pain.

Re:There's your answer:

[TheGreek]

The administration is not a person, and it should not receive any presumption of innocence.

No, but "the yahoo's [sic] in power" are people. If you want them to face criminal liability for their official acts, they deserve the same due process you do.

We should assume that it will do anything that it thinks is within its power to do, and therefore should make damn sure that it is as legally limited as possible.

So:

The members of the Administration will do anything they think they're entitled to do. They receive no presumption that they might not be acting illegally, just because they could be acting illegally!

Do you seriously not see the two-faced absurdity of your argument?

My original point is that there really is enough that this Administration is proven to have done that you really don't have to make shit up out of whole cloth.

Re:There's your answer:

[palantir0]

Kerry didn't win because he couldn't create an image that stood for something. The media didn't help obviously but he never put forth a plan that could be believed in and that he could execute. (as far as iraq goes) I figured he would bow to world pressure and leave iraq a mess errr a worse mess if that could be believed. *sigh*

I could have been a wuss and voted for someone that didn't have a chance at winning but I didn't, I stood cringing at the fact I voted for that idiot we have in office now. Of course, had I thought about the supreme court possibly having two replaced judges maybe it would have been worth having him in office. Bush has really screwed up domestic progress, set us back 10 yrs.

Re:There's your answer:

[macdaddy]

The problem as I see it is that Bush is intentionally doing this. This is part of the GOP plan. He's intentionally looking like a total ass (more so than normal). This will cause many of people who normally vote for the GOP to say, "damn, what an asshole". They'll of course still have reservations about voting for the Dems but they still want to vote for somebody. The GOP puts out a slightly more moderate candidate, one who speaking strongly about the war with doubletalk about getting out but also for fighting the good fight. This candidate also takes a more lenient stance on stem cell research, probably the same stance on gays, and a less open stance on religion (so he can come out of the religious closet in office and even further blur the line between church and state). This candidate appeals to all the GOP voters because he's not the fanatical version of Bush and he's a GOP candidate. This will of course win back the hearts and minds of the GOP sheep when in fact the GOP message hasn't changed. It's the exact same message that Junior was spewing back when he ran. He has to veer far to the right to make a distinction between himself and the incoming GOP candidate. Basically he's saying FU to the office and the people; I'm going to help my party keep control of the office by setting up the incoming candidate to smell like a rose compared to me.

Re:There's your answer:

[Steve525]

You make a lot of good points. The US has mismanaged the Middle a lot since 9/11. The history of the West's meddling in the region's affairs helps make us an easy scapegoat. But unfortunately, you blow your arguement's with statements like "You know, I think those Jews should just keep all that "holy land" they stole from us when they corralled us up, and moved us out to lovely, serene West Bank and Gaza". (Are you actually writing this from the West Bank or Gaza? If so, I thank you for giving us a perspective that we don't often get).

What do expect those "Jews" to do? Give up Israel? Israel is here to stay. Get over it already!

I will agree that the Palestinians refugees have certainly gotten the short shaft out of this whole deal. Yes, they were kicked out of Israel and I can see why they have an axe to grind. (I will point out, though, that roughly the same number of Jews were kicked out of the rest of the middle east and into Israel so I don't see why this isn't fair as far as the Arab world is concerned). Can I ask why haven't all the Arab countries gotten together and offered to take in these poor Arab brothers?

Don't get me wrong; I don't think Israel is always in the right, either. I don't know what they hell they are doing bombing the crap of out Lebenon. Their treatment of the Palestinians and the Arabs within their country is abhorrent.

Still, the Arab world needs to accept Israel and needs to help find a solution for the Palestinian refugees, if they ever want lasting peace.

Re:There's your answer:

[Fred_A]

If the US could stop having just two parties (well, one and a half really, if even that), it certainly would be a major step forward. It's odd that it ended up that way.

Are there even other countries like that (among the ones considered like republics) ? I can't think of any... not that I'm really versed in the local politics of that many countries...

Re:There's your answer:

[AK Marc]

Left and right are not defined by things like same-sex marriage.

Sure it is. Republicans want to eliminate personal freedom by legislating previous societal norms. That is Right. There are different facets that area independently left or right. Republicans are liberal when it comes to the budget. The Republicans greatly out spend the Democrats. They are much more liberal on that one issue. The Republicans are more conservative on social issues. Just because you want to focus on some other aspect of what is liberal or conservative doesn't mean that gay marriage is unrelated to what is right and what is left.

Re:There's your answer:

[macdaddy]

I would love to see some put up signs the list what Junior has done right or wrong. These could be billboards, human-placards, etc on the way to/in front of voting stations. If it lists everything equally for say 2 major candidates then no one can say that it's helping on candidate over the other. I think that people need a reminder of what all has happened over any given 4 years. A scoreboard of facts would be useful I think.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not believe it just all about whether you have something to hide or not. This is about principle and a government agency, that took an oath, has intentionally breached that oath and directly participated into activities that were not legally authorized. To many, this is a blatant breach of trust. So let's ask this, if someone have nothing to hide and could not care less, does the NSA have any right to pilfer through all of their personal and business related telephone communications (without that person's consent), knowing without question that all of their calls will never have anything to do with national security or terrorism? You say "sure, go ahead, I have nothing to hide". But let's say instead that the NSA was rounding up, imprisoning and interrogating everyone just to make sure they did not have some type of terrorist affiliation, would you still be chiming out the same statement? When they do the same to your family members as well?

Re:There's your answer:

[Kamots]

Hey Nixon was our leader and was acting in the nations best interest! Who are you to disparage him?

More seriously, when someone's conduct is being excused because of thier position of power, then something is seriously wrong.

There is no difference between me illegally listening to all of your conversations and the NSA illegally listening to all of your conversations. It's illegal either way, and you should be as outraged by it either way.

I find it absolutely amazing is that there are people that will defend a government that is setting the precedence for being above reproach. We're looking at a situation where the government is saying that it can do whatever it wants and then can stop the courts or anyone else from finding out what it's doing. That doesn't sound like a healthy democracy to me.

Re:There's your answer:

[macdaddy]

That's where what I just suggested would be useful. Remind the public of what all has transpired over the candidate's term in office and what the opposition's candidate's stances are as well.

Re:There's your answer:

[MightyYar]

"worst traitors in our nation's history"

"too much integrity to have ever voted for one of the major party candidates."

LOL. I'm the extremist... For your information:

• I am a registered Democrat, because living in New York City is very heavily Democrat and I want to participate meaningfully in the primaries.
• I vote third-party as often as not.
• I voted for Kerry (which he is now making me regret... what an ass)

I would never dismiss voting for an entire party out-of-hand, as an extremist might. And I would never call Bush, who is just another in a long line of mediocre presidents, one of the worst traitors in our nations history - like an extremist might.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian is mostly a banner used by republicans to hide behind when republicans are acting like twats. Sure, there are some real libertarians, but I know both of them.. you're right.. One's a hypocrit and the other is a kook.

Re:There's your answer:

[HarvardAce]

The voting population has a very short memory and attention span.

We most certainly do OOOH! look a the shiny objects over there.

Re:There's your answer:

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Except the way that votes are counted means that one has to vote strategically when one would most like to support a third-party candidate, but still wants input on the choice between the two major-party candidates.

Suppose I like the Libertarian, or Green, or Communist or some other candidate best, but still think that the Republican candidate is a detestable, corrupt, incompetent tool of the Rich and Powerful and the Democratic candidate would only stop making things worse. Until vote counting enables me to express preferences among all candidates, I am stuck. There is no way for me to "vote my conscience"; any vote I cast will be a betrayal of my principles.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

You really believe all that you are saying? The sad news is that people with your mentality are the ones that continue to put totalitarian facists like Bush into office and perpetuate the web of lies. Have you given much thought to what truly lies behind many of these terrorist attacks? Many terrorist attacks are in retaliation, in response to people, their country or their livelihood being wronged or violated and that is precisely what is happening while the US continues with their imperialist and repressive campaign against a now defenseless country, all motivated by greed and political power plays. Think back in history and please tell us all precisely how many times we factually witnessed terrorist attacks conducted by a group that originated or made claim to be specifically from Iraq.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

I am arguing that Bush is to the left of previous Republican leaders.

In some ways, yes; he has no qualms with expanding federal bureaucracy. However, his father and Reagan both increased taxes; Reagan also granted a limited amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Left and right are not defined by things like same-sex marriage.

No, they are defined by responses to issues; on gay marriage, using the federal government to prevent all levels of government from ever recognizing gay relationships is hard-right. Bush holds this position, at least rhetorically.

Beyond him, look at the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Do you think Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Reid are not to the left of their counterparts from 10 years ago?

Boxer and Feinstein are not in the Dem leadership of the Senate. Reid has virtually the same politics as Tom Daschle, Dem leader from ten years ago. Pelosi is more liberal overall than Dick Gephardt, granted. They are just perceived as more left-wing because opposing Bush has become the "liberal" position, regardless of what the opponent's actual political beliefs are.

If I were to name a President that most closely resembles Bush in terms of philosophy, I would have to say FDR.

Completely incorrect. FDR took advice from his advisors and changed course when necessary; he actually ran on a platform of balancing the budget, too, and when he tried to implement it by cutting make-work programs, the economy tanked. Bush asks God what to do and has followed the same sorry course for years, saying that history will vindicate him. The difference in philosophies could not be more stark.

Look at how hard Joseph Lieberman is having to fight to stay in power. Look at how much support Hillary Clinton has lost. Look at the traditional heavyweights of the Republican party catching flack for not being left enough.

Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the '08 Prez nomination. Lieberman is fighting because he constantly attacks Democrats and cozies up to Bush and Fox News (he's quite liberal on a lot of issues, anyway).

You don't think it is curious that Clinton involved this country in enough foreign combat that resulted in more American soldier's deaths than the current administration is likely going to surpass, yet we are constantly reminded about Bush's death toll, but never Clinton's?

Do you have a cite for this? According to Infoplease, 44 died in Somalia, Haiti, Kosova, and Bosnia. Over 2,500 have already died in Iraq alone!

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do? Do you really think it is some pragmatic initiative that is all about health care benefits and next of kin status? What do you think anti-smoking campaigns, helmet laws, anti-fast food campaigns, Title VII & AA/EOE, and public broadcasting are for? Yet Republicans (and there *many* Democrat supporters) want to change societal norms be legislating something that, by any sane and knowledgeable person, should be seen as the clearest case of interpreting the spirit of the law?

If the Constitution should be changed to *reflect* society, then fine. The notion that we can just interpret it however we want based on our own personal views is not. Why do you think we have a 13th amendment?

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a liberal vs. conservative political dynamic. Because the two parties have chosen sides means nothing in terms of political ideologies.

Re:There's your answer:

[ArghBlarg]

I am amazed at the stupidity of the UN for actually believing (or being duped to believe) that unilaterally taking a bunch of Muslim-occupied territory away and giving it to a jewish state would result in anything *but* our current situation. The world would be a more stable place today if, oh, I don't know, Canada or Argentina had just given a strip of land in northern Quebec or part of the NYT. to form a jewish homeland. There was a ton of land available (and still is) to form a state the size of Israel, far away from other contentious areas, at the end of WWII, if the will had just been there.

I (only half-jokingly) tell people the following when they get on the topic of the middle east:

1) Western powers need to stop *all* involvement in the area -- no aid, weapons, food, even diplomatic relations to *any* countries in the region;

2) Give one final ultimatum: fight as much as you want within your own borders, just leave the rest of the world the hell alone;

3) On the *first* violent incident occurring to foreign nationals anywhere, determined to be caused by Israeli or Palestinians, a six-month countdown will be initiated by the Western nations. All Israelis and Palestinians are free to move, during this six-month period, to new lands located in Northern Canada or Argentina (for Israelis and Palestinians, respectively); the West will commit resources to ensure all people who wish are transported, with their belongings, to their designated new homeland.

4) At the end of the countdown, one final 7-day warning is given to all people remaining to vacate Israel and Palestine.

5) The West begins a week-long tactical nuclear bombing campaign on the core of the Holy Land, rendering it uninhabitable for the next thousand years or or more.

If 5) seems too cruel, replace with an ongoing bombing campaign using bombs filled with pork rinds and bacon fat, rendering the Holy Land tainted for the foreseeable future. :-)

Re:There's your answer:

[secondstory756]

Yeah, but if we get rid of Bush, Cheney takes over...Its a vicious cycle.

Re:There's your answer:

[Ronin Developer]

Thank you.

RD

Re:There's your answer:

[Ronin Developer]

"Are you talking about Roosevelt, or Hitler?"

Wow. That's a REALLY good question!

RD

Re:There's your answer:

[aztracker1]

Okay, you obviously aren't a citizen of the USA. Either that, or you are a total moron. An elected president can only serve 2 terms... Guess what, this is Bush's second term... IE, there is no voting him out. He could be impeached, but that process would require a significant majority of congress. Then to remove him would require the Senate to agree that removal from office is the appropriate action in the Senate trial after being impeached in the House.

The time taken to do such a thing would likely put us well into his final year of office (not worth the cost or effort). In addition to being highly unlikely, even with the Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives.

Re:There's your answer:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And right now about the only people with "freedom isn't free" ribbon bumper stickers are people who support Bush. Those things piss me off royally, because this administration has done more to make me less free than any other, and it just keeps getting worse.

Don't you understand? Freedom isn't free means that you must give up freedom in order to have freedom.
Remember - War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

Re:There's your answer:

[Firehed]

And when that fails, use that whole "right to bear arms" thing to its fullest. Contrary to popular belief, it was put in place to kill corrupt governments, not your neighbors.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst US President of all time? I think so.

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

Bush is certainly to the left of his father and Reagan, similarities in a few left-wing acts notwithstanding.

Actually, legislating more Federal power over the states is a hard-left political act. Think Lincoln, FDR, etc.

The reason I say that current Democratic congressional leaders are more left-wing is because their opposition to Bush at almost every turn, even on things that would have appeased a Democrat-controlled Congress, has just pushed them further to the left (incidently or purposely). It has nothing to do with their perceived positions, it has to do with what it is they are opposing.

A good book on FDR just came out. Take a look at it and you might learn how much "worse" than Bush he was on many of the current left-wing oppositions. Just because you don't like Bush, but like FDR does not mean they were not very similar in the actions they took, although FDR undoubtedly was better at dealing with his opponents and PR. Playing the "Bush is a fanatic Christian" card is pretty damn old and amounts to petty rhetoric, especially when you consider how many of the most respected political figures in this country's history were devoutly religious.

Some big left-wing groups bailed out on support for Hillary in her senate campaign. Lieberman is very liberal. Do you think Gore would have chosen him for a running mate if he weren't?

For a death count, here you go: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates. pdf. Sorry the source is not as reliable as a Wikipedia article or blog posting.

Re:There's your answer:

[cgreuter]

I have nothing to hide.

Except for your passwords, your banking details, your credit card numbers, your social-security number, your address, where you keep your valuables, the times you're likely to carry a lot of cash, where you park your car, the routes you drive home and which dark alleys you favour. Or where your kids go to school, when they're likely to be home alone, what kind of candy they like, how attactive to pedophiles they are, what back ways there are into your house.

The most innocent, good person in the world has things to hide and the government has shown itself time and time again to be completely incompetent at keeping your secrets safe.

Re:There's your answer:

[jocknerd]

Oops you're right. I don't think I'll sleep any better knowing that though.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

Sorry I wasn't referring to your post, I was referring to the post printed on the slashdot homepage.

I think you have to grant the president some level of autonomy, after all, he heads the executive branch. If the president tried to change the rules so that he stayed in office longer than 8 years, it would certainly set off alarms, at least for me. The best way to have someone held accountable is to force them to take vacations or to switch jobs, in the president's case, he leaves office and the next guy comes along and says "well well, what the hell is going on HERE?!". For police, you call for backup whenever something is going down, you don't kick down doors alone, that is inviting trouble and misjudgement. I think there is accountability in this administration, for sure. Moreso than probably 90% of the other national governments on earth. May his actions be scrutinized after he leaves office, I'm all for that. I believe the USA *SHOULD* be held to higher standards, but like I said, this has become a spectacle.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

Yet Republicans (and there *many* Democrat supporters) want to change societal norms be legislating something that, by any sane and knowledgeable person, should be seen as the clearest case of interpreting the spirit of the law?

What issue are you talking about here, gay marriage? How is a constitutional amendment "interpreting the spirit of the law"? By definition, you are changing the law.

Re:There's your answer:

[DittoBox]

It hasn't been "all right" since Lincoln...

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

It is a preventative measure. When marriage laws were written in just about every state, it was never imagined that marriage could mean anything but its dictionary definition. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage enforces the original intention and removes the room for interpretation. This brings me back to the 13th amendment -- why not just repeal it?

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

Totalitarian fascist? There seems to be a disconnect between you and reality. You obviously have no idea what either of the terms means, and you're an embarassment to the people who find rational justification for their hatred of GW. I've put plenty of thought into what drives the terrorists. I'm a man, I understand their inherently violent nature, but I think the main difference between these Arabs and the rest of the world is that the rest of the world is happy, these people are oppressed to no end! Their laws are sick and twisted. What you see going on right now is pure lawlessness, some asshole who thinks he is above the law, THE LAW OF THE LAND. The peasantry get their hands cut off for stealing a loaf of bread, but their leaders can order rockets fired into urban areas wrecklessly?

I remember when Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait, like he was General Sherman marching to the sea, destroying everything in his path. That doesn't count as terrorism? Isn't that who we were after, the butcher of Baghdad himself? Did Saddam Hussein not offer money to the families of suicide bombers? Do you raise the same defence for Iran, they sell weapons to terrorist militias, but I'm sure you'd like to say no terrorists ever came from Iran? Hezbollah is an Iranian organization!

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.

There's no difference between the two parties.

They're both as stupid, evil, and greedy as the Republicans.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

It was never imagined that blacks would marry whites, either, when marriage laws were written. And since when does anyone look to the dictionary for some kind of legal authority?

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these days there'll be spy drones flying all over the globe looking for terrorists. Least intrusive way to effectively find them and prevent terrorist attacks. Wait for it..

But it will be too expensive to have it run by humans so they'll automate it with a new computer system called SkyNet.

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

That is asinine. You proved my point that if we are to go against the spirit of an older law, we should do it with legislation, not adjudication. Should this laws permitting interracial marriage be repealed with the 13th amendment?

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

I thought Nixon was an excellent president, he was politically savvy, but he HAD to be held accountable for his actions. It was 100% political and had nothing to do with MY interests, and he should have known better.

The government doesn't listen to my conversations. If I ever get a call from Abu Dhabi, I will assume the conversation is being recorded. Your orwellian nightmares have blinded you to the reality, that cargo containers coming into the united states have always been checked but these days the threat has become more intangible and requires new methods.

You haven't been spied on by the NSA. I don't even know who you are but the odds are so good, I'd be willing to bet my life savings that you haven't been spied on and never will.

You know, soldiers are immune from prosecution. The courts don't have oversight over everything in our government. In this case, it is up to the god damn legislature to do something about this. They can vote to stop it. Will they? No, it would be political suicide. The public supports this program and that gives GW a lot of clout in dealing with politically motivated lawsuits like this.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

Whoops, soldiers are immune from prosecution in respect to following orders. You can't sue a soldier for killing your brother, because he was acting in the name of another authority. My point there is vague and probably has more to do with another debate, forget I said it.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

A much, much bigger one?

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

Actually, legislating more Federal power over the states is a hard-left political act. Think Lincoln, FDR, etc.

So, a federal law banning abortion, say, is liberal? Or one mandating prayer in schools? How does that work? You are confusing conservative philosphy on the structure of government with public policy.

The reason I say that current Democratic congressional leaders are more left-wing is because their opposition to Bush at almost every turn, even on things that would have appeased a Democrat-controlled Congress, has just pushed them further to the left (incidently or purposely). It has nothing to do with their perceived positions, it has to do with what it is they are opposing.

What kinds of liberal legislation are Dems in Congress opposing?

Just because you don't like Bush, but like FDR does not mean they were not very similar in the actions they took, although FDR undoubtedly was better at dealing with his opponents and PR.

And running the federal government and winning wars, but who's counting?

For a death count, here you go: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates. pdf. Sorry the source is not as reliable as a Wikipedia article or blog posting.

The site is down. What are the numbers?

Re:There's your answer:

[brother_b]

I used to be apolitical, but got involved in politics a few years ago. I always leaned libertarian anyway, and didn't see what difference it would make. However, if no one does anything, nothing will be accomplished. Even if you can't roll back bad legislation, you can at least stall or bring down bad proposals before they potentially become law. Since then, I have spoken at the state house on issues, and even run as a candidate for said house last year on the LP ticket. I got 27.4% of the vote in the election, which doesn't win the office but it does send a message. Plus, now folks have heard of me, and I'm running for a local office next year.

Re:There's your answer:

[ereshiere]

You proved my point that if we are to go against the spirit of an older law, we should do it with legislation, not adjudication. Should this laws permitting interracial marriage be repealed with the 13th amendment?

What? Antimiscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. They were not repealed by legislation. It took a black and white couple suing the state to get the right to marry, much like what happened in MA with gay marriage.

Re:There's your answer:

[timhagen]

You people should learn some history. Take a look at some of the stuff FDR did.

Re:There's your answer:

[Atzanteol]

On what basis do you accuse me personally of any of your assumptions?

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

Yeah, and where did all of the other anti-miscegenation laws go before that? At the time, Virginia was one of the few states with such laws in place. If you are going to Google for straws, at least bother during it thoroughly.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out

Obviously you have no idea how the American government works. You can't vote him out. His there for two more years, and then he's term limited. There is no recall. Only indirect removal by impeachment by congress, which is controlled in both houses by either feckless or true believers of Bush's own party.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

What do expect those "Jews" to do? Give up Israel? Israel is here to stay. Get over it already!


What do expect those "Jews" to do? Give up Mosada? Mosada is here to stay. Get over it already!

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

It disturbs me how few people realize that. It got put in there because the first step in becoming a good oppresive state is to disarm the populace. It has happened throughout history over and over and over. I find it freaking histarical that the Democrats are so keen on disarming the populace and the Republicans are so close to creating their perfect terror filled "protective" state. This I suppose only makes sense if you don't still view Republicans and Democrats as opposing parties. I mean after all they all pretty much come from the same class ($$$), pretty much have the same interests (more $$$), pretty much do the same work (take our $$$)...They may bicker about things, but when it comes to things mutually beneficial (to them, not us) like any good businessmen they will work together.

Incidentally...there is that line in our founding documents..."Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

Re:There's your answer:

[danaris]

If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do?

I think they're attempting to make it illegal for people to enforce their societal norms on others.

What, you think it's your (or anyone's) right to live in a world where homosexuals can't get married?

What do you think anti-smoking campaigns

Same thing. Smoking in public spaces violates my right to breathe clean air, which smokers have no inalienable right to pollute.

helmet laws, anti-fast food campaigns

These fall somewhat more under the category of "enforcing social norms" (though more under the category of "public health and safety legislation"), but to my knowledge, anti-fast food campaigns are primarily fought in the court of public opinion, and helmet laws (at least in my state; can't speak for the whole US) apply only to minors for bikes and those under 21 for motorcycles...and are thus aimed at those considered to be less able to make an informed decision based on a proper evaluation of the risks. (Of course, I would argue that there are plenty of people over 21 who are similarly unable to make such decisions, but that's a different argument ;-) )

Dan Aris

Re:There's your answer:

[Swordsmanus]

Don't be scared, just buy an assault rifle from the local gun shop ;)

Re:There's your answer:

[symbolic]

What since 9/11/2001 has the United States of America done under President Bush's leadership...

Choose your words carefully - Bush is in no sense of the word, a leader.

Re:There's your answer:

[xenocide2]

Which just goes to show that even the average Frenchman can't do the French language justice ;)

Re:There's your answer:

[Kamots]

This is hardly an attribute that's unique to democrats. Take a look at the Republicans when it comes to gay rights or abortion, they not only believe that thier stance is the only correct one, but they believe it's the only one that's even worthy of consideration. The same flaw that you attribute to democrats.

There's reasons that I don't associate myself with either party...

Re:There's your answer:

[Don853]

I'm not a psychologist either, but I am from the small town kind of area where Bush got a lot of his support, and, the blue-collar [read as redneck if you'd like] groundswell of opinion seemed to be that W was the kind of guy you'd like to have at your BBQ while Kerry came across as distant, non-personable, and elitist. How this came to be while both men are fabulously rich and went to the same college where most people would never have a chance to is beyond me, or why even it struck people as a bad thing that Kerry was clearly intelligent and cultured, besides the fact that it made him harder to relate to.

If the Democratic party is deliberately not pandering to a large segment of the population, that strikes me as a pretty questionable political move. They can go all they want for the eggheads and college professors, but there aren't enough of them to make any difference.

My biggest problem with their disorganization and poor campaigning is this: They had a pretty good chance to unseat Bush in 2004 in an election that shouldn't have been hard to win because not many people liked either candidate, and they failed, leaving us with 4 more years of Bush, and making it that much more unlikely that McCain will have a chance, when he was the only Republican I wanted in office in the first place.

[Wow - that post has a ton of run on sentences, but I'm too lazy to rewrite it. Sorry]

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is on point. But I'd give him less than a 50% chance. To delay the 2008 election successfully, he would need a strong military backing. Based on the fact that top-level generals have been retiring due to the handling of Iraq, I don't think he and Rummy have the respect they keep saying they have in the Pentagon
Yeah, but maybe all that means is that the only ones that are left are willing to be toadies because any with moral fiber have left in disgust.

Re:There's your answer:

[Firehed]

Incidentally...there is that line in our founding documents..."Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

Shame is that, like the similar line that's so lovingly presented in National Treasure (something to the effect of 'when the government is corrupt, overthrow it'), is about the same as having "I AM A TERRORIST!" tatooed on your forehead. How convenient.

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

1. Homosexuals can marry anywhere, provided it is to someone of the opposite sex. The only state which permits two people of the same sex to be married is Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my rights, it has to do with the law. If there is an amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution to include same-sex marriage, I honestly don't give a shit.

What I do think is a right of mine is to live in a country where the federal and state constitutions and laws are respected, and not just shrugged off by activist judges.

2. You have no inalienable right to enter private property and demand to breathe air sans-tobacco smoke. You only have a legal right in specific cities, counties, and states that prohibit smoking in specific locations. Although it may be of your opinion that such a right should be a natural right, it is not by any commonly accepted definition. A much more valid abstract argument than your right to breathe such air is the right to control one's private property.

3. Anti-fast food and similar campaigns are funded by various state and federal offices. Beyond that, so-called "public health" initiatives are much more common in liberal areas. The conservative ones have a "live and let live" attitude, while liberal ones have a "live how we tell you" attitude.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate Bush I would never vote him out of office because Dick is next in line. As bad as Bush is I think President Dick would be even worse!

Re:There's your answer:

[jkauzlar]

Well, then by your logic, Bush must be guilty of something. If he has nothing to hide, why not let the investigation proceed?

And again, you, like every other dimwitted Bush-supporter, completely miss the point: Bush is doing the spying without congressional or judicial oversight. That means, if he wanted to, he could spy on political enemies. Tell me, what's the difference between democracy and totalitarianism? Is it a choice in our leadership? We're not going to have that if incumbant parties have that kind of control over the system. Don't say its a far-fetched scenario; Nixon was caught doing the exact same thing, without the advantage of having an intelligence agency doing the dirty work for him.

Re:There's your answer:

[jafac]

So, technically, the only way this is going to get started is if my congressman wants to discipline the president.

King John didn't take good care of his Barons. He kidnapped their families, over taxed them, took their land, etc.

So the Barons got together and came up with the Magna Carta - which is the direct forerunner of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

King George learned from this lesson. If you take good care of your Barons (Senators and rich supporters), you don't need to pay attention to the Magna Carta (Constitution/Bill of Rights).

Re:There's your answer:

[danaris]

1. Homosexuals can marry anywhere, provided it is to someone of the opposite sex.

Well, that's a ludicrously disingenuous way to begin a rebuttal...

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my rights, it has to do with the law. [...] What I do think is a right of mine is to live in a country where the federal and state constitutions and laws are respected, and not just shrugged off by activist judges.

The former sounds just about right, as long as you're not gay (which I would assume you're not). I would say that it does have to do with both the law and the rights of homosexuals. The latter, on the other hand, I would say is something of a grey area, as you have to consider a) where the line between "loose-constructionist" and "activist" lies, and b) that if laws are found to violate basic human rights or relevant Constitutions, striking them down can't reasonably be considered "activist."

2. You have no inalienable right to enter private property and demand to breathe air sans-tobacco smoke.

While that is clearly true in the case of someone's home, I would contend that it's fuzzier when you look at spaces that are privately owned, but still very clearly "public spaces," such as stores, malls, and restaurants.

You only have a legal right in specific cities, counties, and states that prohibit smoking in specific locations. Although it may be of your opinion that such a right should be a natural right, it is not by any commonly accepted definition.

I would argue that it is precisely whether that is a natural right that is at the center of the debate around smoking bans. At the moment, it looks like those who believe it is such are winning. Personally, I look forward to a future where such laws are unnecessary because no one is dumb enough to want to destroy their health with such a destructive pastime...however, I also recognize that that's not likely to happen within any of our lifetimes.

3. Anti-fast food and similar campaigns are funded by various state and federal offices. Beyond that, so-called "public health" initiatives are much more common in liberal areas. The conservative ones have a "live and let live" attitude, while liberal ones have a "live how we tell you" attitude.

I will concede the stated facts for the sake of argument (like I said, my knowledge of such things is limited); however, I would say that the liberal attitude can also be seen as "live and let live," or perhaps, "live and help live:" such legislation is, I believe, generally aimed at preventing corporations from pushing things on consumers that they know to be unhealthy, simply for a little more profit, and at (as I said earlier) young people less able to make rational informed decisions. Beyond that, I will admit (as a liberal Democrat myself) to being somewhat ambivalent on, for instance, laws that require people old enough to know better to wear helmets when riding motorcycles.

As an aside, it strikes me as peculiar that while it is traditionally considered "conservative" to oppose such "public health" initiatives, it is also traditionally considered "liberal" to oppose hard-line stances on recreational drug use, which I see as being a very closely related issue.

Dan Aris

Re:There's your answer:

[Mr2001]

I find it freaking histarical that the Democrats are so keen on disarming the populace

I find it hysterical that you'd write such a thing. Democrats control the legislature and the governorship in my state, and they have for a while, but guns are still legal. DNC chairman Howard Dean is pro-gun. I see no evidence that "disarming the populace" is a goal of Democrats.

Re:There's your answer:

[mpa000]

I just don't see where any of us (in the USofA) are any less free than we were in 1999 before President Bush took office. In fact, it seems to me that we're:

a lot more free to spend our money the way we want (tax breaks worked and the economy is still chugging along nicely despite wars, etc),

a lot more free to express dissent (despite many people complaining that they are afraid of harassment, repercussions, etc, there are no documented cases of such behaviour and TONS of dissent everywhere I look.) As a matter of fact, I've seen much more harassment of "conservatives" than I have of "liberals" in the past 10 years or so.

a lot more free to live up to our God-given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (note that it's "Pursuit" that's guaranteed, not the acquisition.

Btw, the link to the Partisanship study is intriguing and plays against your point. Note the emotion shown in your describing the President as "little old Bush". The emotional content of your own partisanship seems to be playing a hand here....

I'd really like a list of the things that you say that they've done to make you less free. Most of the things that I can think of that limit freedoms have their source long before Bush took office. .mpa

Re:There's your answer:

[Darby]

I couldn't disagree more. Power corrupts completely, and the left elite fancy themselves as much as the right elite. Classes will always exist, and the rich will always get richer. While the left trys to portray itself as Robinhood in a social sense, new taxes that "benefit the poor" rarely tax the top of the tax bracket in any fashion.

Well, in practice it always seems to work out that way. Just look at the USSR and the special stores for the party elite etc.

That was a leftist country though. The Democrats in America are somewhat moderate right wing whereas the Republicans are extremist right wing, so talking about the "left" in discussing America is just silly.

Re:There's your answer:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The government is too damn big and full of know-nothings to be able to handle information correctly, especially large amounts of information. Just look at katrina, iraq, social security, global warming and countless other things they continually fuck up because they mishandle or misunderstand the simplest data sets and concepts.

It's even worse than that. From personal experience, I can tell you that the current culture in the government does not encourage strong decision makers, because if you make the decision and something messes up, you take the fall for it. Everyone goes so far out of their way to make sure THEY can't be blamed for something, that everyone essentially does the least amount of work possible so they stay under the radar, which essentially results in little ever getting done in a timely manner.

And these are the people we trust with our data, our lives, our future.. no thanks. I'd rather keep their responsibilities small and take charge of my own life, thanks. I think I can do it just a tad better than someone whose only interest is in making sure he can't be blamed if something goes wrong.

Re:There's your answer:

[Darby]

LOL. I'm the extremist...

Now point to where I called you that. Go on...I'm waiting.

Oh that's right. I didn't.

I characterised your one statement that only a "vindictive Democrat" would actually refuse to pardon Bush for his many crimes as extremist and partisan which it is.
That's a far different thing than calling you an extremist.

would never dismiss voting for an entire party out-of-hand, as an extremist might.

Well, just keep pretending that voting for the lesser of two evils will work out. How exactly is recognizing it as the mug's game it is extremist?

And I would never call Bush, who is just another in a long line of mediocre presidents, one of the worst traitors in our nations history - like an extremist might.

Your ability to ingore reality is truly amazing. Setting up torture camps all over the world, outting covert agents, making up crap and lying to the public to start a war.... Yeah, all just everyday things.
The implicit support you are giving for these actions are far more extremist than my simple recognition of the facts of our current world.

Re:There's your answer:

[RevWhite]

I'm going with Hitler, since he did corrupt the system from within and make himself dictator. Roosevelt did some things I don't agree with, but he doesn't overall fit as a misguided leader.

Re:There's your answer:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Whoops, soldiers are immune from prosecution in respect to following orders. You can't sue a soldier for killing your brother, because he was acting in the name of another authority.

You DO know, right, that the most common defense in the Nuremberg trials was "I was just following orders"?

And the vast majority of those tried for war crimes were still convicted - because "I was just following orders" is never a defense against following unethical, inhuman, or illegal orders. Sometimes a court will choose to not convict the soldier, because they'd rather go after the ones in charge, but make no mistake: that kind of defense, isn't one.

And the American military has standing rules that state explicitly that "just following orders" is no defense against following illegal orders.

Re:There's your answer:

[Fallingcow]

I think you have to grant the president some level of autonomy, after all, he heads the executive branch

"Executive" just means that it's the branch that executes the law. The use of the word "executive" is not meant to mean "most important", as it might in common speach when one identifies a business leader as being the "exectutive". This branch is an instrument of the law, and must at all times be held to the highest standards, and outside bodies must ensure that the executive branch always obeys the laws which it was created to enforce.

Hypocrisy in the execution and application of laws is a mark of tyranny.

I believe the USA *SHOULD* be held to higher standards, but like I said, this has become a spectacle.

Bush has made it a spectacle. "Free Speech Zones"? Holding U.S. citizens for months without trial or even charges, thus blantantly and deliberately denying them their rights under the U.S. Constitution? Ignoring rules regarding judicial oversight and permission for wiretaps involving U.S. citizens?

And that just scratches the surface.

Bush is scum. He is a criminal. He has abused his office in a disgusting and inexcusable manner and he has made a mockery of it. That this nation's government has become a spectacle is largely his fault--though more than a little of the blame falls on his predecessors and his fellow politicians, he is certainly the biggest problem right now.

Finding, reporting on, and fighting corruption and abuse of power are some of the chief duties of any lover of freedom.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

Right. War crimes is one thing. But if a fighter pilot drops a bomb on someones house, they don't get to sue the pilot for wrongful damage to their property.

Re:There's your answer:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

No, please do go on. I love stuff like this - abuse of language is one of the most effective means of thought control. Because I'm aware of it, I am mostly immune to it - but it's a constant battle and one in which I have no allies.

So it's nice at least to have some heavier ammo - for example, posts like yours.

Please go on! Or.. make a journal post or something and let me know.

Re:There's your answer:

[Coocha]

Now THAT seems not only reasonable, but probable. I had forgotten about the Diebold problem (since I was forced to use one in our gubernatorial election here in VA, maybe I'm in a state of denial).

Re:There's your answer:

[Fallingcow]

I would imagine that, should such a law actually exist, it would only apply to legal orders.

My understanding is that soldiers aren't bound to follow illegal orders, anyway.

Re:There's your answer:

[loraksus]

Well, there could be.
Of course, you'd need to have a president (and congress + senate) that would write and pass the legislation.
Interestingly enough, when I came to the USA, the first American history / civics class was based on what makes America great. The right of recall, the right to travel freely without showing "papers", the right to bear arms and the Bill of Rights were all mentioned - and to someone in high school who came from a country that didn't necessarily have all those rights (or the rights weren't specifically written down in the documents penned by the creators of my native country) - I was honestly quite shocked, amazed and there was a fair bit of admiration there too.
As of today, that has virtually all changed - and in some cases, outright reversed - under the leadership of different presidents who sat on opposite sides of the aisle.
In case you're wondering - the year I came was 1998.

Re:There's your answer:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

They usually don't believe me at first until I bombard them with things to check into.

My favorite reply when I try to get people to think about or talk about this stuff:

"I really don't care."

People actually say that. And I am one of the least threatening people you could ever talk to.

Sigh..

Re:There's your answer:

[slams]

And last but not least, since 9/11 "failure to find and catch Osama bin Laden".

Re:There's your answer:

[bill_mcgonigle]

I wish I had the funds to post that on billboards across the country in the weeks leading up to an election.

Then you'd get lots of people at the polls who wouldn't be bothered to do it if not 'nagged' by a billboard.

Re:There's your answer:

[BigCheese]

Good man. Your bathroom is more dangerous then terrorists. Heck, we scrape more people off the US highways every few weeks.

Re:There's your answer:

[Namronorman]

I'm curious, if they knew they were being sought after, what would change?

Re:There's your answer:

[killjoe]

I don't think that inpeachment will be a big issue. They will start a war with Iran and Syria in plenty of time for the election. These guys are war pigs remember. Not only will a war win them the election it will also enable them to have longer lasting erections too.

Re:There's your answer:

[Gat0r30y]

How is that different than any other issue, with a 98% incumbancy rate, we no longer have a democratically elected congress. They seriously don't care about the people they serve, unless they happen to be lobbyists.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

The use of the word "executive" is not meant to mean "most important"

I know exactly what I am talking about, but it doesn't look like you know. Allow me to clarify for you. It is the branch with executive authority. It doesn't just execute the law, the president is authorized to do things that require immediate action (execution), like a declaration of war. In the past, when war was in the foreseeable future, the president has asked congress to give express authorization for war, but that isn't really necessary (just ties up loose ends, if you know what I mean). So you can see now the relation between executive authority and autonomy. If the president HAD to get authorization for war, or for foreign surveillance, other countries may take advantage of that. How easy do you think it would be for Iran to sponsor a mole in the senate armed services comittee to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct everything? I think it's silly to label any US president a tyrant. The constitution has *very* effective safeguards in place. Mere public opinion would be sufficient reason to give him the boot, as was the case in California before the governator came into office. I don't think we have to worry about a tyrant administration getting out of control.

If you want to talk about the patriot act, you can't single out the president, since it was voted on by the legislature. He didn't even write it, did he? Wasn't it the attourney general?

Finding, reporting on, and fighting corruption and abuse of power are some of the chief duties of any lover of freedom.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why we should bomb Iran's leadership ASAP, get the revolution started. These "abuses" you pick out about our own government PALE (!!!can't emphasize this enough!!!) in comparison to what's going on elsewhere in the world. I'm so proud to have a president who takes action and will put his career and legacy on the line for what he believes in. All you ever hear him talk about is freedom, and his actions speak much louder than his words.

Re:There's your answer:

[sumdumass]

But, but but... That goes completly contrary to the talking points we have been given. I asked our liberal overloards and they refused to comment. I tried to read about it on the interweb but my bushbashing club acount blocks access to anything remotly close to what your saying. Unless you count the Kerry quotes that he now acts like he never said.

Seriously, you hit the nail on the head. We have all these bush bashers who think he cannot do anything right. The seem to think for themselve only as far as it will allow them to step in line with the other bush bashers. This article is prejudiced from the start too. No one with any authority has rulled any of these programs illegal. The president claims they are legal and specificly states were he has power to inplement them. No rullings form anyone with authority has concluded otherwise yet we still hear the constant flaiming of it is all illegal. The acticle and bush bashers even go further to claim no oversight was present for these activities when there clearly is. But i guess the thruth doesn't keep step with bush bashing mentality so it is irelevent.

I'm wondering how long before these comments or any of the comments bringing truth or reason to the discusion will be marked troll, flaim or just overrated in an attempt to hide them.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

You know, another thing I want to say is John Bolton is doing a fantastic job, and looking back on the crap Democrats in the senate were giving him ("he's too mean!", and his performance recently in the UN, in hindsight I think it's safe to say they were completely wrong. He is exactly what that shitty organization needs, those are the sort of qualities I think GW can see in people, his entire administration is full of firebrands like that. I love it.

Re:There's your answer:

[lynx_user_abroad]

And don't even get me started on what "Family Values" and "Personal Responsibility" relly mean.

Family Values:

"My family is important to me. Maybe not the most important thing in the world, but it's still very important to me. By family I mean my grandparents, parents, brothers and sisters, my wife, my kids, and (if they had any) their children, etc. And by important I mean at the very least more important than spending time with my buddies drinking, or my golf swing. I make sure my family is well fed, well educated, safe, and happy, because those things are important to them, so they're important to me."

"Your family, on the other hand, is not important to me, at least not as important to me as my own family is. Your family is your own Personal Responsibility (see below) just like my family is mine. I'm not too worried if the school your kid goes to crumbles, so long as I can get my voucher to send my kid to a good school. And if that means he gets a better shot at college (Affirmative action? Come on...) then that's just the way things go, because we do live in a meritocracy and it's all just good and right that the kids who are successful get into the best colleges. We don't want to go wasting our tax dollars putting slackers through college, now do we?"

Personal Responsibility: "I'm not a slacker. I get up and work every day. I pay my bills. And quite frankly I'm offended at anyone who thinks that this world somehow owes them a living. It's simple common sense that other people should share the same responsibility for their own lives that I assume for mine."

"If you aren't making enough to pay your bills, get a better job. If you aren't educated enough to get a better job, quit and go back to school. If you can't afford to quit, like because you're already not paying your bills, take classes on line. No broadband, eh? Well why the hell didn't your parents send you to a better school in the first place? That was their responsibility."

"Look, the Constitution (or some other famous document that you're not supposed to argue with, lest you be called unAmerican) says that all men are created equal. That means that we both had an equal shot to get into Harvard, own a football team, etc. It's a real shame that you weren't up to the challenge like the rest of us successful people, but you know where would this world be if we didn't allow the Free (not Libre') Market to sort out the misfits and the queers for us?"

Do you remember when Hillary Clinton was talking-up the "It take a village...to raise a Child" book and the Conservative Right countered with "No, it takes a Parent to raise a child." Very clear demonstration of this split. Many on the Conservative Right think that these things (education among them, but more generally everything from high speed internet access to quality health care) are things which individuals should be providing for themselves, rather than relying on some sort of government provided program paid for at taxpayer expense. It's an excellent example of the blindness the group seems to suffer. Not, I'll admit, as good an example as Bush recently gave us himself, at a press conference, on what he pointed out was an overcast day, where he couldn't imagine why anyone but a misfit (or queer) might be wearing sunglasses, and made a point as such to the legally blind reporter posing a question.

Or (to bring it back on topic) when he seems unable to understand why anyone who wasn't engaged in terrorism would possibly object to having his phone calling records tapped and in the posession of the President of the United States.

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

I will say this. I view politicians like I view christians. They all make alot of damned noise, and generally about stuff that either doesn't make sense or is otherwise pointless and usually its to rally a crowd near them. However, every so often there is a REAL one...a politician that is actually in it to do right...or a christian that actually understands the real point of the J man's teachings and has more faith than a bumpersticker. But...generally speaking...its the Democrat side of the house that is always so keen on anti gun laws. Not that most gun laws make alot of sense anyways, locks only keep honest people out as the saying goes. It is pretty rare for the Republican side of the house to be anti-gun. Now...again a big part of this involves winning votes from hordes of kneejerk uneducated voters, and not from doing anything that makes sense, without the votes...there is no gravy train.

And remember you are talking about Dean...who isn't exactly the normal Democrat...as he himself has explained, he is from a rural state that doesn't really have the same gun issues as elsewhere. Also, don't forget Kerry blasted Dean for not being totally anti-gun, and went on about how the NRA supporting him is totally evil, and oh think of the children! Dean is what I like to call...a person who can think...which is rare these days.

Re:There's your answer:

[Millenniumman]

How do you know the Diebold machines were corrupt? Can you back that up?

Re:There's your answer:

[SeaFox]

We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC.

See this is why I think we should just get out of the Middle East politically. They've been saying they want peace for what, 30 years, now? They obviously really aren't that serious about it. Why should we waste any more time, money, and energy trying to help them get together. Leave them to their own problems, and lets start addressing some of ours.

Re:There's your answer:

[LifeNLiberty]

I should really make this more comprehensive but I'm on vacation and can't be bothered. In short. The President can only obtain Emergency Powers for a limited amount of time to respond militarily to an imediate threat. While I cannot remember off the top of my head what period of time this is, it is not, as most of our laws are, ambiguous. Congress has to authorize any further actions, including a declaration of war (which has not happened since either World War 2 or the Korean war, Congress simply gave the president authority to execute Vietnam and other conflicts through other "enabling" acts, such as the one preceding the Iraq war.) Anyways, just because Bush puts his legacy on the line for what he believes it (in my opinion his "legacy" will be more infamy than anything else, but time will tell) doesn't mean he is right about anything. I am sure that Saddam Hussein firmly believes in his dictatorship and the 9/11 hijackers firmly believed in their cause as well. The fact is, an enemy of any liberty is an enemy of the United States, and George Bush has done more than any President in the history of this nation to destroy the freedoms essential to the ideals of this country.

Re:There's your answer:

[pokeyburro]

Richelieu was a hack that wouldn't last two days on a real Internet.

Let him put his "gotcha" up for public consumption, and a thousand more Armchairelieus would Huxley him into a puddle of goo with a mitre floating on top.

Re:There's your answer:

[LifeNLiberty]

Yknow, those pods from the Matrix sure do look comfy. I know it isn't steak, but if it tastes like steak, who cares? Think about your reaction to that movie before you dismiss the loss of your freedoms, if you were outraged at the loss of the human race, think of this as the start of the slippery slope.

Re:There's your answer:

[kimvette]

The worst part?

THe lowest ranks are the first to be held accountable if they obey illegal orders, and the first to get thrown in the brig if they refuse to obey illegal or unethical orders. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Even worse, they can get charged with treason or similar crimes if they choose to blow the whistle on such orders. Would you want to be in that situation? Would you or I make the correct moral and ethical decisions in such situations regardless of the consequences?

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched 1776 to celebrate Independence Day this year. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable piece of work.

It's even more remarkable if you read it. It sounds positively like what a liberal west-coast freak would write today to slam Bush.

Re:There's your answer:

[Fujisawa Sensei]

A bit late isn't it? Just shows how ignorant and stupid the so called Centralist Republicans really are.

On top of that a every person who ways they're a Centralist Republican and voted for the Right-Wing Nutjob like that, is a liar. They're just right wing nutjobs who lie about it.

Yes, I'm saying that every person who voted for Bush, (that is voted for the electoral college that voted for Bush), is a right wing nutjob.

Bush proved that he was extreeme right when he appointed Ashcroft Attorny General.

I really hope that they get a freak'n clue before the next election to not vote for Jeb and Condi next election; because that will be more of the same.

Re:There's your answer:

[inKubus]

The problem is that it's against the law in many STATES to forment revolution on the government.

Obviously you can challenge this in court by preemptively suing the government before you attempt the revolt. Might actually be effective, actually. This is probably something the ACLU or EFF would want to tackle. That's why I donate to them (ACLU, EFF, Impeach Bush).

Think about all the money you spend on Starbucks or Coke or organic vegtables or whatever it is you consume. I figure I spend $20 a week on starbucks. Surely I can afford $10/month to assure my personal freedoms. So I give $120 per year to each organization. I know there are plenty of other people on here (slashdot) who have also. If you haven't, just do it. It's fast, and don't be all paranoid about them having your credit card number... you can send cash ;)

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

File the paperwork yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_G eorge_W._Bush#Individual_citizens

Re:There's your answer:

[inKubus]

I like Bush a little bit sometimes, but I think he's in WAAAY over his head and has been since day one. He's not the first president to be a Jesus lover (they've all been protestants except maybe Kennedy), he's not the first president to misuse his powers for personal gain (Nixon); there's been many times in the past when presidents have enacted War and Emergency powers to increase the power of the executive branch. There's been plenty of coverups, media-driven mastrivoika, fake attacks on ships to start a war, secrecy, phone taps, etc. It's always been going on here.

I just don't want to know about it. I want to feel like the leader up there is doing some good. When the leader speaks, I want to hear some intelligent explaination for their actions. I do not want to hear some drunk frat boy failed businessman cum politician tell me that "I did it because I wanted to". I want to feel like the leader will stand up for what's right, even if he's surrounded by a bunch of people who own/owned and run/ran the top Energy, Military Contractor, Medical, Drug and other industrial companies that want to make a quick buck on a good war.

I don't want the leader to send my friends off to war for no reason. And when they die, I want an apology.

Bush, although a charming, Jesus-loving Nascar fan, has Failed. Like his father before him, his legacy will be a terrorist attack and another Vietnam. Oh, and a conservative supreme court, which might be a good thing. MIGHT. I can't wait to see the chicken hawks tossed out with the trash in `08 and maybe we have the opportunity to fix some things in our country:

Failing outdated electricity infrastructure
Network connectivity that gets blown away by KOREA
Snail-like space program
Big business controlling politics (not likely to change anytime soon, unless we vote LIB heh)
America's image in other countries (I have to travel as a canadian...)
Economic stability (by balancing the budget, since China isn't going to keep buying our debt forever, not with their real estate market skyrocketing)
Joining international treaties to reduce polution
Solving the oil problem with innovation, conversation and other peaceful means
Abandoning failed "wars" on "ideas" (Drugs, Fear, Poverty, etc.)

Hopefully someone will take the reins and get this country (and this world) on the right track for the 21st century, towards a better life for everyone in the world.

Re:There's your answer:

[inKubus]

Another way to put it is this: Democracy is not a spectator's sport. I wish I had the funds to post that on billboards across the country in the weeks leading up to an election.

Why not take an hour this weekend and put together a website with a proposal, donation button and some sticker prices. Put up some content and a YRO RSS feed, Post it to YRO next week, you'll probably get enough to put up a few billboards. Or a few thousand stickers.

Re:There's your answer:

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Considerig that his next candidate will be his bro Jeb, and Condi..

The next candidate will be even more right wing, because he knows that the idiots who call themselves moderate or centralist republicans will vote republican no matter how much they stink. Why give even a little to the left when they can just lie about it?

Re:There's your answer:

[Mr2001]

But...generally speaking...its the Democrat side of the house that is always so keen on anti gun laws.

Except they aren't "always so keen". It's true that when a restriction on guns is proposed, it's usually a Democrat proposing it - but that rarely happens, and most Democrats have no part in it.

And remember you are talking about Dean...who isn't exactly the normal Democrat...

He isn't typical of Democrats in Congress, but I believe he is typical of a large group of Democratic voters.

as he himself has explained, he is from a rural state that doesn't really have the same gun issues as elsewhere.

Indeed. So it seems you're aware that the Democrats who have proposed anti-gun laws are from places with "gun issues", that is, places where gun violence is a real concern for voters, where restrictions make a lot more sense than they would in rural areas where guns are more likely to be used for hunting or defense than crime.

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

I think the group of voters he represents aren't standard dems. Most Dems and Reps are large groups of kneejerk reactionary wingnuts (I think our current administration, and the corresponding 'Dem'onstrations should be proof enough). I wanted Dean vs McCain just to see an interesting election because both of them seem very middle of the road and very capable of thinking for themselves.

As far as the places with "gun issues" needing them, as per the standard Dem response. No...I think they don't have gun problems, they have people problems...and having a much higher population density than the rural areas that seem to behave much more sensibly...they have a much larger group of afformentioned kneejerk reactionary wingnuts. Tell me...what about gun control laws make sense? If you are going to use a gun to murder someone...do you really think you would give a rats ass on how you aquired said gun? There is an good chance you probably killed someone else in the aquisition of said gun. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make you more likely to commit a crime...its not like there is 'essense of crime' built into every gun that oozes into your blood through contact. So...you pretty much have the same number of criminals willing to use a gun to kill. Believing gun control laws work is like beleiving making the drinking age 21 stops people from drinking. It doesn't...it really only enhances the problem...because we rely on the law and fear of punishment to protect us, rather than sound education on said issues.

This isn't an attack on Dems or Reps...its an attack on stupid...and I view the VAST majority of both parties as largely stupid. So the handful that aren't (and they do exist, no doubt about it) really need to find a new name to separate themselves from their stupid brethren :)

Re:There's your answer:

[BlueLightning]

I'd really like a list of the things that you say that they've done to make you less free.

I'll bite...
  * The PATRIOT act
  * No-Fly lists
  * "Free Speech" Zones

Those are just three examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Re:There's your answer:

[inKubus]

We can't. Well, I mean, "we" can, but "we" as in the Royal Large Oil Producing Corporations We cannot. If you commute more than a mile to work, you can't either. Until we revamp the inner city (which has been happening), most of America will grind to a halt if a lot of oil stops flowing. Plus, if we're totally not involved, there's nothing stopping China or Russia or even the EU from stepping in and taking over.

The best thing we can do is pump all the oil out as fast as possible so when it's gone, no one cares about the middle east anymore. Other than the Suez canal. No one really cares about the regional bickering between two totally idiotic religions. No one fucking cares about the Jews and their holy land! No one fucking cares about the Islamics and their holy land.

Ok. Maybe Jews and Islamics do.

I do find some facts interesting: There are almost as many islamic people as christians (over 1.5 billion) whereas there are only about 15 MILLION Jews. Additionally, New York City is approximately 11.9% Jewish (the largest ethnic group there) and almost 7% of the GLOBAL Jewish population lives in New York City. I always try to remember that when I'm watching the news and asking myself "Why do we care about Israel again?" Now, before people start thinking of things the wrong way, I'm just clarifying. I personally, for the longest time, thought that Jewish people made up a large portion of the world population. I never was really much interested in religion, so I never looked at the statistics for the world population. I always assumed that there were a lot more Jewish people because they are always in movies, books, etc., and always in the news because of Israel, etc.

I feel sorry for them, because they lost so many of their own in the Holocaust. They do deserve a chance as a culture. Of course, most people try to do that in America, not over in some other country in an extremely hostile environment. It's just their teachings say that that's their land, so they have to go there or something. I'm glad I'm not a member of any religion that makes me go to the middle east! And the Arabs have plenty of other land to move to. Except of course that Israel/Palestine is like the California of the middle East, with beautiful beaches, palm and orange trees, etc. So everyone wants to live there....

If you look at the history of the region, you'll see that they were from around where Israel is today. Arabs and Jews and Christians lived together peacefully. Then they were driven out of the middle east by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rules. Then they wandered around Europe looking for someone to help them take it back. Then they found England (after WWI) and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was signed stating that Palestine was a "jewish natural home" and Britain was placed in charge of the area (the Palestine Mandate). In 1948 after the war, Britain moved out and Israel was born. According to the UN partition plan, it was pretty much equally divided between the Arabs and the Jews. The Arabs didn't want the state formed of course. But the plan was never implemented by the British government so it became a sort of king of the hill battle for the land. Which is still going on today. Maybe one day the UN will go back and reimplement the plan.

It's funny how history sets itself up for prophecy.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Look who the owners of big media are and you will know why. Anti-Israel position is political suicide.

Re:There's your answer:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

?What since 9/11/2001 has the United States of America done under President Bush's leadership to convince the Arab peoples that their culture is broken and that they need to do something about it in order to end this endless cycle of war and destruction so that they may prosper and live in peace?

That should be "next to nothing", not "nothing". There is a State Department "hearts and minds" campaign.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't been "all right" since Lincoln...

Eat shit. If the USA had the chance now to throw you backwards, welfare whoring Southern hicks out of the Union, you can bet your ass we would.

Re:There's your answer:

[sgt_doom]

Personally I could care less if the NSA wants to spy on everyone. Good luck with that. I have nothing to hide.

One finds oneself always responding to this trite, know-nothing statement of the ignorant. So let me put it as concisely and pithily as possible:

If no one decides to frame you, or try to embarrass you by mentioning what you viewed on the hotel (or your own home) pay-per-view, then the biggest thing you have to fear is ID theft: With all these commercial databases now contracted to the government [which makes up Total Information Awareness], there is far greater possibility of ID theft, and once stolen, far greater chance some criminal - WITH YOUR IDENTITY - will have a warrant put out on them. Lots of luck pal, I've been there - and it's one hell of a nightmare!!!

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wow what a wuss. In the past Americans have died for our beliefs. But you won't support a political party because (contrary to any actual evidence) you believe you may be spied upon and some "great unknown" may happen? Why don't you grow a pair and fight for your rights? Freedom is expensive my friend."

Nice one. You have single handedly lowered the slashdot readers collective IQ by 101 points!
Tool.

Re:There's your answer:

[ClamIAm]

The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".

The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.

"Right" and "Left", "Conservative" and "Liberal" do not define complete political philosophies. You can be a conservative without loving the wealthy elite. You can be a liberal without supporting invasive egalitarianism.

For a good example, look at a country like Norway. They have a pretty flat social hierarchy, and could be considered liberal or socialist. Yet they don't seem to be making everyone "equally poor".

Re:There's your answer:

[dbIII]

The USA has provided the weapons but have really have no say in how they are used - the war in Lebanon is going to make the US look bad no matter what happens. The statements that Hezbollah are using weapons from Syria and Iran will just backfire since it also highlights the huge military equipement contribution of the USA and just looks like hypocracy.

Re:There's your answer:

[AK Marc]

Republicans want to eliminate personal freedom by legislating previous societal norms.

If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do?

Where was same-sex marriage legal where it is now illegal? (and no, places where it was retroactively declared to never be legal, like California, don't count) And, even if there is some case I'm not thinking of, it certainly wasn't a "PREVIOUS societal norm." I think you missed the word "previous" in my comment. That is the difference between conservative and liberal. Conservatives want to prevent change or enact change to return to an earlier time. Liberals want to enact change for progress (not necessarily forward or backwards progress).

If the Constitution should be changed to *reflect* society, then fine. The notion that we can just interpret it however we want based on our own personal views is not.

Intrepret the Constitution? The Constitution does not ban gay marriage. The constitution guarantees rights. The Constitution requires that all states recognize contracts drawn up in other states. The Constitution is being re-written by the conservatives to pretend that a marriage in one state can be prevented in another because they don't like the fact that it was between two males. I don't see this as a federal issue at all, other than if gay marriage is legal in one state, people from all states can travel to that one and the Constitution and federal laws require that the contract be recognized by all other states. That's what the conservatives are fighting and why they want to ban gay marriage on a federal level.

Why do you think we have a 13th amendment?

To make slavery illegal. It guarantees that no state can make it legal to own slaves. That was a state issue before. For the federal government to take any power from the states or the people, it requires a Constitutional amendment.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a liberal vs. conservative political dynamic. Because the two parties have chosen sides means nothing in terms of political ideologies.

What side the parties took is irrelevant to whether it is a liberal or conservative issue. Banning gay marriage is a conservative issue. It is work towards preventing change. That is the very definition of conservative. Someone that is conservative is cautious or resistant to change. Someone that is liberal is risk-taking, progressive and embraces change. I'm not assigning a value to either. I'm stating the fact that resisting change in conservative. Don't blame me, blame Webster or the OED.

Re:There's your answer:

[sgt_doom]

While I would normally agree with you, if I believed the official conspiracy story on what transpired on 9/11/01. But, of course, I don't --- and since a basic criminal investigation never, I repeat, NEVER, took place --- on what do you base your SYMBOLIC ATTACKS supposition?????

Re:There's your answer:

[MightyYar]

Okay, only my "view" is extremist then - whatever.

Look, man, just be pragmatic. I'm all for voting third party. I DO realize that it's all a sham. But the fact is that if you are watching the TV the day of the election, and the exit polls don't even bother showing your candidate because, as usual, no one is voting for him - for God's sake, don't feel guilty by voting for the lesser of two evils when it's going to be a close election. That 3% that voted for Nader? They got Bush elected (not that Gore would have been any better, but still).

As for your assertion that he "made up crap" to go into Iraq - that is one interpretation. I think that history will show that he fell into the age old trap of selectively processing information and surrounding himself with similar people. I think he will prove to be incompetent, not malevolent.

Re:There's your answer:

[sgt_doom]

I thought Nixon was an excellent president..

Nixon an excellent president????? He was a crook --- nothing to debate about that, the facts, and his "problems" (please recall his petty tax crimes, etc.) leave nothing to dispute. The difference was that Nixon was a petty crook --- whereas this group in power are a gang of SUPER CRIMINALS, again, nothing to debate on that matter. If and when any of us are targeted, we all will be spied upon by the government and their lackeys. TIA is up, fully functional, and running, dude!

Re:There's your answer:

[Mr2001]

Tell me...what about gun control laws make sense? If you are going to use a gun to murder someone...do you really think you would give a rats ass on how you aquired said gun?

There is less gun violence in countries with tighter restrictions on gun ownership. Do you suppose that's just a coincidence?

Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make you more likely to commit a crime...its not like there is 'essense of crime' built into every gun that oozes into your blood through contact. So...you pretty much have the same number of criminals willing to use a gun to kill.

Except that fewer of them are able to obtain guns.

Look, as a libertarian Democrat, I'm on your side here. You should be able to own and use a gun as long as you aren't harming anyone with it, etc., but this argument is silly.

You might as well argue that locking your front door is pointless, because if someone really wants in, they can still break through the door with an axe or shatter a window. But locking the door increases the cost of getting inside. Some people who would otherwise just open your door and steal your TV will move on to another house instead; some will spend extra time breaking in, making it more likely that they'll be caught in the act. Similarly, gun restrictions increase the cost of using a gun for crime, and if properly implemented, they have very little cost for legitimate gun owners.

Re:There's your answer:

[Moofie]

It was mostly a "Make you go hmmm..." sort of question, I'm not actually trying to compare Hitler to Roosevelt. Roosevelt made decisions ranging from the "I don't agree with his philosophy" to "He deliberately drew a foul in the Pacific, and the only surprise was that the Japanese kicked the US in the balls rather than giving a sportsmanlike jab to, say, the Phillipines", but he was nowhere near the unvarnished evil of Herr Hitler.

But it is an interesting parallel. : )

Re:There's your answer:

[cluckshot]

I am replying because this is fair to note that just because the NAZI's did something doesn't mean it was wrong. That logic is entirely correct. The metric that the intent to collect data on everyone because you can trust noone and you must control them with information is 100% intended to be obvious. Eisenhower left office warning of the "Military Industrial Complex" and its real dangers. I could quote many other statemen as well.

Other posts noted the evils of Stalin. The final end of this process will be, no matter how well intentioned, exactly what the NAZI's and Stalin did to even higher efficiency. This data will form into the hands of those who use it to manipulate and control. This will not be accidental either. I have read the RFP's. I looked at bidding on them and my morals would have nothing to do with the projects because they obviously were evil from the start.

The most basic statement I can make to those who defend such awful programs is this: On 911 my freedom and my prosperity were not the problem, they were then and remain to this day, the solution! There was not nor ever was any probable cause to suspect me or my countrymen in the USA of such awful stuff. There was then and is now an increasing probable cause to suspect the policing powers of deliberately failing to do their job and failing to answer to the just and proper complaints of the citizens. Every day our police powers become more and more invasive and every day our government further refuses to enforce long constituted laws. These to be blunt are cause for war by the citizens against the US Government. I am no advocate of war. However; I note that the very charges in the US Declaration of Independence as cause for independence and for war to defend it are operative here. Read it for your self if you doubt me.

As to be being non-partizan here. Even the Republican Leadership in the congress is seeing this and is starting to speak out on this. For the Bushies to think this is partizan is for them to be their own party and not Republicans. A Republican is by definition of the term, one who supports the Constitutional Federal Republic of the United States of America. To support this program places one squarely as an enemy of the Constitution a document that one should not forget that the President of the United States is sworn to Preserve, Protect and Defend. No person who supports the search of the person documents and effects of another person without probable cause can be in support of the US Constitution. This is definitional. Even the Democrats generally are not that far out.

The danger to the people around the entire world of this program consists of a genuine threat to their safety and security and it threatens to make the USA once the beacon of freedom and liberty into the disdained and hated form of threat to the safety and freedom of the human race. I for one am not ready for my country to lead the world down the path to a new dark age. Thomas Jefferson (3rd US President and author of the Declaration of Independence) wrote that if the American people ever forgot their dedication to personal liberty and their caring for their fellow man, they would build a new Roman Empire worse than the first. It is under construction by those who might think that defending President Bush is decent to the expense of freedom. No this is not partizan. It is AMERICAN to oppose such anti-constitutional thinking!

I am not opposed to the War in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I am opposed to the wasteful, ineffective, destructive and counterproductive way in which they are being waged. I am not opposed to bringing force to bear on those genuinely awful persons who seek to hurt the USA. I support such actions that have any real prospect of defending and securing peace for my country. I am opposed to the destruction of freedom and liberty while claiming to be defending it.

Re:There's your answer:

[geminidomino]

You do realize that also falls under the "sacrificing liberty for security," right?

Re:There's your answer:

[geminidomino]

(Never trust a government further than you can overthrow it.)

That's .sig material right there.

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

America's image in other countries (I have to travel as a canadian...)

Stop that. Really, it's beginning to piss us (Canadians) off. You (Americans) have ruined your own image around the world, so now you ruin ours too.

You've made your bed; It's only fair that you sleep in it.

Re:There's your answer:

[maraist]

So it is ok for the founding fathers to stop their government from abusing its power, but it is not all right for us?

Well, yes and no.. Of course any existing power-base is going to demonize revolution as an evil and misguided minority... The "revolutionaries" are necessarily to be sacrificed. If it wasn't sacrifice, then it wouldn't be worth "revolting" e.g. going to war over.

The trick is that you're not likely to have any sort of organization in any potential revolt, as the establishment is successful specifically because it can maintain it's current laws and order [of power structure]. Nothing wrong with that mind you.. Just that the founding fathers' presented sense of civic duty was not something that can easily be attained from the computer desk (modern version of the arm chair).

Re:There's your answer:

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

No kidding. I've never understood why so many people try to encourage random people they've never met to vote. People have way too much blind faith in the system...

Re:There's your answer:

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

No. Such a claim can't be supported or refuted. That's the entire problem with the Diebold voting machines!

Re:There's your answer:

[Ramtek]

I'm so sick of all the anti bush people who lack the capacity to think that pehaps he is doing the right thing. You sound just like the John Stewart press and CNN and are apparently unable to think for yourself and equally unable to present constructive solutions to the problems that would still exist if you had your way. Stop your Star Trek induced vision of what you think "freedom" is and look at things as they are. This country isn't perfect but it is the closest system humans have devised to perfect. The system doesn't work if your enemies can game it. As for wire taps I'm all for them. They were INTERNATIONAL wire taps. Cell phones change the game and you would think that slashdot readers would recognize that law enforcement has to keep up to keep people from getting blown up. It would be impossible to defend this country or enforce the law if the world was the way you think it should be. Law enforcement is acting to keep peace and safety. If they are not allowed to your mostly free society collapses and "intellectuals" like you will be the first to go when brute force once again rules (just like it does in most of the middle east).

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

I don't mean to sound like I'm really arguing...just debating a bit cuz its fun.

It's hard to point at other countries as an example because its not just the laws, its the culture and history affecting things too. You can point at Japan's gun control laws and say that those laws make the difference, just remember Japan is also frequently voted the most polite nation on the planet as well. Shooting you in the face is rather impolite, so it may not really be the gun laws so much as culture. Causation vs Correlation.

I believe in gun registration...because it does make tracking things a tad easier...from tracking stolen guns to solving violent crimes. Parts of it make me uneasy, but ultimately its one of those compromises...in return for me being allowed to own a gun, I have to tell you that I have one. No biggie.

Fewer of them are able to obtain guns is an argument that works for people who have never actually been exposed to that part of the world. Sounds nice and peachy and plausible in rooms full of people with white collared shirts and ties. In reality, on the street (and no, I didn't live on the streets as some hardcore thug or anything, just an average middle class kid hanging out with friends on the lower end of the income scale) its EASY to find guns...there is no shortage of guns...illegal guns...easy to aquire guns...and at a fraction of the cost you have to pay for in a gun store. Harder to obtain really is little more than a comfort to those who have never actually been around "low income" areas.

Re:There's your answer:

[Mr2001]

It's hard to point at other countries as an example because its not just the laws, its the culture and history affecting things too. You can point at Japan's gun control laws and say that those laws make the difference, just remember Japan is also frequently voted the most polite nation on the planet as well. Shooting you in the face is rather impolite, so it may not really be the gun laws so much as culture. Causation vs Correlation.

Well, there isn't necessarily less crime overall in these countries, just less gun crime. Look at France, which is often considered one of the rudest nations.

Fewer of them are able to obtain guns is an argument that works for people who have never actually been exposed to that part of the world. Sounds nice and peachy and plausible in rooms full of people with white collared shirts and ties. In reality, on the street (and no, I didn't live on the streets as some hardcore thug or anything, just an average middle class kid hanging out with friends on the lower end of the income scale) its EASY to find guns...there is no shortage of guns...illegal guns...

Which part of the world are you talking about?

easy to aquire guns...and at a fraction of the cost you have to pay for in a gun store. Harder to obtain really is little more than a comfort to those who have never actually been around "low income" areas.

I find it hard to believe they cost a fraction of what you'd pay in a store, unless there's a steady supply of stolen guns and that's what they're selling. Black markets are not known for their cheap goods.

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

I was in the midwest (one of those mostly rural states that usually has more sense)...so I imagine the situation is only worse in the high population density areas. Guns aren't cheap in a store...there is the overhead of background checks and all of that that has to be accounted for...and then there is always quality. Guns on the street don't exactly tend to be the highest of quality or maintained worth a damn...but really, not explode in your hand, and being able to kill something at 10ft away is easy to come by. But you are often dealing with stolen guns...which have serial numbers...which need to be moved frequently else tracked. If I sell you a $500 gun (retail) for $200 when I paid 0 I still come out way ahead. I also now have $200 cash instead of a hot item with a serial number likely to be trackable. You are looking to go shoot someone...or at least give the appearance you will shoot someone (gangs)...so we are back to if you are going to use a gun to commit a crime, do you really give a rats ass where the gun came from? Now...automatic weapons...not exactly easy to come by...handguns and rifles...dirt cheap.

Coarse as previously stated..."right to bear arms" has little to do with being able to protect yourself from your fellow citizens..."right to bear arms" is about being able to protect yourself from the government...making some dumb punk on the street wonder if you are going to shoot him in the face with a .45 if he tries to stick you up with a 9mm is just a nice benefit. Incidentally...another one of those glossed over things...with the exception of things like hollow points...you can get shot with various calibers below .45 and have a pretty high chance of survival (albiet in much pain for a while). Its the critical organs that you have to worry about...and the human body has alot of random squishy stuff that can survive (again painfully, and not without consequence) quite a bit of damage. Couple that with that sideways aiming nonsense that is so popular, and other various 'thug' things that look intimidating but are utterly counterproductive and lethality goes farther down. I saw statistics (they lie i know) somewhere that said if you are more than 25-30ft away you are safer running from the thug with a gun than sticking around because the odds of him being able to hit you (a moving target) with his training/methods (piss poor) are lower than the odds of him getting close and hurting you.

Re:There's your answer:

[Mr2001]

I was in the midwest (one of those mostly rural states that usually has more sense)

Oh. I don't know why you brought that up as an example of how gun laws don't work, because in the midwest, guns are legal. Of course they're easy to get. My point remains that in parts of the world where gun ownership is severely restricted, guns are harder to get.

But you are often dealing with stolen guns...which have serial numbers...which need to be moved frequently else tracked. If I sell you a $500 gun (retail) for $200 when I paid 0 I still come out way ahead. I also now have $200 cash instead of a hot item with a serial number likely to be trackable

But the only reason those stolen guns are so easy to come by is that there are plenty of legally purchased guns to steal.

Now...automatic weapons...not exactly easy to come by...handguns and rifles...dirt cheap.

Exactly. You realize which ones are legal to own and which are outlawed, right?

Coarse as previously stated..."right to bear arms" has little to do with being able to protect yourself from your fellow citizens..."right to bear arms" is about being able to protect yourself from the government

Unfortunately, guns don't serve that purpose anymore. You aren't going to be able to fight The Man off with a few handguns and rifles when The Man is armed with artillery, helicopters, machine guns, grenades, bombs, the freedom fryer, etc. Your private arsenal isn't going to protect you from the government. The only thing that will protect you is soldiers' unwillingness to kill their own countrymen.

Re:There's your answer:

[Exatron]

I still think that the hubbub over Janet Jackson's breast was that they only got to see one.

Re:There's your answer:

[db32]

One of my friends was offered hand grenades...by 'not so easy' I mean not obtainable inside of a day or two. Probably still pretty easy to find within a week. My point is there are vast cultural differences and histories between us and the places that have gun laws. You can't just point at them as examples and say that its simply the gun laws. Our nation was formed by militia and such...that sort of pattern has been ingrained into us for a long while. Making booze illegal made it hard to get...also made the mafia...certainly didn't do much to stop booze consumtion...just made it a tad more profitable.

As far as not serving their purpose...not quite true. "The Man" doesn't own the military. I have often wondered what would happen in civil war, or really what would happen if a state suddenly decided its NG units won't be going to Iraq. The National Guard is not a federally owned thing, its nothing more than a heavily armed state militias. Which is actually one of the problems facing congress right now, is how to treat the National Guard now that they are using them as federal troops. Really NG units wind up in Iraq basically the same way the drinking age was enforced...the federal government (who isn't supposed to have this kind of power over states) said if you DON'T do what we want...we won't give you the federal taxes you paid back to improve your state!

One last point...If guns didn't serve their purpose anymore because "The Man" is armed with artillery, helicopters, machine gunes, etc...uhm...you might want to check the news again...that whole Iraq thing we are in right now...these folks aren't exactly heavily armed. Or check the history channel...Vietnam...same story...and for the ultimate proof of the validity and superiority of guerilla warfare that the US can't figure out for some stupid reason...go back and look at the Revolutionary War. Bunch a ragtag folks with little more than rifles (in the beginning) ultimatly repelling one of the worlds laragest military forces on the planet at the time to create their own nation. Beats me why everyone seems to think the super giant mega techno force (as amazingly powerful as it is) cannot be defeated...it has...over and over and over throughout history.

dragonbyte at dragonspyre dot net. We can continue through email if ya want, may be easier :) Incidentally I hope you are having fun, I am. Screw congress and all their nonsense...THIS is what our nation was supposed to be. Common folk discussing the problems...without financial incentives...and without massive kneejerk campaigns, foot stomping, and stupid signs with various out of context quotes. (I love how the gay marriage bashing crowd uses quotes from Matthew talking about why divorce should not be allowed as proof of gay hate in the bible). If everyone agrees on something it is RARELY the right course of action...usually its because noone is really thinking things through. Real solutions to real problems take time to hammer out kinks and solve the problem right the first time without introducing new issues. :)

Re:There's your answer:

[Mr2001]

One last point...If guns didn't serve their purpose anymore because "The Man" is armed with artillery, helicopters, machine gunes, etc...uhm...you might want to check the news again...that whole Iraq thing we are in right now...these folks aren't exactly heavily armed.

They're fighting with improvised bombs and machine guns, not handguns and rifles.

Re:There's your answer:

[1lus10n]

Have you ever been to another country ? Perhaps you should actually travel to places and talk to people and turn off fucking fox news. This country was designed by the founding father with individual freedoms in mind. Not safety or security. Brute force only rules through ignorance, sort of like what your preaching.

Explain to me why the government needs unsupervised special privledges ? We knew a large portion of what was going on prior to 9/11, these laws would not have prevented 9/11. These laws remove the checks and balances of our government. Something that is essential to a free society.

Your willing to trust bush and his puppet masters because you believe in them. Imagine the shoe ends up on the other foot with these laws still in place. Imagine an athiest liberal in the white house, who instead of using his power to fight liberals, bash the media, and judges he bashed christians, conservatives and the bible.

Lets go a step farther into the muck. Please enlighten me as to why none of these programs have any oversight ? Never in the history of a free society has the executive branch of government been given this much power and survived. Every time it has happened (Rome being the most notable example) the society has become undemocratic and eventually fallen into a full blown dictatorship and collapsed. That sounds like what the terrorists want. If they really hate us for our freedom then why are we taking away our own freedoms ?

They hate us because for the better part of 50 years we have been interfering with their lives in one way or another. You talk of brute force controlling the middle east ? Guess who gave those people their guns ? Their training and education ? Guess who put most of them in power ? Thats right the good ole US government. How ? They had no supervision. They were fighting the "red machine" so nobody questioned anything they did. What was the result ? We defeated an enemy that turned out to be surprisingly weak, and in turn created an enemy that is surprisingly strong.

You cannot fight terror with terror, religious zealotry with more of the same. It will never work and until we realize that we are going to be hated by people who are different that us. I dont recall any neutral countries being attacked by terrorists.

Re:There's your answer:

[Ramtek]

>Have you ever been to another country ? Perhaps you should actually travel to places and talk to >people and turn off fucking fox news. Actually I have and but don't worry, I've grown quite accustomed to the know it all sophmoric attitudes of people like you. I've been 9 foreign countries In fact, I lived in one for two years in order to learn Spanish. Perhaps it is YOU that should travel because then you would see that even if you supposedly "lose" the freedom to make calls to international terrorists you are still more unrestricted than any place else. Who exactly is the "founding father" who "designed" this country. Last time I checked people elect representatives. We have division of labor so people can specialize. You have obvioulsy never dealt or spoke with a policeman or FBI agent (other than the ones apparently killed you cat when you were a child or more likely broke up your pot smoking drum circle). Their job is tough and would be impossible if we didn't grant them the benefit of the doubt in some cases. You trust them to carry a weapon but not to intercept phone calls from known terrorists? People like you are ignorant of the concept of the spirit of the law. You are the reason we need labels on children's costumes with useful information such as "cape does not enable wearer to fly". I'm sorry you can't stand the fact that Fox news exists (and no I don't watch television). Perhaps you would prefer Al Jazeera where they refer to suicide bombers as "martyers". "Another martyr died for Allah today" is quite different than "a suicide bomber killed himself and a bus full of school children". You have no idea what you are up against (I do, my family was Muslim). >Your willing to trust bush and his puppet masters because you believe in them. Imagine the shoe >ends up on the other foot with these laws still in place. Imagine an athiest liberal in the white >house, who instead of using his power to fight liberals, bash the media, and judges he bashed >christians, conservatives and the bible. This is why you are so out of touch. The shoe IS on the other foot. Ann Coulter is correct when she says the only religion in America is the religion of liberalism. I'm sorry, if 75% of reporters are liberals the press is biased. Before there was fox news 85% percent of the reporters were liberal. You seem to fear that others may think differently than you. There are just as many biased stories on CNN or in the New York Times as there are on fox news. You seem to be the TV type so try this, watch Glenn Beck AND John Stewart for a while. I'm much more likely to believe Bush because although you and other CLAIM he lied not even independent committies say that is the case. Clinton was easier. He lied under oath to my face (no need to determine what "is" is. What freedoms have been taken away from you? They are monitoring incoming phonecalls from known terrorists and terrorist collaborators. If they WEREN"T monitoring these phone calls I'd be worried. Once again, make friends with a policeman and ask him about his job. Most people aren't like you and human nature hasn't changed much since the time of Rome either. >They hate us because for the better part of 50 years we have been interfering with their lives in >one way or another. You talk of brute force controlling the middle east ? Guess who gave those >people their guns ? Their training and education ? Guess who put most of them in power ? Thats >right the good ole US government. How ? They had no supervision. They were fighting the "red >machine" so nobody questioned anything they did. What was the result ? We defeated an enemy that >turned out to be surprisingly weak, and in turn created an enemy that is surprisingly strong. Yes, interfering. We won't let them completely murder eachother as Muslims have been doing for years. I've seen textbooks from Palestine where they are teaching 8 year olds that Jews EAT palestinian children. Sure, you are right. Stay out of their way and everything will perfect. Except that this region had issu

Re:There's your answer:

[LinuxLuver]

Bush can't be voted out....He's in his second term and can't run again.

The people who voted for him certainly hate democracy, freedom and the united States of America. The man has done more harm to the republic and ignored the Constitution more than any previous president - ever.

His party is complicit in these crimes.....

Maybe one day America will be a real democracy......but not today and not soon. Not until they fix the situation that see more than 98% of House congressional incumbents re-elected each two years - many without an opponent - thanks to the gerrymandering of district boundaries.

Re:There's your answer:

[Lucractius]

thats all well and good but it doesnt invalidate the precedences and everything else set during his term... that may never be undone...

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

We have voted him out of office at least once and look where it has gotten us. It is time to make the necessary moves to institute democracy in the United States instead of relying on the current ineffective Republic. His actions have proven that the current system is ineffective in providing accurate representation for the American public.

Re:There's your answer:

[Ramtek]

I love how you call Bush supporters (1 in 2 people at the last election) dim witted but fail to even look into their arguments or views. Your views assume everyone on planet earth is nice like you. Sorry, it is a big ugly world like that and just because you are too deteched from things to see the threat doesn't mean they won't kill you when they get the chance. That is fine.It isn't your job to protect yourself, it is the government's. You are basically complaining about the government doing its job and protecting you. Credit card number? receipts? The IRS gets all of this stuff anyway. They are screening inbound calls from terrorists into this country. Use some common sense. Sure they COULD do more with the information. A policeman can shoot you in the chest with his gun and not file a report. Should we disarm the police because this MIGHT happen? You and the rest of the left seem quite paranoid and unable to recognize the differences that exist in human nature. You complain when the government is slow to act and complain when they are proactive. There is no pleasing you guys because you don't actually stand for anything but criticism and to continue an 8 year whine fest. Good luck with that.

Re:There's your answer:

[Riverman1]

You just don't understand those of us who see the world through the lens of war. Fake attacks on ships? What are you referring to there?

Vietnam was part of the cold war, and we won the cold war, for the good of mankind. You apparently don't realize how great an achievement that was.

Electricity is a regional issue. We're doing just fine over here in Utah.

Network connectivity is the least of my concerns. I have 6mbit comcast, and the hosts seem to be the limiting factor for me. I'm schedule to have fiber installed to my home in the next 2 years. (http://www.utopianet.org/) Again, a regional issue. Move if you're dissatisfied.

America is the forerunner in private space development. I have my gripes about NASA, but the opportunities for private development of space has always excited me.

Big business in politics bothers me to no end, but it's a deeply rooted problem, and there is no solution in sight. And don't tell me it's a problem with conservatives only, corporate kickbacks are the foundation of any presidential campaign. As far as I can tell, both sides are equally bad.

America's image in other countries? Who fucking cares. I think other countries are to blame for all of the problems in the middle east. They are politically impotent. You could do everything right and they'd still throw all the shit your way.

I have heard your concerns over increasing debt (of course I have). It's stupid. I have an MBA, I studied economics quite thoroughly, and you have to understand that in this country debt works FOR us. We win, either way. It's not like people, where you need to pay off your debt BEFORE you die, because this country isn't going to die. Investing in America is the best thing in the world, right now. That's what it means. The money comes here and it stays here, and if the dollar drops in value we will all go on living like we were, we may just buy more American goods at that point. The sad story here is that China dumps money into the US economy at the expense of their own people, who are starving and dieing of disease and pollution. There is only speculation on what would happen should the dollar crash, but look at things for what they are. That money is used to build up our great nation, it's non liquid.

As for pollution, I think those problems will solve themselves. It works agianst us to try to "stop pollution". It also works against us to accellerate technological solutions. You'll start to see companies like nanosolar solving our energy problems, long time coming but look, nothing but the free market to thank for it.

Oil problem is serious. The thing I hate the most in the world. Rising gas prices takes the biggest toll on the lowest class of Americans, and puts it into the pocket of the richest Arabs, who build super yachts with missile launchers on them. Back when American companies owned most of the oil production around the world, things were good, real good. Meanwhile, I heard a statistic, something like oil prices have outpaced oil consumption by 8 fold. They make more and more off the hardest working people in the world (working class Americans) and, coincidentally, most of the problems in the world center around them over there in the middle east. Same old story of corruption. I'd like to say the Iraq war WAS for oil, but I expect nothing will change. I'll be the first to build solar panels on my roof and drive battery powered car, once it's affordable.

Re:There's your answer:

[twkrimm]

Here is a book written about 50 years ago, so it is not a Bush bashing book.
I find some of the similarities to today's world to be a little scary.

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.h tml

"They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer

                                                But Then It Was Too Late

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it." ...

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

Re:There's your answer:

[bhirsch]

1. It is not ludicrous, as one of the biggest legal arguments favoring same-sex marriage is that the 14th amendment mandates it. Moreover, judges are not supposed to be ruling on what they want to see happen. They are not supposed to care who wins and loses. They are supposed to be dispassionate and make an unbiased ruling. Case in point being when the same Massachusetts SJC directly contradicted a law prohibiting voter-initiated ballot referendums aimed to reverse court decisions (vis-a-vis same-sex marriage). This happened again based on the Chief Justice's personal views, not law. This is no way to run the legal system in a civilized society, although Massachusetts only marginally qualifies as such. In a state as liberal as Massachusetts, gay marriage should certainly be able to get through the legislature.

2. I find it curious that if you go outside into the bays at the New York Port Authority's main bus terminal, amid dozens of buses with idling diesel engines, you will see "No Smoking" signs. Moreover, governments are forbidding smoking in public housing, parks, beaches, nursing homes, cigar bars, and nightclubs. The science to support such bans is circumspect at best, and at worst is an outright deception aimed at massive behavioral engineering. [Although I do not expect you to believe that last statement, I respectfully suggest that you read and scrutinize some of the studies that have been released in the past 12 or so years on the subject.]

3. A corporation lying about its product is committing fraud and ought to have civil and criminal litigation brought against it. Otherwise, leave them alone and allow them to satisfy demand. Frankly, I don't think a true conservative should take much of an issue with substance prohibition, but the flip-side is that the liberals who want substances permitted also want socialized medicine to treat substance-related problems, further contributing to cyclical state-dependence.

These notions I have about a live and let live attitude may seem prehistoric to you, but they are the philosophies that allowed the US to rise to the top of the world in terms of most quantifiable measures (mainly military and economic power). I firmly believe that this country's recent inability to holds its position in a variety of arenas is directly related to the furthered penetration of socialistic policies and attitudes amongst Americans. Naturally, the architects of this country's soft communism do not want to see is beat out anyone, especially in terms of military of economy.

Re:There's your answer:

[jkauzlar]

/me beats head against wall

I repeat-- "dimwitted."

1. I don't care what they know about me. I am nobody.
2. I care about our democracy.
3. The success of our constitution is in the balance of power
4. Executive Branch == all powerful == Totalitarian Government
5. Balance of Powers == Judicial Oversight over intelligence programs == Freedom/Democracy

Re:There's your answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Does being a giant pussy bother you?

Re:There's your answer:

[1lus10n]

First. Learn to format.

Founding fatherS. My bad, I was unaware that neo-cons couldnt spot a typo. Just as a reference the people who designed this country started with Thomas Paine who wrote "Common Sense" the pamphlet/booklet that Benjamin Franklin later cited as his inspiration for the declaration of independance and of course the men who attended the continetal congress.

I have never done drugs. I travel for a living and I have several law enforcement personale in my family (Father= Corrections officer, 1 cousin = City cop, 1 Cousin = FBI agent.) but nice try with that. I forgot ... anyone who doesnt support the bible thumping bullshit this administration is spouting must be a hippie anarchist. Riiiiight.

Benefit of the doubt ??? Are you fucking INSANE ???? That goes against the very principle of this country or any free society. You never give the people in power the benefit of the doubt or allow them to operate without some supervision and checks on that power. NEVER.

If they are only intercepting calls from known terrorists why are they fighting so hard to cover the program up ? The terrorists KNOW we are after them, we have fucking destroyed countries going after them for fucks sake. If they are so innocent they would have nothing to hide.

Clinton lied about sex. Bush has lied about war, violation of international treaties, violation of civil law, his awareness of illegalities taking place and many other things. The difference is that he has better lying bastards and more money on his side. Again if he has nothing to hide why has the justice department dropped so many cases that have been brought against the patriot act ? Why are they slapping the state secrets tag on the AT&T case ? Why are we refusing to allow US citizens to be questioned in international criminal courts ?

Yeah islam has issues. What religion doesnt ? More importantly ... why is it people like you think it is our responsibility to sacrifice ourselves to help people who are unwiling to help themselves ? Fuck them.

We are not the most tolerant country in the world. We just dont go to such extremes. Why ? Because people here have something to live for. When you have freedom you have a better life, you dont want to sacrifice it for some bullshit. You will notice that most places that are labeled as "hostile" towards other religions are also the places with no money, high unemployment and a growing non-native population. Wow, holland has had racial issues. There is a surprise, and make no mistake it is tied more to race than to religion. We never have that here. Hate crimes are non-existant in the US. How about you do some fucking research on the subject. Legally we are tolerant, because of the seperation of church and state and an isolationist nature that was constant for a long time, now we are starting to see an increase in religion, hate crimes and gov't openly acting against groups of US citizens for the first time in this countries history. Why ? Religion. Religious people of all ilk's are intolerant. PERIOD. over 2,000 years of history and there are no provable examples of large groups of religious people helping anyone with an ulterior motive.

I hate liberals. I hate neo-cons. I am a true conservative. I desire financial conservatism and a small government with the value being placed on individuals. Thats what the terrorists and all religious nuts fear. Thats what they really hate. Our individuality. Turn this country into a police state and not only did they win, but we no longer have anything to fight for. John Kerry would be president if he had one fucking original thought in his damned head. Bush won because neo-cons drove the issues. Gay marriage ? I GIVE A FUCK ???? Boys kissing really sends shivers down my fucking spine, makes me wake up at night in a cold sweat. Fuck the economy, the erosion of the middle class, increasing debt on both a national and personal level, personal rights or the erosion of civil lib

Re:There's your answer:

[Ramtek]

Uh, the balance of power is to prevent any one branch from running over the others. If you are so concerned about maintaining this supposed balance why aren't you instead complaining about judicial activism? It is far more rampant and destructive since the executive branch is at least elected by the people. You dodge the obvious point with generalities. They have not broken any laws by monitoring inbound calls from international terrorists. You put idealism ahead of common sense but fail to realize that the enemy hasn't bought into any of the pillars of society you take for granted (like civility or desire to stay alive or the ability to read). They will never play by the rules and the they can never be contained if law enforcement can't improvise. Stop running your DNC program for a minute and think. As long as people strap bombs to themselves for Allah some rules will need to be improvised if the goal is within the spirit of the law. You probably won't really understand until you or someone you know is affected. R

Re:There's your answer:

[Ramtek]

Oh, so you are rebelling against daddy. That makes more sense. "Neocon"? Yeah, nice try. Keep reading your DNC talking points and maybe you can convince yourself they make sense. Never done drugs? Yeah, neither did Clinton hippie. Bible thumping? Do you just make this up? All the sudden is is all "neocon" and "bible thumping". Go back to your drumming circle until you sober up. Benefit of the doubt? Not this doesn't go against ANY principle this country is founded on. Do you forget that policemen are fellow citizens. I'm sorry you find you can't trust your cousin or father or whatever but you trust a airline pilot in much the same way whenever you fly. Besides, who is fighting to cover up the progam? Bush said he did it and will continue to do it. Get your facts straight. Let's remember, Clinton lied about sex UNDER OATH (and was also accussed of rape by numerous women). Bush SUPPOSEDLY lied but neither the 911 commission or anyone else has indicted him despite being loaded with unfriendly. Nothing has stuck but not for lack of trying (just ask Dan Rather). Perhaps these tidbit has escaped your third eye. By the way, Bush isn't even that rich. Well, certainly not compared to Kerry the billionare who pays less than 5% in taxes because he sponges off municiple bonds yet will raise your (foolish). You make no sense. Your views about religion are also off base. Why are you so afraid of little old ladies going to church and volunteering at soup kitchens? Sounds like you are the one who is in need of research. Sadly you may seem smart to your little friends but are sophmoric and lack the ability to think clearly. Good luck with that and lay off that pot. -M PS I lived in Holland. They aren't racist, they just don't like cultures that make no attempt to integrate. Try visiting on your next pot run.

Comming soon to a theater near you..

[plasmacutter]

"Watergate II"..

twice the scandal, twice the criminal activity, twice the obstruction of justice..

*movie rated "R", all viewers must take delivery of dealer stock, offer void in utah, west virginia, and texas*

Re:Comming soon to a theater near you..

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add FLORIDA! Home of the dubious chads

Re:Comming soon to a theater near you..

[grub]

"Thousands of times the deaths"

Re:Comming soon to a theater near you..

[MrNougat]

I thought we already had that movie. Oh no wait, that was just the title.

Re:Comming soon to a theater near you..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Watergate II"..

No. In the current era, it's gotta be Watergate 2.0

Twice the buzz!

This is surprising why?

[WindBourne]

Of course, he is going to block it. Funny thing is, this investigation had no teeth to start off with. It basically said that we are going to do everything in our power to check every little corner if you will allow it.

Re:This is surprising why?

[3waygeek]

And why shouldn't he? After all, the President is always right.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

Its suprising because it goes against the idea of checks and balances. Not that Bush has any respect for the Constitution at all; he's more included to setup a Christian run state than anything else.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US. What I think you mean to imply is that he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians. For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Re:This is surprising why?

[rts008]

I think that the current moderator's are on crack , or sumthin'.
While I agree with you, I think you should have been modded "insightful", or "interesting". I don't see how any of this is "funny".
Am I missing something here?
Note: I honestly do see your point, but WTF is funny about this?

Re:This is surprising why?

[slightcrazed]

No - he would do so because his constituants (which you just confirmed are the majority of americans) want these things. We do live in a representative republic (not a democracy, as some think) and it is up to the president to do what he thinks is the will of the majority of americans. IF the majority is against gay marriage then I hoep the president follows this, because that is how our system of government is supposed to work. Would you prefer he followed the MINORITY? By the way, get your facts straight. He has not BANNED stem cell research, he has threatened to veto increased funding. President Bush is actually the first president to provide federal funding for stem cell research. Most stem cell research prior to that was funded by the private sector, especially during the Clinton years when NO federal funding was granted for stem cell research.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Enry]

For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Had to be repeated.

/Christian
//supports abortion rights, stem cell research, and gay marriage

Re:This is surprising why?

[cduffy]

The Constitution was originally structured with the Senate being elected by the state legislators, not the people. Why? To provide some smaller group able to check the "tyranny of the majority", where a majority of people take actions which are morally unsupportable or otherwise wrong.

If we wanted the majority to rule unchecked, for that matter, why bother with the electoral college? Why, for that matter, bother with Congress at all -- or the bill of rights? One could simply implement a direct democracy where legislation is decided on directly by popular vote, and this would permit the majority to bully and abuse minorities as much as they see fit.

The popular vote and "the will of the people" sometimes are in favor of morally corrupt, unrealistic or otherwise faulty proposals. Having some check on public opinion was a major part of the original design of the US Constitution, and is still important today.

Re:This is surprising why?

[tourvil]

I would bet that 60 years ago, a majority of Americans would have been against interracial marriage. Does that mean that the government in power should have pushed for an amendment banning it? (Maybe they did, I honestly don't know.) Of course today that would be an absurd proposition to most people, hopefully because they would see that it's discrimination and infringes on people's liberty. I wonder if our society will ever feel that way about gay marriage...

There's a difference between following the minority and protecting the minoritiy's rights.

Re:This is surprising why?

[pieterh]

To be very clear, "he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians" for the simple reason that each of these issues has been carefully selected to act as a wedge issue, dividing the population into polarised for-and-against camps that are incapable of compromise, because such a divided country is unable to get enough unity to act on the real issues.

It's quite remarkable how so many issues trumpted by the administration actually have nothing to do with Christian beliefs at all. Immigrant rights, for instance. It's a classic case of a situation that can be tolerated without too much discussion, but by forcing the discussion on the nation, the administration splits the American people into, what was it, FOUR? camps of opinion.

The US is not a Christian-run state. It is not a theocracy but a kleptocracy. It is a state run by gangsters. They are well-dressed, well-educated, well-connected, modern, slick, and very powerful gangsters, but they are gangsters nonetheless, and they use the instruments of the state for personal and collective profit just like any tin-pot dictator.

Congress will never impeach Bush because Congress was corrupted and castrated a long time ago. Gerrymandering has turned Congress into a cartel of power that removes competition and the need to deliver value to the citizen.

Re:This is surprising why?

[bumptehjambox]

Big part about not allowing gay marriage is there would be an istant boom of loads and loads of gay weddings for months, in celebration, creating an increase in demand for healthcare and other benefits given to married couples. These programs were not built with the projected hundreds of thousands of 'instant' gay marriages in mind, and its not a good time for us to be experimenting (pun intended!). PLENTY of non-Christians don't support gay marriage.

Now the whole abortion and stem-cell issue? yeah, thats just a load of Christian crap, there is no reason for either of them to be outlawed. The senate hearing about stem-cell research was absurd, a complete mockery of the system, grown men using children's drawings to get their cute little point across about how "life is precious and god and the bible." The speakers were blatantly patronizing anyone watching, using the 'its so simple I don't even have to bother trying' defense...it can just leave you feeling so hopeless for this country.

Its a shame those three issues are lumped together like they are, that surely won't help any single one of them.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop pissing JC off dude, didn't you know he hates fags?

Re:This is surprising why?

[zoney_ie]

If it is a Christian-run state, then how is it that the state acts in the most un-Christian of ways?

Most aspects of the way American society and economics work should be abhorrant to Christians. It is "survival of the fittest" and believing in a lie that anyone can make it to the top (in order to placate those at the bottom).

Re:This is surprising why?

[WindBourne]

Its suprising because it goes against the idea of checks and balances.

First off, this is a simple dog and pony show to help the republicans. The investigation was a joke. It was not designed to do anything. All this is designed to do, is make it look like congress is doing something so as to help incombents back into office.

This is one of the problems with having a single party in control of all three items; Senate, House, and Presidency. For a true check and balance, we need to have at least 2 parties in office. Sadly, both are working hard to keep out competition, while trying to take the sole ownership. If we want true check and balance then several things have to change.

1. We need to make sure of the vote. That means no black box voting. It needs to be open otherwise, you end up with loads of chicago-style or Texas-stye voting (both are infamous for their hijacking votes).
2. To prevent the blocking of alternative candidates and cut down on corruption, we need to limit all canidates to public support for election. Hefley's proposal is about the best that I have heard (and backed by most ehtical congressman; sadly damn few of them).
3. We need to encourage that there will be several open debates to obtain the public money. That means that if a commie of a fasicist was able to obtain enough support, that you have to debate them in several debates to obtain more money.

Until this happens, we will not have a true check and balance.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what a horrible country! Let us all protest and migrate to Mexico!

Re:This is surprising why?

[HaloZero]

Thank you for being open minded. I really appreciate that.

Have a blessed day.

Re:This is surprising why?

[kthejoker]

Constitutional Law 101: There is a major part of jurisprudence known as the "suspect classification." It drives most discrimination lawsuits in this country (including Loving v. Virginia (1967), which ruled statutes outlawing miscegenation were Unconstitutional.)

You aren't allowed to discriminate against people via the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law UNLESS you have a reasonable reason for doing so. So it's okay for a NASCAR team to not hire any blind drivers, and it's okay for a college to not admit you unless you made a certain score on the SAT. But if your classifications of people are "suspect", then you can get dinged by the 14th.

And while any class in a specific suit may be "suspect", there are the generally agreed-upon ones we in the government all know and love: race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, national origin, and family status. But sexual orientation is EXPLICITLY missing from this list, and is not viewed as a suspect classification. And the simple reason why is that the minority is, in fact, *too* minor. If our country was a good deal gayer in demography, we might get it on the list. But the fact is that the GLBT community accounts for at most 5% of the population, and probably less than that.

On top of that, most Americans in general are indifferent to people who are foreign-born. They aren't actively incensed that someone is Jamaican or Swedish or Vietnamese. But many Americans are hostile to the members of the GLBT community; this only exacerbates the "most minor minority" problem. And to make matters even worse, because homosexuals can hide their status (unlike their gender or race), many people feel they are somehow being forced to acknowledge something that doesn't need to be acknowledged (this is certainly how my parents feel about it. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not gay.))

Frankly (and unfortunately) homosexuality will always be a fringe cause, because its member set is so low. People can argue on principle all they want, but attempting to create gay rights through the American government is a poor strategy. The best thing that the GLBT community could do would be to live their private lives as openly, as humanely, and as unabashedly as possible. It is simply going to take a generation or two to get American society acclimated to the idea that gays are normal people, just like it took 100 years to accept that blacks were not some inferior species. I wish them the best of luck in all their endeavors, but the GLBT community does not seem to have a very worldly-wise view of the history of fringe causes.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

Because the cool thing about Christianity is that you can make ANYTHING fit in. Wiping out the Indians was at one time supported by Christians - after all, they we godless savages. Slavery was also well-supported by the bible, between the old testament laying out rules for it and Christ saying that you should treat your slaves fairly. We even put God garbage on our currency.

Anyway, my point is don't expect other Christians to agree with your notion of what is and isn't the Christian thing to do.

Oh, and a "state" can't act - only the people running it. I'd bet that most politicians are only superficially religious people. I don't think it's bad that they aren't religious, but it is bad that they pretend to be to make themselves more electable.

Re:This is surprising why?

[FellowConspirator]

I'm a Christian, and personally, I don't think Mr. Bush understands the term. I would agree that he desires to push a specific social agenda that's popular among a certain subset of individuals that refer to themselves as "christians", but it's a big stretch to say that Bush is pushing Christianity -- at least as it is understood by the Christian majority in the US.

Case in point: war, secrecy, cut-backs on social programs, increases in military spending, poor financial stewardship, partisanship, etc. I am not impressed that Bush is a meek peacemaker turning the other cheek and loving his neighbor, lifting up the sick, the weak, the hungry, and down-trodden, comforting the mourners, showing mercy, and not killing or bearing false witness. Color me nutty. I'm pretty sure he believes that he's got that thirsting for justice thing down pat, and no doubt he feels persecuted because of it -- but I'm not sure what he's thinking is truly in the spirit of the message, if you know what I mean.

I'm not qualified to call him a bad Christian because, as I understand it, none of us are. However, I do contend that Bush's agenda is a political one without any particular Christian influence. Bush himself even shies away from making that assertion (lest he break the second commandment, one might suppose).

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

/Christian //Against abortion "rights"

Does that make me closed minded, simply because I have the opposite opinion?

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US. What I think you mean to imply is that he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians. For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Yeah, that is why the 10 commandments and the word "God" is being banned from all public buildings and schools.

You know, I agree with you. I think we should not only perform stem cell research on human embryos, but fetuses, and unwanted newborns, and aldsheimer patients. We should also have mandatory abortions to keep the population growth down, as well as to weed out unwanted handicapped people. Mandatory euthanasia at the age of 60 would dramatically bring our health care costs down, and make universal healthcare very possible (how could that be bad?) I not only think that gay people should be able to get married, but also adults and little kids, and people and their favorite pets. In fact, heterosexual relationships are altogether too status quo and should be banned for being boring.

I'm being a jackass right now, I know. I don't really believe those things, and they sound absurd. But, the question I ask is this: who is to say there is anything wrong with what I just said? Who... the populus horde, the moral majority, the precious protected minority, the philosopher, the priest, the scholar, the elite, the rich, you?

Why do we have rights at all? Why not just have survival of the fittest? Is that far enough away from "oppressive christianity" for you?

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I agree with your values and am overjoyed every time I meet someone whose views aren't easily pigeonholed, I've still gotta ask, just to be the devil's advocate, mind you, have you read the Bible? It's very clearly against gay sex, almost as much so as it's against lobster.

Re:This is surprising why?

[jsebrech]

It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US.

Self-confessed christians. Since few of them seem to act by any set of morals which you could conceive to be in corcondance with what is now generally accepted as the teachings of christ. For example, you can't have record poverty, do nothing about it, and still claim to be a christian without looking a might silly.

Still, it's true that a person can not be elected to congress unless they publicly claim to be a christian (unless someone knows of a non-christian congressman), so, yeah, by any sensible metric america is a christian-run state.

Re:This is surprising why?

[xSauronx]

enough of society feels that way about gay marriage that they havent been able to pass an amendment banning it yet. though its a bit troubling that theres enough support for it that more and more state constitutions are banning it, and enough support to keep bringing it up in the senate to start with.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Ihlosi]

We should also have mandatory abortions to keep the population growth down, as well as to weed out unwanted handicapped people.

And what do abortions have to do with Christianity again ? The bible clearly states that a killing a fetus is not equivalent to killing a person - the punishment for its destruction is a fine (if anything), not death.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

Until Bush, we were well on our way to removing some purely Christian values from the law. Under Bush, we have some of the most strict FCC requirements, impedment to science, gay marriage ban amendments being thrown around. That is, we seem to now be stepping backwards, where before Bush we were moving forward.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

We do live in a representative republic

Exactly, and the reason is to protect minorities from the whims of the majority. The fact that a gay marriage ban is supported by a majority is SUPPOSED to be irrelevent.

I don't prefer he follow the mininority, I prefer he stop trying to take their rights from them.

Also, he banned any funding on fetal stem cell research which didn't use the existing lines; those lines have proven to be mostly useless now because of contamination, and he STILL refuses to allow funding.

His opening of funding for current lines is a token measure at best. Federal funding should be allowed on stem cells, period.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

Frankly (and unfortunately) homosexuality will always be a fringe cause

I don't believe this to be true; homosexuality was pretty common in ancient rome, for example.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

Big part about not allowing gay marriage is there would be an istant boom of loads and loads of gay weddings for months, in celebration, creating an increase in demand for healthcare and other benefits given to married couples. These programs were not built with the projected hundreds of thousands of 'instant' gay marriages in mind, and its not a good time for us to be experimenting (pun intended!).

This is the biggest load of shit I've ever read. Gays are a minority, their impact would be negligible. And FWIW, you DO have to pay for healthcare. Its not different that if there was a sudden upswing in heterosexual marrages. What difference does it really make if two people are insured under the same policy or seperate ones?

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite.
These people are evil and their religious philosophy is evil. No other theology advocates, or advances the concept convert or be enslaved and/or destroyed. I've studied them all to a certain degree and the Koran is the only book I couldn't finish.
Try reading it someday, from alpha to omega, it's a blood soaked religion.
You'll never see or be able to debate stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage in any country ruled by Muslims. You'll be stoned, beheaded, have your throat slit, or have gasoline poured on you and burned in the town square shortly after you bring the subject up.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

Supporting passage please?

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do abortions have to do with Christianity again ? The bible clearly states that a killing a fetus is not equivalent to killing a person - the punishment for its destruction is a fine (if anything), not death.

I'm afraid you are missing a citation (the bible is public domain if you are worried about copyright infringement... quote it in full if you like). Also, few things here: 1. 99.99% of the christian theological community just laughed their ass off at your assertion. 2. Even if their were a biblical reference to killing a fetus, which I doubt, the largest christian theological authority does not, and never has, interpreted it to giving a higher status to the born over the unborn.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Enry]

have you read the Bible?

Not terribly closely. Not recently anyway. I went to Catholic school for the first 8 years of my schooling, so I'd like to think I have a handle on the 'main bits'.

It's very clearly against gay sex, almost as much so as it's against lobster.

Old testament, for the most part. Jesus showed up and effectively said "you can drop those rules, now do this" (Luke 22:20). "This" (to me) didn't include the laws in Leviticus.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

And when we say "his" we mean Bush as well as _at_least_ 62,040,610 other Americans.

Re:This is surprising why?

[lbrandy]

Most aspects of the way American society and economics work should be abhorrant to Christians. It is "survival of the fittest" and believing in a lie that anyone can make it to the top (in order to placate those at the bottom).

What a pile of nonsense. Only on slashdot can such a gross misunderstanding of capitalism and Christianity be made "insightful". About the only thing your post belies about Christian history is the fact that it's based on gross ignorance.

Americans choose to give money privately, instead of publicly.. and are constantly attacked by the world at large for that practice. For some reason, money given philantropically only "counts" if it passes through a government's hands first. For instance, by most estimates, Americans give 3x as much foreign aid privately as they give publicly. No one reall seems to care, but it's much easier to just bash America. America is the boogeyman with which you get to blame all your problems on. This is just an idiotic hammer that simple people use to bash America. It's garbage, it's stupid, and it denigrates ALOT of people who give ALOT of time and money selflessly, without being forced to do it (Ahem, you might want to check what Jesus had to say about that).

Secondly, I made my life, myself. No one gave me shit. I paid my own way through school, twice. For you to imply that it's impossible to do.. what I did.. implies that someone gave me something and/or that I didn't earn it myself. That's offensive, wrong, and just plain garbage. You are right in the sense that not everyone can make it to the top (as in, at the same time... by defintion of the relative term "top"). But anyone can. The difference is some people sit back and play victim, blaming their problems on everyone else. Others go out and control the very same issues that the victims claim is uncontrollable. There is a huge difference between those that need help, and those "WOE IS ME" self-victims. I have endless sympathy for one, which I show with my time and money, and I have absolutely none for the other.

Re:This is surprising why?

[xSauronx]

could have left out "Until this happens" because i cant believe youre ever going to see it.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

I thought that the Declaration of Independence set down the principles to follow regarding issues like this: the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Dissecting the topics you bring up:

• The 10 commandments placed on public property can be argued to infringe on other's rights - and thus should be avoided. Even if you don't swallow that load, from a pragmatic point of view it is a bad idea to have a state-supported religion. Doing so only causes an ostracized minority, and the political strife that comes with that problem.
• Anything involving a fetus should center around when it becomes a person with natural rights. We could sit here and argue all day, so I won't bother. I think there is almost universal agreement, however, that people all have universal rights post-birth - so the newborns, Alzheimer patients, and other infirm members of society are safe from medical experiments.
• Mandatory anything involves robbing someone of their natural rights. Exceptions to this include forcing medical treatment on someone who has a contagious disease, because their right to refuse treatment is superseded by the danger that they pose to others.
• Two (or three!) gay people getting married shouldn't have any affect on others' rights, so there isn't really any objection other than it feels icky to some people. The age of consent is there to protect children (who are not fully emancipated and do not have full rights). People can not marry pets because it wouldn't make sense in legal terms - a dog has no rights, and no ability to share in health insurance or other employment benefits. A dog cannot inherit property or have an income. The fact that it is also a repulsive thought is secondary.
• Heterosexual relationships cannot be banned for "being boring" because the act of getting married has no negative effect on anyone else. But you're missing the point of marriage. It is a legal convenience - that it has grown more meaningful has very little to do with why we have it in the first place.

So, the answer to your question of who gets to say... I dunno, maybe the answer is the populous horde - as long as they abide by a framework laid down by a bunch of philosophers. The problem is, when it comes to religion, "Do what God says" is the same thing as "Do what I say". You can't give extra credence to someone's opinion just because it is claimed to be the will of God. I think that the most important thing is that people have a good education in the history of civilization. Almost every problem has been worked over multiple times in multiple cultures. All of our laws and societal rules derive from millenia of experience. When things change, it is good to be able to look back and see what others have done, and what the consequences were. Without this knowledge, the populous will do what they "feel", or worse, what some elite group with an agenda tells them to do.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Big part about not allowing gay marriage is there would be an istant boom of loads and loads of gay weddings for months, in celebration, creating an increase in demand for healthcare and other benefits given to married couples."

A lot of those "increase in demand for healthcare" people already have benefits on their own. At worst it would shift around subscribers. Most projections predict that it could save the insurance industry money in the long run. Because you consolidate cost controls for two individuals in to one plan. There would also be a decrease in consumer leverage power caused by the same effect.

This is a Red Herring argument. This is a classic example of how people are letting there emotions and morays influence their decisions. I have yet to see a solid argument against gay marriage the can stand up to an ounce of critical thinking. For the record I am a Christian. However, I reluctant to state that because of the rigid, unforgiving, holier than thou, Pharisees and Sadducees like behavior you see in a lot of folk that call themselves Christians.

The real question is could "gay marriage" really do any more damage to the institution then Elizabeth Taylor or Mickey Rooney.

Re:This is surprising why?

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

alright, I'll bite. being against abortion rights makes you more open minded to less freedom. therefore, you are closed minded. Though, do not make the mistake that you are closed minded because you have the opposite opinion. It is because your opinion is less open.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Kjella]

If we wanted the majority to rule unchecked, for that matter, why bother with the electoral college? Why, for that matter, bother with Congress at all -- or the bill of rights? One could simply implement a direct democracy where legislation is decided on directly by popular vote, and this would permit the majority to bully and abuse minorities as much as they see fit.

Oh, I can think of a few other reasons why direct democracy wasn't very practical in the 1700s. Plus there's some serious scaling issues if each individual should give an informed decision on every vote. In addition, you will have flash mobs that'll try to push some vote through even though they are a minority simply by being overrepresented. Also, some things aren't as simple as yes or no - for example budgets. If you ask a million peopel to set up the national budget, you get a million answers. Even if you want plain rule of the majority, you need a system to make it practicly possible.

The closest thing you have today is Switzerland, and I doubt you'll find much more bashing of minorities there than any other place (hint: politicans in election year). Even they only decide directly over laws, not budgets and such. And they definately have their legislative branch, full-time politicians and political partys along side. If anything, I get the impression that "sure-fire" incumbents (US) and EU politicians act less in the interest of the people they more detached and without accountability to the people they are.

I've often heard that the representative democracy prevents "tyranny of the majority" - but my impression is that it if a majority of the people wants to abuse a minority, that minority is already quite screwed. It has far more often been the tool of a tiny minority (e.g. rich and powerful corporations, powerful political families, religious factions (Prohibition?), racist factions (Nazis) and other interest groups to beat the majority into submission. Tell me true and honest - if 50%+ of the Germans wanted to "bully and abuse" jews (hint: they didn't), do you really think it would matter what form of goverment they had?

Re:This is surprising why?

[mrsbrisby]

It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US. What I think you mean to imply is that he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians. For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Then why doesn't he?

He controls the house, the senate, and the courts, why the fuck doesn't he just stop the faggots and the baby-murders if it's an affront to his values!?

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the answer to your question of who gets to say... I dunno, maybe the answer is the populous horde - as long as they abide by a framework laid down by a bunch of philosophers. The problem is, when it comes to religion, "Do what God says" is the same thing as "Do what I say". You can't give extra credence to someone's opinion just because it is claimed to be the will of God. I think that the most important thing is that people have a good education in the history of civilization. Almost every problem has been worked over multiple times in multiple cultures. All of our laws and societal rules derive from millenia of experience. When things change, it is good to be able to look back and see what others have done, and what the consequences were. Without this knowledge, the populous will do what they "feel", or worse, what some elite group with an agenda tells them to do.

I suggest that science is the new "God" of which we "Do what God says" for most americans. We walk a close moral edge because science (the scientific community) says it is in the public "interest". Some suggest that any controversy about the status of natural rights of the unborn stems from ignorance and religious close-mindedness. For me, it is personally an issue of crossing a line. For me, it seems that from conception on, the question of whether that being has natural rights is not for any of us to answer. It is a line that once you cross, you can conveniently categorize *any* human-being as not having those natural rights. My perspective, since I was a small child, is that the "common sense" answer is that unborn human-beings have the same rights as born human-beings. For others, their experience was the opposite. I don't think that science could ever come up with an argument that overrides this "common sense" intuition that I've always had about the matter(and I've been exposed to many many such arguments). Slapping labels on different stages of pre-natal development does little to convince people like me of the fundamental difference between that growing being and those walking and talking among us.

Also, the current legal or cultural situation is irrelevant, truly. All that is needed to change those things is a sustainable media campaign (years long) and any group of scientific "experts" stating new realities, and legal and cultural elements of our society fall right in line.

You are right, without proper knowledge (and I'm not talking about science) the populus will do whatever they "feel", or worse... If science is the end all and be all of our existence, then we should realize that our race is doomed. We appear to have evolved into thinking beings who unneccesarily protect the weak and defective of our species. We pass along undesirable traits en masse to the next generation, under some strange sets of thought patterns that override our natural survival instints.

The nazis convinced an entire nation that Jews had no natural rights. In the south even to this day, whole large populations believe that if your genetics create a person with large quanties of melanin in your epidermis, then you have no natural rights. I don't think there is any "bunch of philosophers" that the populus horde as a whole is willing to accept a "framework" from. There are still aboriginal tribes that kill each other as a matter of normal life, and they don't boast about grand notions of natural rights. Maybe their way of life is more "natural" than ours. Who is to say?

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

You are giving Bush too much credit. He is just a symptom of a much stronger movement to the right in America, almost entirely driven by population growth in areas that were already conservative. In New England, states are moving towards gay marriage, in the South they are banning it. Bush got elected from the South. California finances stem cell research with state dollars as the fed bans it's money from being used. "We" aren't slipping anywhere - we are just changing in demographics. Want things to change? Move to "enlightened" areas (to get the electoral vote count up) and have lots of kids :)

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

That is patently absurd. Studies show that approximately 1/3 of voters go straight Republican, 1/3 go straight Democrat, and the last 1/3 might actually think a little before they vote. Since most people polled say that they dislike both candidates and vote for the "lesser evil", I think foisting the values of the candidates on to the people that vote for them is a little presumptuous.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, that thought has occured to me.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

Re: abortion. As I said, we could do this all day. It comes down to a line. The Catholics draw it at sperm and egg. You draw it at conception. Some would draw it at implantation in the uterus. Me? I draw it at replacing contraceptives, but I'd have no problems aborting a fetus with Downs Syndrome. Even with my line, it's flexible when applied to other people, because I don't feel like I have a right to tell them where the line is. What can I say, just carry it to term and put the baby up for adoption? There are already too many babies in the adoption system, so unless I adopt a kid that would make me a hypocrite of sorts.

I'm afraid that the discussion has gotten too philosophical for me... I'm way too pragmatic, and am resigned to just working with the system we have :)

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

Presuming that you are being facetious with your terminology, he doesn't act because he can't; there is nowhere near the support necessary for these sorts of actions in congress. He's done as much as he can: banned stem cell funding, stock the Supreme Court with conservatives, spoken out on gay marriage. He does not, as you contend, control the other branches of government. If I was a conservative Christian (and I'm not), then I'd be pleased with what he's done, even if I were frustrated at the pace.

Re:This is surprising why?

[rsadelle]

I wonder if our society will ever feel that way about gay marriage...

All signs point to yes. Note the statistics in the article:

One particularly striking CBS News/New York Times poll, taken last year, asked respondents if they would favor or oppose "a law that would allow homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples." Among adults under age thirty, 61 per cent said they would favor such a law and 35 per cent said they would oppose it; among sixty-five-year-olds and up, 18 per cent were in favor and 73 per cent opposed. The numbers vary from poll to poll, but the huge age gap is always there.

Re:This is surprising why?

[mrsbrisby]

Presuming that you are being facetious with your terminology, he doesn't act because he can't; there is nowhere near the support necessary for these sorts of actions in congress. He's done as much as he can: banned stem cell funding, stock the Supreme Court with conservatives, spoken out on gay marriage. He does not, as you contend, control the other branches of government.

So wait a minute, you're telling me that the guy can kill a thousand americans, tens of thousands of foreigners, raise taxes, start a war, expose state secrets, wiretap americans, stop american wiretransfers, put people in jail for as long as he damn well feels like it, and cover up a nipple on a statue, but he can't make a few executive orders for his "value voters"?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not going to believe for a minute that throwing a writer in jail for something they didn't write about, is easier that throwing (what he calls) a murderer in jail.

If I was a conservative Christian (and I'm not), then I'd be pleased with what he's done, even if I were frustrated at the pace.

I think that's my point, that they are pleased with what he's done. I'm saying that its morally wrong for them to be pleased with what he's done, and that they shouldn't be pleased with what he's done.

There's a huge difference.

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

I wouldn't claim NE is any bastion of freedom. Remember the story about the NH police a few weeks ago?

I live in Vermont, and its amazing how intrustive some of the laws are (or, perhaps, I never heard of these things before, because I'm a first time homeowner).

But for something as simple as replacing my collapsing fence, I need a permit from the city, which gives my neighbors the RIGHT to stop me from doing so. Totally absurd.

At any rate, the national level has much more sway than the state level.

Re:This is surprising why?

[vought]

For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

Just go read The Rude Pundit regarding Bush's "Christian" values pitch at the NAACP convention yesterday. Yes, such Christian values the man has:

And then there were the usual absurd feints at religiosity, statements so self-evidently lies that somewhere up above, St. Peter gently held back Jesus's hair while he puked into the Ark of the Convenant (why not?). Said the President, "My faith tells me that we're all children of God, equally loved, equally cherished, equally entitled to the rights He grants us all." Somewhere, in a secret prison in Crazystan, Eastern Europe, a captured Afghani getting his nuts power-drilled by a CIA agent is awfully happy to hear that Bush's faith guides him in such a strong moral direction.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

: abortion. As I said, we could do this all day. It comes down to a line. The Catholics draw it at sperm and egg. You draw it at conception. Some would draw it at implantation in the uterus. Me? I draw it at replacing contraceptives, but I'd have no problems aborting a fetus with Downs Syndrome. Even with my line, it's flexible when applied to other people, because I don't feel like I have a right to tell them where the line is. What can I say, just carry it to term and put the baby up for adoption? There are already too many babies in the adoption system, so unless I adopt a kid that would make me a hypocrite of sorts. I'm afraid that the discussion has gotten too philosophical for me... I'm way too pragmatic, and am resigned to just working with the system we have :)

I know we could argue all day, but personally I feel it is important to argue about these things. It's cool if you wanna wuss out. :-) jk However, I do not think this, "lets agree to disagree" type of attitude that is so prevalent about abortion is cool. The reason this topic is so scary for people to debate is because it pits two supposed natural rights against each other. We make murder illegal because as a society we believe in the fundamental right to live. We make abortion legal because we also believe in freedom (particularly freedom to control our own bodies in this case.) What pisses me off about pro-choice advocates is they cheat, and try to redefine human-life, as it has always been known, to justify their actions, so the argument doesn't have to be about pitting two fundamental rights against each other. They cloud the philosophical issue with "science" (really just the chewbacca defense), particularly because they know the right to live trumps other personal freedoms.

By the way, Catholics object to contraception, but that's not that same thing as equating sperm and egg with human-being (ie. destorying sperm and eggs or doing scientific research on sperm and eggs is not immoral in the Catholic sense.) It is a separate issue than abortion. Abortion is murder straight up in their book, the killing of a human-being. Contraception (the sperm and egg you spoke of) is not murder, but immoral nevertheless, because they believe sex is only good (as in holy, not as in the big O) when it is between a man and woman within the natural course of marital life and when open to new life. So, the "line" is the same for Catholics, at conception. BTW, I *am* Catholic.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Uzuri]

Add the Letters of Paul to the "clearly against" list.

But I think he was somewhat crazy.*

*Raised Catholic, 13 years of parish schooling (K-12), and two semesters theology in College.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Ihlosi]

Exodus 21:22 Oh, and please look that up in a _real_ translation (King James is good), not in the horribly diluted politically correct modern translations.

Re:This is surprising why?

[symbolic]

Sounds vaguely like the Old Testament in the ...gasp... bible. And there are literalists who believe that it is meant to be followed. While I don't know nearly enough about the Koran to comment intelligently, where violence is concerned Christianity and Islam (based on your description), are close cousins. I'd venture to say that the only reason we can talk about the issues you mention has nothing to do with either religion, but the fact that there was a group of men who understood the disastrous consequences associated with laws based on religion.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Ihlosi]

I'm afraid you are missing a citation (the bible is public domain if you are worried about copyright infringement... quote it in full if you like).

Exodus 21:22

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

2. Even if their were a biblical reference to killing a fetus,

Well, the passage above is pretty clear, hm ?

Re:This is surprising why?

[plague3106]

I will, and I'll look it up in Jewish versions as well.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I thought you were saying that the new testament said something about killing a fetus. My mistake, you are still wrong.

Here's why: You are quoting from Jewish law, not Christian law. (both can be found substantially in some cases in scripture)

You might take note that Christians have never been forbidden to eat pork, don't sacrifice animals on alters, don't require ritual cleanings after womens menstrual cycles, changed the day of rest to Sunday instead of Saturday, and there are also a whole host of other requirements and prohibitions under Jewish law have never been observed under Christian law. The Jewish law has never generally been part, in any large way, of christian beliefs with the exception of those 10 commandments that came through Moses(from God) or the prophecies from God directly.

In fact, in some cases Christian law is more strict, for instance Jesus tells us that even though divorce is legal under the law of the jews, a man who divorces his wife and marries another is an adulterer, despite the hypocritical practice of some christian churches of remarrying divorced people. I'll cite it if you like. The fact that they recognized the woman as being "with child" is somewhat telling, even under Jewish law.

I don't need to tell you, because you are probably aware that there are countless apologists who have refuted this argument on more concrete biblical arguments than what I have presented (you need only google Exodus 21:22), however I don't feel the need to do so. You see, most Christians by percentage, including myself, don't believe in the principal of sola scriptura anyway, so there is no need to brow beat each other back and forth with scriptural citations, as the argument (particularly from the old testament) is utterly meaningless to most Christians.

So if your question was, what does this have to do with Judaism, you'd be correct. Christian's have always believed in the sanctity of human life from conception, and I'm more than happy to find ancient citations of this fact, you need only ask.

Re:This is surprising why?

[jafac]

Also - in the context of Paul's rant against gay sex;

It was really against pretty much all sexuality. Including sex sanctioned by marriage. Though he talked about it being okay, for people who weren't "strong enough" like him, to resist sexual urges. For those who can't resist their sexual urges, he encouraged marriage, and forgiveness.

In that context, and in that light - gay sex within marriage should also be acceptable.

Re:This is surprising why?

[w128jad]

Here are a whole bunch of quotes from prominent early christian (1st centuty on) http://www.byzantines.net/misc/ABORTION.HTM/

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is a Christian-run state, then how is it that the state acts in the most un-Christian of ways?

Take a look of at the history of church run states, and you can see states run by the church tend to no only be un-cristian, but sometimes unrelentingly evil.

For example, look at the spanish inquisition.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

"So wait a minute, you're telling me that the guy can kill a thousand americans, tens of thousands of foreigners, raise taxes, start a war,"

With the consent of congress, yes...

"expose state secrets, wiretap americans, stop american wiretransfers, put people in jail for as long as he damn well feels like it, "

Well, he's not quite getting away with all of these, now is he?

"and cover up a nipple on a statue,"

THAT he did by himself :)

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

But those are HEATHEN nuts.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

The only problem is that you'll never convince me that a fertilized egg is a baby. I'd frankly be more upset about the mistreatment of a dog then of a fertilized egg. Don't take that as a swipe. I honestly would feel worse witnessing the death of a dog then I would seeing someone take two extra birth control pills to use as a "morning after" abortion. That being said, you would have a very easy time convincing me that a 27-week fetus is a baby. Somewhere in there is my "line", and probably will never know where it is because it has no bearing on my life. I would not hesitate to abort a defective fetus - and no, I don't think that will lead down a path which selects eye color. The definition of defective is also fuzzy, but I'd like the right to make that decision.

Life is rarely black-and-white.

Thanks for the clarification on the sperm issue - though now I'm back to finding the Catholics to be puzzling again :) I'm not sure what they find so special about conception - I mean, that is also an arbitrary line, though one with a nifty name. I mean, there are a lot of important stages in fetal development. Why not choose the implantation on the uterine wall? Or the first division of the embryo? What is so special about the sperm entering the egg? Why is that "life", but not the sperm or the egg individually? I guess it could just be that conception is the very first moment that your DNA is complete, but again, this is just one step in the whole process. Half a you is not a you but half a you attached to half a you is a you :)

Re:This is surprising why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress will never impeach Bush because Congress was corrupted and castrated a long time ago. Gerrymandering has turned Congress into a cartel of power that removes competition and the need to deliver value to the citizen.

Thank you, you just brought a tear to my eye. So well said.

Re:This is surprising why?

[Alsee]

Excellent citation of the exact Constitutional issue involved. It's amazing how few people know or care what the actual legal issue is, and they just argue because they want to reach some particular conclusion one way or the other. However after that excellent and impressive legal citation, I am befuzzled how you then proceed to get the suspect class so very wrong.

You oddly say that the class involved is "sexual orientation". I dont think there is any text in any marriage law in any state anywhere that looks to sexual orientation in discriminating permitted vs denied marriage applications. The law routinely grants marriages to applicants of homosexual orientation. The state routinely grants marriages when a gay man and lesbian woman couple asks for a marriage. This is not a common class of marriages, but not exceptionally rare either. Sexual orientation is not the class targeted by the law at all.

No, the gay marriage issues falls dead under a primary suspect class. Marriage laws are written to examine gender when discriminating between legally permitted and legally prohibited marriage applications. The law directly targets the suspect gender class, and directly disciminates legal rights based upon that gender examination.

If I have an otherwise valid marriage application, and my sexual orientation suddenly changes, the law for granting or denying marriages does not look at and does not discriminate that difference. If I have an otherwise valid marriage application, and my skin color suddenly changes, the law for granting or denying marriages does not discriminate that difference. If I have an otherwise valid marriage application, and my gender suddenly changes, the law for granting or denying marriages does discriminate that difference and does grant or deny my legal rights to that marriage on that unconstitutional basis.

You can no more write a valid marriage law examinign and disciminating on the basis of the gender (or comparative genders) of applicants than you can write a valid marriage law disciminating on the basis of the color (or comparative colors) of applicants. You cannot write a valid marriage law saying people have to be the same color to marry, and you cannot write a marraige law saying people have to be opposite colors to marry.

There is no valid governmental purpose in regulating marriage rights on the basis of gender. The closest thing to a an argument there is to try and argue it in relation to raising children. And that falls apart in all sorts of ways. We grant marriages to couples involving post-menopausal wormen, and other otehrwise infertile couples. We grant marriages to couples who have no interest in having kids. We grant marriages involving a child and a single parent plus a new adoptive parent, and any argument involving benefit to that child in creating a two-parent family in such a case equally applies to a gay single parent with a biological child who then wants to get married and create a two-parent family.

At no point does gender analysis and discrimination by law raise any authentic aspect of government.

-

Re:This is surprising why?

[Alsee]

No - he would do so because his constituants (which you just confirmed are the majority of americans) want these things.

Excuse me? What planet are you living on?

The overwhelming majority of americans support both stem cell research and abortion rights.

The only one of the three cited topics where Bush isn't trying to impose his will against the majority is on gay marriage.

And this country is a constitutional democracy. When constitutional issues arise, no, majorities do not get to do anything they like simply because they get a 51% vote. A 51% majority vote cannot violate the minority's right to religious freedom, cannot simply vote to establish government favor and use the force of government to promote (or suppress) any particular religion. Nor can a 51% majority deny people equal protection and equal rights under the law, not on the basis of race, not on the basis of gender, not on the basis of religion. You can no more write a valid law discriminating between accepted/prohibited marriage applicants on the basis of their genders than you could write a valid marriage law discriminating between accepted/prohibited marriage applicants on the basis of their genders. The majority had passed laws prohibiting or even criminalizing interracial marriage in many states, and in fact 16 states had such laws as recently as 1967 when the Supreme Court stuck down such laws on the exact basis I just cited.

The fact that a majority wants to prohibit interracial marriages does not mean that there is any constitutionally valid way to write such a law.

The appaling fact is that Alamaba kept exactly this law on the books until 2000. And even in the year 2000, some fourty fucking percent of voters voted on a ballot to keep this unconstitutional abomination of a law on the books. I find it an embarrassment as an American that 40% of Alabama voters STILL vote to prohibit interracial marriage.

And now the issue has moved from racial discrimination in marriage law to gender discrimination in marriage law. And it is just as much a violation of the constitution for a law (majority vote or not) to try to to discriminate on the basis of genders of marriage applicants a tos discriminate on the basis race of marriage applicants.

And just as interracial marriage shifted from overwhelming majority opposition to overwheling majority support as an equal right, gay marriage is inevitably and unstoppably going the same way. The current opposition to gay marriage is currently 60-something percent, exactly as it once was for interracial marriage. However the generational breakdown on the issue shows that irrespective of constitutional issues, the public oppinion vite on the issue will unstoppably reverse. Amongst senior citizens, polling shows support for gay marriage at about 18%. Polling those under 30 shows support for gay marriage equal rights at 60-odd percent. It is a simply FACT that a single generation is going to turn the tide in gay marriage rights exactly the same way that a single generation turned the tide on interracial marriage rights. Discrimination inevitably dies when the generation of bigots dies and there's upcoming young adults who aren't scandalized by interracial couples and gay couples, an upcoming generation of young adults with a live and let live attitude, who say I'll marry who I want and I'm not going to prohibit you from marrying who you want.

So on two out of the three issues (stem cells abortions gay marriage), Bush is on the wrong side of the issue and is against the majority, and on the third side of the issue he's with the majority but he's on the wrong side of the Constitution and the wrong side of equal civil rights, and in a mere single generation he's on the wrong side of history. The teens and twenty-somthings and thirty-somethings of today will soon be the majority, embarrassed at Bush fighting the bad fight to preserve the last dying days of discrimination, lumping him in with those those who fought the bad fight to preserve the last dying days racial discrimination.

40% fucking percent in Alabama still vote to prohibit interracial marriage. Asshat bigots. They are an embarrassment to America. And Bush is the exact same embarrassment.

-

Re:This is surprising why?

[w128jad]

Thanks for the clarification on the sperm issue - though now I'm back to finding the Catholics to be puzzling again :) I'm not sure what they find so special about conception - I mean, that is also an arbitrary line, though one with a nifty name. I mean, there are a lot of important stages in fetal development. Why not choose the implantation on the uterine wall? Or the first division of the embryo? What is so special about the sperm entering the egg? Why is that "life", but not the sperm or the egg individually? I guess it could just be that conception is the very first moment that your DNA is complete, but again, this is just one step in the whole process. Half a you is not a you but half a you attached to half a you is a you :)

Sure thing, my pleasure. One of my favorite statements is "there are no absolutes". The irony inherrant in that statement isn't lost on me.

It isn't that "life" so to speak doesn't exist before conception, and I find that conception is absolutely not arbitrary. It is just that that life (sperm and egg cells) isn't a unique and whole human-being. The sperm and egg cells have but one purpose, and that is to join and become a new being. Their evolutionary purpose is clear, to all scientist, scholar, historian, and layman. To me, I don't understand the distinction that people make from conception on. Is a single cell fertilized egg particularly emotion invoking? No, I think not. I would tend to agree with you. Certainly a dog evokes more emotion.

I'm merely suggesting that morals are about more than feelings. I don't believe a 90 year old man with late-stage emphazema(sp?) is less important or human than a 10 year old boy. I also don't believe a severly mentally retarded woman is less human than someone without such a defect. In both cases, emotionally speaking, if one had to choose between one or the other in a life or death situation, you can guess who most people would choose.

But would it be immoral to choose the less "desirable" person? And yet, we as a society are indeed being programmed to think that the emotional impact of a death makes that death more grave. Vice versa, the lack of feeling for someone's death must mean that that gravity of their death is minimal.

Do people honestly think that a homicide detective gets emotionally involved in every murder investigation? Which murder do you think that detective is going to spend more attention to, the murder of a 8 year old girl, or the before mentioned 90 year old man on his death bed?

I think most people will agree that we humans can and do alter the "value" of human life based on circumstance. I think it is a flaw in our nature, if we are truly claiming to be beings guided by any sort of "morality" or natural law. Just some things to think about.

Re:This is surprising why?

[MightyYar]

I wholeheartedly agree that the sole evolutionary purpose of a sperm and an egg are to make a new human. I would, in fact, argue that is the sole evolutionary purpose of the entire human being. From an evolution standpoint, there is no other reason for us to be here other than to reproduce.

I wouldn't base any moral decisions off of how we've evolved, however. For instance, our testicle size is somewhere between a chimp (huge) and a gorilla (tiny) - that's right, testicle size is not just proportional to body size - it is also an indication of monogamy. Chimps have evolved to be overtly promiscuous, and gorillas - not being very social - are almost completely monogamous. Humans, then, have evolved to be more monogamous than chimps, yet less monogamous than gorillas. Nature has decided that male humans are better off selecting one "reliable" partner with which to raise kids, and then covertly sewing their seeds elsewhere to improve their genetic spread.

I don't know about you, but I have chosen to stay faithful to my wife, despite any biological urges I might have to the contrary. I'm certainly not planning on cheating on her, then explaining my behavior away as my evolutionary destiny.

As it pertains to abortion, I can use evolution to the advantage of the pro-choice crowd as well. For instance, the body naturally miscarriages most chromosomal abnormalities, such as Downs Syndrome. The fact that some Downs babies make it through this system is simply a failure of this mechanism. In medicine, we intervene all the time when our bodies fail. If we get an infection that our immune system fails to clear, we take antibiotics - we don't just throw up our hands and proclaim God's will. Similarly, if conjoined twins are discovered in utero, we sometimes have to make the difficult choice of which one to save when they share a vital organ. Is it better to allow both to die, or do we accept that sometimes it is better to intervene when nature fails? Nature, by eliminating most chromosomal abnormalities, has clearly decided that these are not desirable.

I think that while you have very good reasons for picking conception as your line, it doesn't work for me, and it still seems pretty arbitrary. It is not a "whole human", but a single fertilized egg. It is no more a whole human than a chicken egg is a whole chicken (yes, I know the one's at the store are typically not fertilized). It is a genetically complete human, I'll grant you that - but so is any piece of tissue from a grown human. I don't know why the fertilized egg is more deserving of protection then, say, a piece of live skin. Yes, the egg can grow into a full human someday, but the same argument can be made of an individual sperm or egg.

As to your issues with valuing one human over another - this is not new or distressing to me. We regularly hear the expression "women and children first", and I think that this is actually a noble thing. We regularly throw secret service around our VIPs, and I don't find a moral issue with this. In health care, we make decisions all the time about whether or not to do a potentially life-saving procedure on people based on their age, condition, or prognosis. I agree that this can lead down a slippery slope, but I don't think that it is realistic to try and treat all humans as though they are equally valuable in all cases. It is more of an ideal to strive for than a realistic goal. For instance, I'd hate for the 90-year-old to lose a court case to the 10-year-old because the jury thought that the 90-year-old wasn't worth as much, but I'd sure like to see the 10-year-old get a kidney first if they were both on the waiting list. I'd also not like to see decisions based on class or race, but I don't meet many people who still advocate that these days.

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head.

Re:1984

[heinousjay]

Come on, at least pretend you're clever. This isn't Orwellian, it's Nixonian.

Sheesh, the quality of Bush-bashing on Slashdot was never that high to begin with, but it's sinking to the level of calling him 'poopyhead' these days.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

True...but he IS a poopyhead!

too funny...the word is "redhead".

Article title: "Bush blocked surveillance probe"

[Davus]

Just aim the probe out of the garden, for God's sake!

Don't forget, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to revoke your rights in order to protect them. History will look back upon George W. Bush as the undoing of what it means to be American.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I'm sorry, but could you explain to me in what way George W. Bush has prevented the American public from remaining fat, ignorant and watching reality shows?

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because ignorant asshats like you don't care about their rights being eroded doesn't mean that the rest of us are okay with it.

Living in Florida, by any chance? Those hanging chads are a real nuiscance, aren't they?

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[gowen]

They can no longer afford enough gas to drive to McDonalds.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[jkrise]

in what way George W. Bush has prevented the American public from remaining fat, ignorant and watching reality shows?

Okay, let's see how we can prevent people being:
FAT: Impose exorbitant taxes on high fat, junk and non-wholesome food. Provide discounts to healthy foods.
IGNORANT: Levy 300% taxes on Microsoft software. Like the Firefox initiative, every individual who converts another to Free Software gets $100. You will find ignorance vanishing overnight.
WATCHING REALITY SHOWS: That's a tough one. I think a law should be introduced that permits reality shows only one day in a year... February 30th, for instance.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[lixee]

History will look back upon George W. Bush as the undoing of what it means to be American.

You mean he won't put the mighty buck at the center of everything anymore.
You may now activate the patriotic fiber and mod me down.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[baldass_newbie]

Well put. Tough to argue with that logic.
(And folks wonder why liberalism is dead.)

Perhaps we should go back to the Clinton model where Intelligence agencies and Law enforcement didn't share infomration, aka the Gorelick Wall, like it was pre-9/11.
I know I would feel safer with my rights protected like that.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[cgenman]

"Yeah. You know that whole Watergate hotel thing you guys are investigating? I'm going to have to ask you to stop. New policy, you know. You got that memo, right? Great. So if you could just not look into that, that'd be great." - Nixon

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[MightyYar]

What bearing does this Florida election have on this discussion? Bush wasn't even president then, and had absolutely no chance to erode any rights. Besides which, the election in Florida was a statistical tie. Readers on Slashdot should understand that no matter which way the "count" went, no matter how many times the ballots were hand counted, the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory. Why does it surprise people so much, then, that the election was ultimately decided through a political process?

Frankly, people that bring this up flag themselves as rabid Bush-haters - the same faction that is ruining the democratic party by forcing all of the moderates to the sidelines in the primaries and nominating a bunch of idiot "I hate Bush, too" parrots that are ultimately not very electable.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[jeremyp]

IGNORANT: Levy 300% taxes on Microsoft software. Like the Firefox initiative, every individual who converts another to Free Software gets $100. You will find ignorance vanishing overnight.

You have your cause and effect the wrong way around. People are not ignorant because they buy Microsoft software. They buy Microsoft software because they are ignorant.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[smooth wombat]

BTW, what 'rights' are being revoked?

The Fourth Amendment. Currently, under the rule of King George, law enforcement can invade your home at will and without a warrant.

Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?

We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.

I'm tempted to ask, "What are you saying on your calls anyway?" but that will set the slashbots off.

What I say on my calls are none of yours and the governments business. Especially if I make those calls in the privacy of my own house. Making such calls on a cell phone in public is another matter since everyone around you can hear your yammering.

Doesn't anyone work on corporate email systems?

That is a private entity who owns the equipment and the communication pathways. That is completely different than having a publicly financed telecommunication system where everyone and their grandmother are communicating.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel *so* much safer with an administration that fires one of the few arabic translators just because he happens to be gay.

Or already had the info for 9/11 but didn't have the the manpower to deal with it till after, yet wants more information.

Or spends anti-terrorism money on iPods.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dessert heat and paking around 55lbs in ammo and other killing gear will:

A) drop those extra pounds
B) get you away from the TV

and unless you get killed while over there, C) make you much less ignorant about WTF is going on

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[remembertomorrow]

Haha, Office Space for the win.

Need more pauses and "ahhh..."s though.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Dog-Cow]

"Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?"

The United States is not legally at war with anyone.

George Bush is in the middle of a personal war against the people of Afganistan and Iraq. In some respects, he's the most dangerous terrorist in the world because he has the US Army at his beck and call, and Iraq proves that he is not above fabricating evidence to start a skirmish that claims 50000+ civilian deaths.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[xSauronx]

funny, when i daydream its about hot women and ferraris and trips to europe...

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Laitment]

When someone says something bad about Bush, why does somebody always feel the need to point out that Clinton wasn't a good president? Seriously, are we only allowed a choice of two opinions? I dislike both parties, thank you very much.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Atzanteol]

BTW, what 'rights' are being revoked?

Noone knows. That's the point of an investigation and oversight to little projects like this. To ensure that none are. Now a politician tells me that he's doing something that could well be abused in many creative ways, and that it doesn't need oversight, well forgive me if I become very suspicious.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Damek]

Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?

We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.

I have a problem with this. While you are technically correct, I don't think it should matter. You're accepting the parent's argument that, sure, if we were in war, Americans should be expected to give up rights. Maybe you agree.

But I don't and I'm tired of seeing backtracking from this ridiculous assumption. No, Americans should not be expected to give up rights, even "little" rights like privacy, just because we're at war. In America's history, war has always been used as an excuse to remove a few rights here and there. The early 20th C sedition and espionage acts come to mind. Japanese internment comes to mind. These things should not be acceptable to real Americans. The fact that many Americans, probably a majority, accept the idea that their rights are temporarily granted to them by the state, and revokable in "times of war" shows just how far we've fallen.

As a proud liberal Democrat I say to everyone: your rights are yours, not the Government's, and you need to know them and defend them at all times.

War shouldn't happen. It's barbaric, uncivilized, and ideas of "wartime ethics" make it worse, not better. Whether we're actually at war or not, to use it as an excuse to abrogate your rights is fundamentally offensive and repugnant. It's bad enough that most Americans nowadays seem to be easily appeased with 24-hour cable news war porn. It's throwing salt on the wounds to accept the "revokable" view of our rights.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[pjrc]

I know I would feel safer with my rights protected like that.

What "rights"?

Security yes (or probably, to the extent data sharing is effective), but rights? At least for didn't say "freedom" (as many supports of expanded gov't power have done).

Certainly is could be argued that granting additional powers improves security, and safety. But rights? In an ideal situation,

The really amazing thing, at least to me, is the extent "conservatives" seem to be willing to trust the federal government and allow additional government powers.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance? I'm tempted to ask, "What are you saying on your calls anyway?" but that will set the slashbots off."

I hate this arguement. I may not have something to hide and personally I don't care if everyone listens in on my calls, but what about people that do. Not everyone that has something to hide from the government in power is a terrorist. What if I was running against a republican in the next election, and I was planning my campaign, speach, or next debate with someone on the phone. If my conversation was given to the republican I was running against I wouldn't have a chance.
What if Nixon had the power that Bush does, he wouldn't have stepped down and because he would have blocked any inquiry into his wrong doing.
Hitler was elected. If you trust the current administration not to abuse it's new powers, what about everyother future government?

Don't blame me, I voted for Krodos.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Gryle]

High gas prices = pretty good crowd control wouldn't you say?

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add, "Nation-, national security information.".

Link goes to one transcript. Here's a list of related material - the second set is more relevant but doesn't produce quotes as lovely as the above example.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[Enigma2175]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, dessert heat

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[hacker]

We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.

Correction, yes we are, and yes they have.

Re:Don't forget, kids...

[vought]

Perhaps we should go back to the Clinton model where Intelligence agencies and Law enforcement didn't share infomration, aka the Gorelick Wall [google.com], like it was pre-9/11.

Oh god, you're right. Everything is the fault of Clinton and his cock. Gutting the CIA, putting in people like Dusty Foggo and letting morons like Doug Feith do the "not planning" for Iraq. All far preferable to a well-intentioned move by one of the people in Clinton's justice department. Yeah.

Remember - we're talking about C+ Augustus George W. Bush here - the man who, almost five years ago sat on his ranch and dismissed out of hand a briefing that clearly stated: "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack the U.S.". A man who still hasn't caught a 6 foot-7 maniac with a kidney problem. How fucking hard could it be to find a giant dragging a fucking dialysis machine around the desert?

For fuck's sake - you wingnuts are all the same - criticize the sainted Bush, and every retort start with :"Yeah, but Clinton...."

There goes Democracy...

[Betabug]

And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions. Americans should say "thanks for the good times, farewell". With a bit of goodwill, you will still see these things in history books for a few years.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Peyna]

And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions. Americans should say "thanks for the good times, farewell". With a bit of goodwill, you will still see these things in history books for a few years.

While I would agree that this administration seems bent on creating an all-powerful executive branch and removing the independent judiciary, that really isn't what is going on in this case.

The OPR is part of the DOJ. The DOJ is a huge part of the executive branch. That's why Bush has so much power over the DOJ. The executive telling the executive what to do has nothing to do with separation of powers.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy? This is simply the result of government growing bigger and bigger, expanding in power and revenue over time. The type of government -- democracy, monarchy, local warlord -- is rather irrelevent. The bottom line is that as government increases, freedom decreases, and that happens regardless of the type of government.

Given the choice, I would choose to live under the rule of the smallest government possible -- that is the only way to minimize the oppression of your god-given right to freedom. The type of government doesn't have much bearing on this; in fact, the latest century shows that democracy lends itself to faster government growth than most of us thought.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[MobyDisk]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Department of Justice is not part of the Judiciary branch? Historically it makes sense since it is a cabinet department of the executive. But considering it is often responsible for investigating misconduct of the legislative and executive branches, it is very odd. It sounds like the Judiciary branch needs an investigative arm.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Da_Weasel]

OPR -> DOJ -> Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

So why is it that Bush won't allow the investigation? There must be some seriously incriminating information in there if he won't let investigators from his own branch of government in to look around. And how is this a security risk? The only risk is if the investigator leaks information. Oh right...the executive branch has a track record of doing stuff like that...now i understand...

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

There goes Democracy...And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions

The President has power over the DOJ as it is part of the Executive branch. Congress used to have a separate investigative arm, but after it was abused to no end investigating Clinton, congress declined to renew the law authorizing it.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Waffle Iron]

Well, I think that the whole theory behind the judicial branch is that they are supposed to be mostly passive: all they do is *judge* things that others have done. Letting them do much else would be dangerous, since they are mostly unelected and unaccountable.

In theory, congress has mechanisms to investigate abuses by the executive branch, but lately they've been too meek to actually use them. That could change if the political climate shifts, though.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[lbrandy]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Department of Justice is not part of the Judiciary branch?

Uh.. why is that funny? Because they both start with 'Ju'? You realize "judiciary" and "justice" are from different root words right... they aren't the same thing.. right?

It sounds like the Judiciary branch needs an investigative arm.

You may as well wander to the gravesite of your states favored founding father and pee on his grave. We gave the legislative branch the power to make the laws, the executive branch the power to enforce the laws (ie, "investigate), and the judicial branch the power to rule on the laws.

Giving the judicial branch the power of investigation is equivalent to giving cops/fbi the power to declare you guilty. Those powers were seperated for a reason... so that the organization (or person) who was trying to convict you wasn't the same one who was judging your innonence or guilt. Judges are supposed to be impartial... investigators are not.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that happened about a decade ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that President Clinton *had* to testify (truthfully, natch) in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. By spinning, obfuscating, and outright lying whilst on the stand, Clinton effectively suborned the system of checks and balances he had sworn to uphold.

This, not because of any stupid affair in and of itself, is why he deserved impeachment. I'm on the fence about impeachment for Bush, but tend to lean against it for the simple fact that I think it will set a precedent where all presidents will end up impeached or very near to it. Let's face it -- no one makes it to the highest office in the land by being a boy scout, and should the complete truth be known about any president of the 20th century, a case could easily be made for impeachment. Impeachment should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances in my opinion.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me?

There still isn't anything in the history books about Clinton giving up the opportunity to capture/kill Bin Laden on multiple occasions.

http://usaattacked.com/clinton_and_binladen.htm

Re:There goes Democracy...

[lawpoop]

Actually it makes sense to me. The basic division of government goes like this: the legislature makes the law, the executive enforces it, and the judiciary judges. As part of enforcing the law, the executive branch investigates people and arrests them.

You are right that there is a kind of conflict of interest if the people in charge of the executive are committing crimes and don't want to investigate themselves, but there is a check on this built into the constitution. The congress is the most powerful branch and it can hold hearings and investigate. People can be held in contempt of congress, and they have to testify under oath. So congress can serves as a judiciary over the executive branch.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Kjella]

You may as well wander to the gravesite of your states favored founding father and pee on his grave. We gave the legislative branch the power to make the laws, the executive branch the power to enforce the laws (ie, "investigate), and the judicial branch the power to rule on the laws.

Giving the judicial branch the power of investigation is equivalent to giving cops/fbi the power to declare you guilty. Those powers were seperated for a reason... so that the organization (or person) who was trying to convict you wasn't the same one who was judging your innonence or guilt. Judges are supposed to be impartial... investigators are not.

I don't think anyone wants to give the justice department the power to play cops in general, it's more a question of "who watches the watchers?". So the executive branch investigates - but who investigates, when it is the executive branch that needs to be investigated? Congress has a few powers to launch investigations and to impeach the president - but they don't have their own investigation unit, nor would I have it there because of all the politics. So where should it be? Yes, having the judicial branch serve as both investigators and judges is a bit dubious - but not half as bad as having the NSA act as accused and investigator - which means it'll never see a judge.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a little precision, here.

Please remember the following:

Democracy describes a form of government.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Republic also describes a form of government.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A democracy may be or not be a republic, just as a republic may or may not be a democracy.

China is a Democratic Republic, for instance.

The USA are a Republic.

Get your copy of the declaration of independence, of the US Constitution and of the amendments: You will not find any word like "democracy" or "democratic" in it.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Pendersempai]

There are special prosecutors for when Congress finds that there needs to be an investigation into the Executive, and the President has no power of removal over the special prosecutor. But for ordinary affairs, the Department of Justice argues the government's case in court. If anything it would be a far greater violation of the separation of powers if the DOJ were part of the judicial branch: then you'd have the same branch of government accusing, trying, and convicting people, which is pretty much the defintion of an autocracy.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Ihlosi]

China is a Democratic Republic, for instance.

You're confusing "is" with "is calling itself".

Any country that is referring to "People" more than once in its name ("People's", Re-"public", "demo"-cratic) should not be assumed to have any of the qualities it claims. Referring to "People" three or more times is a pretty sure sign that you're looking at a dictatorship of the worst kind.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[lbrandy]

Yes, having the judicial branch serve as both investigators and judges is a bit dubious - but not half as bad as having the NSA act as accused and investigator - which means it'll never see a judge.

This is a _clear_ case of needing to be careful of what you wish for. Congress is given the power to investigate the executive branch, not the judiciary, because it helps keep the power seperated. Nothing is as bad as it would be if judges were investigating, prosecuting, and ruling on cases. Nothing. Not illegal wiretaps. Not even watergate. If you want to know who watches the watchers, it's Congress. That's who. They have the power to do what you want. Just because they don't do what you want doesn't mean you should start calling for indiscriminetly granting insane power to branches of governemnt you view "more sympathetic" to your cause.

Congress has the _full_ authority to investigate the executive branch. If they feel the Executive branch is blocking that, they can take it to the judicial branch, who can then force the investigation to go forward. What the government lacks is not balance of power, it's political will. The avenues are very clear and very well defined... they are just unused.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Judiciary branch checks to see if the law is legal
Congress (both houses) makes the law
Executive branch enforces the law

The Judiciary only job is to see if the law is legal. Or interpret the law. The Supreme Court can say a law is unconstitutional, that is it's job. They do not make laws. They are not elected by the people. They do not have a term (unless you call for life a term). They do seem like the weakest part of government. However their decisions are very hard for the other two sections of government to overrule. This makes them on par in power as the other two sections. Even though most people do not see this.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Politburo]

100% correct. Bush takes the heat because he's the Executive, but the real fault lies in the GOP Congress that has completely abdicated its oversight responsibilities. Unfortunately, the Framers made Congress its own policeman, with the exception of elections.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>The executive telling the executive what to do has nothing to do with separation of powers.

But quite a bit to do with checks and balances.

Re:There goes Democracy...

[ArtStone]

With all of the recent jabbering from the left about the seperation of powers, it is time that the Legislative Branch be reminded that their job is to make laws, not to conduct trials (under the pretense of "oversight"). That's the job of the Executive Branch to prosecute and the Judiciary to judge.

If Oil Executives are making "excessive" profits, then prosecute them under an existing law. If there is no such law, then pass a law and see if the Judiciary declares it not Constitutional - but remember the Consitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws against actions before the law was enacted.

And when all the oil in the country dries up because the oil companies leave the oil business, then we can vote out the politicians who thought it was their job to define what a "fair" or "excessive" profit is for a business... and/or we can then put the government in charge of all means of production and declare that Communism was right after all.

Isn't that the point in the final analysis?

Juvenal delinquency

[CurtMonash]

Juvenal is the ancient Roman who asked "Who will watch the watchmen?" For George Bush, the answer is evidently "Preferably, nobody."

Re:Juvenal delinquency

[Da_Weasel]

I'm sure "Who will watch the watchmen?" was a clever question during the time of the Roman Empire, but the answer is simple. A circle of watching needs to be established. Something like the concepts behind the US government that are currently falling apart....Judicial, Executive and Legislative are all suppose to keep each other in check. Currently the Executive is doing as it damn well pleases....

Government watches the people, the people watch the watchmen, and the watchmen watch the government.

Re:Juvenal delinquency

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Juvenal is the ancient Roman who asked "Who will watch the watchmen?"

And it was Homer Simpson who answered "I dunno, coastguard?"

Re:Juvenal delinquency

[spuke4000]

Lisa: Yes, but who will police the police?
Homer: I dunno. The coast guard?

Re:Juvenal delinquency

[Anonymous Coward]

If the watchman posesses the unique "right" to employ coercion against others as his means (as all governments do by definition), then the only possible answer is that nobody can watch the watchman.

(What does the concept of "watching the watchman" require? Having a greater "right" to employ coercion than the watchman himself -- otherwise you wouldn't be able to "correct" the watchman when he abuses his power. Of course, now we're just circling back around to the fundamental prerequisite of any government, which is inequality of power. There are those who posess the unique "right" to employ coercion against others (the power elite who control government), and there are those who do not (the rest of us). The fact that the power elite are voted upon or supported by certain people is entirely irrelevant and changes nothing about the definition and fundamental prerequisite of government.

Re:Juvenal delinquency

[darjen]

Something like the concepts behind the US government that are currently falling apart

Maybe the reason this is falling apart is because this type of system doesn't work. And by that I mean, it fails to protect our basic natural rights of property and freedom from tyranny.

I don't understand why people will continue to advocate a system that has failed, as you so readily admit. They say "oh, if we could just pass these few extra laws it will fix the system". But then those few laws don't work, so we are back to square one. Rinse and repeat. People have been tweaking this system for 300 years, yet have never been quite satisfied. The inevitable result is that there is injustice done to some at the expense of others. The only solution I can see is to have everyone be the watchers. Let us learn how to set up systems that will protect freedom without having to be watched by a Police State.

Re:Juvenal delinquency

[Antique Geekmeister]

Cheney. By now they've given him his own office, secretary, and heart monitor over at the CIA.

Don't you mean

[QCompson]

NSA warrantless wiretapping probe?

Re:Don't you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic? This is pretty fucking on-topic. The headline says "President Bush Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe" and there's no such thing. There is a warrentless wiretapping probe, but no wireless tapping probe.

Re:Don't you mean

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Nah - the NSA is now probing in Morse code using revolutionary new "Radio Waves" - hence "Wireless Tapping"

No problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure some ridiculous FUD about the chinese gverment will make you all feel warm and fuzzy again :-)

Disclaimer: I'm from europe and, yes, I think it's incredibly funny!

Re:No problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny? If I was in Europe, I'd be terrified. This story is about American internal politics... their foreign policy works similarly, but with more explosives and fewer "checks and balances."

Democracy in action

[mikeswi]

I am so proud today to be an American, where the rule of law.... errr..... I mean.... What I mean is ......

errrmmm.........

Nevermind :/

Re:Democracy in action

[kjart]

I am so proud today to be an American, where the rule of law.... errr..... I mean.... What I mean is ......

Yeah, and just think, maybe the Iraqis will someday live in a free and democratic state just like the USA, where they too will have the right to be spied on by the NSA.

OK, I should have previewed that

[CurtMonash]

The correct link was http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/09/qui-custode t-ipso-custodes/

Re:OK, I should have previewed that

[Rumagent]

Well, Juvenal was talking about having eunuchs guarding the women, so it really is sort of pointless anyway.

Not that it matters. That quote has been abused to death anyway.

Biased much?

[bigtallmofo]

First of all, that headline... While it may be technically true, it's misleading. Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions". That might be putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

Let's try re-writing the headline and summary:

Senator Kerry Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
By failing to win the presidency, Senator Kerry has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.

There you go - this entire thing is really Kerry's doing. And though misleading, it's technically correct.

Re:Biased much?

[plasmacutter]

a subtle piece of humor..

they were illegal actions. youre not allowed to wiretap without a warrant, or en masse. the question now is who authorized it.. who is the scapegoat..err i mean perp..

Re:Biased much?

[Lemmy Caution]

Wow, this is some of the most convoluted apologetics I've ever seen. The denial of the security clearance to the investigation team was directly authorized by the president, with the knowledge that it would, indeed, block the investigation of the problem. The AG said as much - I'm astounded by your analogy's inappropriateness.

Re:Biased much?

[plague3106]

Calling the wiretaps illegal is just fact. Here's a quick lesson; the government, in investigating ANY crime, may not perform a search (which is what a wiretap is) without a warrant. The NSA doesn't have a warrant, therefore the wiretaps are in violation of the law. An investigation will just tell us how widespread these illegal actions have become, since I believe the President already admitted that he was doing warrantless wiretaps on American citizens.

Re:Biased much?

[pla]

Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions"

The program does indeed break the law. Only two points remain in-the-air - Who authorized it, and will Congress make similar future programs legal.

But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted of "murder"ing your (literally) braindead spouse the day before congress passes an exception for assisted suicide, you still go to prison for murder.


Bush (or someone VERY high up, which the proposed investigation would determine) broke the law (again). I want to see Bush or Cheney do the perp walk. So do the majority of Americans at this point - It might have taken most of the sheep six years to catch on, but they've finally noticed that every time the wolf appears, some of them vanish.

Re:Biased much?

[gowen]

Here's a quick lesson; the government, in investigating ANY crime, may not perform a search (which is what a wiretap is) without a warrant.

Just as a point of pedantry -- in certain cases they can, but only if they get a retroactive warrant at the earliest opportunity.

Re:Biased much?

[DaHat]

> But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted ...

Key words... if you get convicted.

Clinton broke the law (perjury) but wasn't convicted.

Funny how things like that can happen eh?

Bush-43 on a perp walk is not going to happen given that the votes do not exist today to impeach him let alone convict him... heck, even if the Dems do do well in November the situation will largely remain the same.

Sorry, but keep dreaming.

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean: "A Slim Majority of Voters Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe"?

Re:Biased much?

[kjart]

Funny indeed. Could you please clarify precisely how that title is misleading, the title being "President blocked surveillance probe"? As I understand it, the President (one George W Bush) refused to give appropriate security clearance to investigators who were attempting to probe into this matter, as it were. How is that anything other than blocking the investigation?

Re:Biased much?

[Ferretman]

>The program does indeed break the law. Only two points remain in-the-air - Who
>authorized it, and will Congress make similar future programs legal.

Actually no, it doesn't. The laws authorizing what the President can or can't do regarding wiretaps after September 11th is pretty broad; the most casual reading of it makes it clear he has this power. Is it stupid to do this? Oh yeah...especially if you're going to try to deny it when somebody finds out. It is illegal? Nope.

Re:Biased much?

[OakDragon]

You can call anything illegal if it runs contrary to your interpretation of the Constitution. Saying it's illegal, over and over again, does not make it so.

Re:Biased much?

[plasmacutter]

you can't violate the fifth amendment.. saying it might be legal over and over agin does not make it so.

Re:Biased much?

[kalirion]

You know, with all the coverup and claims of "This program doesn't break the law but we can't tell you why because it would endanger National Security" I have the sneaky suspicion that at some point in the past the government passed a secret law, most likely utilizing some loophole, declaring the CIA and NSA and a few other agencies to be above little things like normal laws and the Constitution. Maybe they even created a second Constitution just for these agencies. And of course they would see releasing this information into the public as endangering that National Security.

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the warrant must be presented to FISA within 7 days of the surveillance beginning. And this only applies to matters of national security, as no other warrant would be authorized by FISA.

So all of this is total BS, as to tap ordinary americans phones, warrants would be required from the appropriate jurisdictions, or at the very least a federal circuit judge.

Re:Biased much?

[jo42]

Yes, but if you are spying on everyone without a warrant, and 99.9999% turn out to be Good Citizens, how are you going to get a retroactive warrant at the earliest opportunity for totally pointless spying?

Re:Biased much?

[refractedthought]

But wait, isn't it more Clinton's fault for not disbanding the NSA?

Re:Biased much?

[jmv]

But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted of "murder"ing your (literally) braindead spouse the day before congress passes an exception for assisted suicide, you still go to prison for murder.

Not sure what what the US constitution says, but in Canada you can't be convicted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it *or* for something that is no longer a crime now.

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Kerry Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
By failing to win the presidency, Senator Kerry has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.

American Public Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
By failing to elect Senator Kerry as President, the American public has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.


Sounds accurate to me..

Re:Biased much?

[Ender Ryan]

Well, a significant number of politicians, lawyers, and rights advocates disagree with your assessment. So, perhaps you'd like to back that up with something a little concrete, ie., point out WHAT part of which law makes it legal?

Of course, the Constitution isn't a popular document these days, so it's pointless to discuss whether it's Constitutional or not /sarcasm

Re:Biased much?

[Shaper_pmp]

How did this Get "+5, Insightful"?

First of all, that headline... While it may be technically true, it's misleading.

Errrrm, no. It's factually correct in every detail - technically, legally and even regarding the intent.

Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions".

First, the program was illegal - the NSA can't monitor US citizens without a warrant. Even if the law is later changed, that doesn't change the fact that it was illegal when it happened, and your justice system mandates that someone should be punished for breaking the law even if the law later changes.

I'm in the UK and I know this about your laws - how is it that you don't?

Secondly, there's no point in convoluted and intellectually dishonest apologising - the president expressely chose to block security authorisation for the investigators, knowing full well that this would halt the investigation in its tracks.

Bonus points: I believe this is the first time this has ever happened to the OPR in its entire 30+ year history.

That might be putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

Again, errrrrrm... no.

No matter how you might (intentionally or merely uninformedly) try to spin the situation, the cart is still the one with the wheels, and the horse is still the smelly one with four legs and a harness. The horse is firmly in front on this one.

There's just no case to be made it's anything else.

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Sheep and Wolves are usually an apt analogy. Then again, the Dems would be the Foxes. While not as ravenous as the GOP wolf pack, they can do a bit of damage.

Malcolm X may have been wrong when he said, "They show the wolves to get you to run to the fox." Because, Why the fck were the sheep running to the wolves in 2000? New millenium jitters?

Re:Biased much?

[Gryle]

I'll buy a significant minority in favor of impeachment, but I doubt the majority Americans want to Bush do the perp walk. He's still a wartime President which holds sway with a lot of folks.

Re:Biased much?

[Dausha]

"The program does indeed break the law. Only two points remain in-the-air - Who authorized it, and will Congress make similar future programs legal."

Saying it does not make it so. Specifically, how does this program violate the law? First, state the law. Second, provide the facts that show how the law is violated.

Don't have the facts? That might be due to the investigation not being complete. The assertion here is that Bush is blocking said investigation. The truth is we don't even have all the facts about why the block occurred---and so some assume that it's about a cover up. This is a correlation implies causation logical fallacy. It's like saying that breathing outside swampy air at twilight results in malaria because you contracted malaria while outside during twilight. (Derevation of "malaria") Of course, it was the air and not the mosquitos.

When it comes to top secret security clearances, they aren't just handed out like they were passes to Disney World. There is a background investigation necessary that delves back seven years. In some cases, there are polygraphic examinations. Every part of your character is scrutinized. There is no privacy. It's not unheard of for somebody not to pass those rigors. Just because the current wave of lawyers weren't accepted does not mean that Bush is summarily blocking all. And, such investigations can take up to a year. Heck, I've even known of people failing who had a clearance and needed a reinvestigation for specific access. This is not unusual. This is a mosquito. The article suggests it is the night air.

The great thing about news stories is we believe they are as factual as possible---like actually being there. In truth, news is just the telephone game masked in authority. In some cases, stories are colored so as to favor a specific side of an issue. This is either done by the side coloring, the reporter, or the paper. It's natural to favor your chosen side. So, this entire paragraph should be one, big "duh."

Re:Biased much?

[Politburo]

First, state the law.

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 ... (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 ...

Thats USC 50.36 (sec) 1802.

So, "United States Person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.. an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power.

Thats USC 50.36 (sec) 1801.

Second, provide the facts From wiki:

President George Walker Bush: "What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate."

The only way it becomes legal is if you accept the ridiculous legal arguments made by the administration, or if the program only ever covered tourists and illegal aliens. Although school/work visas are not explicitly mentioned, they would almost always be covered by the association and corporation clauses of the United States Person definition.

Re:Biased much?

[Politburo]

No, only if you take an extremely broad reading of the laws does it become legal. It is far from "the most casual reading". Furthermore, if you accept that argument, where does the power to void laws stop? If FISA doesn't apply, what about federal murder statutes? Does the AUMF authorize the President to order someone's death?

Re:Biased much?

[Politburo]

Article 1 prohibits ex post facto laws.

Re:Biased much?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>The laws authorizing what the President can or can't do regarding wiretaps after September 11th is pretty broad; the most casual reading of it makes it clear he has this power.

The resolution authorizes use of military force against the 9/11 attackers and their supporters. A strained reading might interpret that to mean using wiretaps against Americans. It might, except that the administration asked congress for that power specifically and got specifically turned down.

Re:Biased much?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>First, state the law. Second, provide the facts that show how the law is violated.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The fact that the government is not seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court even ex post facto (which they're allowed to do).

Truth

[Tx]

I was searching for a suitable dubya quote to make a witty reply - in particular I was searching for a quote containing a reference to both the words "freedom" and "truth". Imaginge my surprise to find most pages of dubya quotes I found, such as this one, contain numerous references to "freedom" but few or in this case no references to "truth". Not one. Does this tell us something about the man?

Re:Truth

[Zediker]

Mr. Bush can't handle the truth... it scares him...

Re:Truth

[Spazmania]

Then too he has an odd definition of freedom. He seems to think freedom and democracy are exactly the same thing.

Don't get me wrong... Democracy and voting play substantial roles in assuring freedom. But they're not the only things.

Take for example the cohabitation law struck down in North Carolina recently. A democraticly elected majority said: an unrelated man and woman can't live with each other under the same roof unless they get married. Its fornication and society won't stand for it.

That's not freedom. Freedom says you can run your personal life pretty much any way you want to and its nobody else's business.

I don't think Dubya gets that.

Re:Truth

[i_should_be_working]

Here's a suitable quote: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Re:Truth

[plague3106]

Indeed, which is why he clings to his belief about some entity in the clouds that loves us and gave us free will, but will burn us for eternity if we don't do everything he tells us.

Re:Truth

[Seljo Myeri]

If one is an honest person and calls it as one sees it, one often forgets to remind everyone one is telling the truth. Why be so concerned with informing people one is speaking the truth, unless one wants to be sure people know when one IS in fact telling the truth. Undue stress on what is and is not truth implies that one does not tell the truth regularly. The need to remind people of what is true simply doesn't occur to an honest person. "Let your nay be nay, and your yeah be yeah."

Re:Truth

[Talchas]

I believe Spazmania meant more emphasis on the "pretty much" than you read into it.

Re:Truth

[DaHat]

Could be, of course when you condemn one person for their 'odd definition' you need to be pretty clear on what you believe the correct one to be and saying 'pretty much' and failing to do so is a big enough copout that it cannot be ignored.

Re:Truth

[tbannist]

A great man once said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

Re:Truth

[Lxy]

Can you please explain to me why Doug Thompson is the only one reporting this story? If so many congressional leaders and presidential aides heard the same thing, why did they rush to Doug Thompson? His reporting career is shady at best, as is his current employer.

If this really happened, wouldn't you think it'd go to a LEGITIMATE media outlet? With all the liberal press out there, are you telling me that no one else was interested in running a story like this?

I call bull on this. Doug Thompson can't even name his source (which he claims to be multiple) and his alleged sources have the first instinct to run to tabloid media. Yeah, uh huh, sure......

Re:Truth

[Spazmania]

it misses the point about infringing on the freedom/liberty of others.

Its a valid point, but I didn't miss it. That's a gray area and it can be easily argued to absurdity in either direction. At one end of the spectrum you could argue that forcing someone to see your ugly self violates their freedom. At the other you could argue that a snuff film isn't murder if the victim willingly participates.

Since I don't care to engage in an absurd discussion, I brushed by it with the phrase, "pretty much any way you want."

Re:Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

That man would have been Pierre Trudeau (deceased Prime Minister of Canada)

Re:Truth

[Rob the Bold]

Then too he has an odd definition of freedom. He seems to think freedom and democracy are exactly the same thing.

I've been thinking about what dubya means when he talks about "freedom", and I've decoded it to mean "corporate freedom from government oversight". He's not referring to personal freedom at all. Personal freedom doesn't return value to the shareholders and it doesn't really contribute to the bottom line.

Your North Carolina example illustrates this. Protecting "fornication" from prosecution doesn't do anything to boost profits at the factory hog farm. OTOH, Relaxing environmental standards to allow corporate hog farmers to dump more untreated waste into the stream does boost profits at the plant by eliminating "unnecessary" costs.

Re:Truth

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Not to mention the source he works for - I'm as bleeding heart as they get, but Capital Hill Blue is the TheOnion of political news.

Re:Truth

[i_should_be_working]

I have to admit, based on the lack of references, I'm a bit skeptical too. Which is why I didn't directly link to an article. People can decide for themselves based on the evidence from a googling.

But it's not as if Bush hasn't said many other stupid, off-colour remarks. And how many of those do we get to hear about if we don't go looking for them? I certainly wouldn't be surprised is this one were true.

Apperantly...

[LaminatorX]

...this is how one "restores honor and dignity to the White House."

Re:Apperantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently this is how you show your ineptitude with the English language. Apparently...

Re:Apperantly...

[Chris Cata]

I wasn't aware there was enough honor or dignity to restore...

Re:Apperantly...

[gowen]

"Honor and dignity" is GOP code for "No extra-marital blowjobs"

It's a well known fact that getting a blowjob from someone who is not your wife is dishonorable and undignified. Inventing reasons to invade foreign states without any clear exit strategy, that's just youthful over-exuberance.

Re:Apperantly...

[Scudsucker]

It's a well known fact that getting a blowjob from someone who is not your wife is dishonorable and undignified.

Unless your name is McCain or Guiliani. But of course, the press and the GOP only care about the affairs of Democrats.

Re:Apperantly...

[killjoe]

Don't forget that killing 100 thousand iraiqis and giving the green light to israel to go on a rampage in lebanon are great examples of being a compassionate conservative.

Oh and there was that whole "uniter not a divider" thing too.

Somebody wrote an article about the lies Bush told and decided Saddam was more honest then Bush. I wish I had the link...

Surprised?

[Soupy69]

This was inevitable. The only thing that amazes me is that people genuinely thought this would go somewhere

Re:Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Slashdot is so behind with new... This news has been everywhere during the last couple of days and now is when appears in /. And the same with the rest of the news. I think that I'm swiching to news.google.com, getting better than /.

Re:Surprised?

[AvitarX]

They thought they were up against someone small time, like Nixon.

Only now are they equiped to propperly assess their foe.

sigh

[Moby Cock]

Lie, Whitewash, Stonewall.

Rinse, Repeat.

These are dark days. And we still have two and a half years to go.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if 1) you stage a revolution and oust the president and military coo, isnt that why YOU HAVE GUNS RIGHTS (you losers amaze me:) or 2) he is impeached :)

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

Oh, come on now... it's not that bad. The private lawsuits are progressing through the courts, where the same cry of "national security" was not given credence. All that happened here is that the president told another part of the executive branch to back off. If he told a congressional investigator to back off, or ignored an order from the judicial branch... well, then the days would be much, much darker. While I don't necessarily agree with what Bush is trying to do, I at least take some comfort in the fact that he has so far not been immune to checks and balances: he got smacked down on Guantanimo, didn't he?

Re:sigh

[Simon Garlick]

You have two and a half years to go only if Bush allows elections to take place normally. Looking into my crystal ball I forsee a terrible threat to the USA from, um... evildoers... who seek to um... destroy the American way of life. Elections might have to wait a little bit -- you know, just until the emergency passes.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

... you have gun rights ...

Yes and no. Most US states have heavy restrictions on the amount and types of firearms one can own. Add in the fact that the Bush administration queitly pushed through a bill right after 9/11 (under the guises of "protect the people from the evils of the Arab world") to fund the purchase of fully automatic weapons* and sniper gear for every local police department in the US most areas are seriously out gunned.

Full auto is simply something no police department in the US ever should have. Imagine if Chicago had easy access to them. Someone please tell me why the police in say Ottumwa, IA or Winnemucca, NV need M4 rifles?

In some states the locals are well stocked though. I once lived in Utah and saw a few very large collections (16s, Ks, Browning 50s, 1911s, 9s, 10s, lots of shotguns, a ton of ammo and "tactical" vehicles). Kinda like a real life "Ammu-Nation" =)

Add in the National Guard which I have ZERO doubt Bush would use to quell any "discourse" with the efficiency as Saddam.

With all that said I somewhat believe the US is two missed meals away from revolution.

* Having extensive experience with the M16A2 and played with a few other few auto weapons I can personally say that full auto is good for only one thing: spray and pray. Does anyone think arming local cops with M4s and P90s is, at any time, a good idea? Homie don't think so.

Re:sigh

[zifferent]

Scary and possible, and something that has bothered me since he took office the first time.
A cabal that has no problems with rigging elections in Florida won't likely have an issue with declaring martial law to extend it's reign.
Especially, when they feel that they are on a mission from God, e.g. everything is fair game and ends justify the means.

Re:sigh

[Ihlosi]

Having extensive experience with the M16A2 and played with a few other few auto weapons I can personally say that full auto is good for only one thing: spray and pray.

It's also good for intimidation (*ohmygoshthat'samachinegun!!!!*) and to demonstrate that you're a dangerous lunatic who will not refrain from endangering his surroundings to achieve his goals.

Re:sigh

[tbannist]

Personally, I think it's telling that he doesn't want people who work for him to find out exactly what he been doing. And overall, this isn't really that bad, it helps build a case against him. The attempt to cover up what's he's doing prevents him from pleading ignorance later.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

only if Bush allows elections to take place normally.

I seriously doubt that the elections would be cancelled since there are much easier ways to steal an election. Electronic voting is scammers dream or rig the Electoral College. I'd suggest "a little from column A, a little from column B." =)

Re:sigh

[geekoid]

Or simpling repealing the 2 term limit.
Or putting Dick in the white house.

Re:sigh

[Scudsucker]

Oh, come on now... it's not that bad.

Yes, it is that bad. Impeachment hearings should have been launched as soon as this raping of the Bill of Rights was uncovered, just as Bush, Cheney and Rummsfeild should have resigned as soon as we found out that no, there really were no WMD's in Iraq. But with a right wing majority in Congress and the press willing to roll over and play dead on command, nothing has happened.

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

"raping of the Bill of Rights"

Isn't that a little bit, um, harsh for what has happened? We are talking about the listening in on overseas calls thing, right? If that was a violation of the Bill of Rights, then they wouldn't be able to simply pass a law to enable it - as they are doing in congress as we pointlessly sit and type.

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

Don't fool yourself. I can personally guarantee that the dark days will last a lot more than two and a half years. Unless a great national, no world, epiphany comes to pass.

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

...he got smacked down on Guantanimo, didn't he?

He did?? You mean it's been closed down and the prisoners have been freed?

I at least take some comfort in the fact that he has so far not been immune to checks and balances

It ain't over yet. He can pardon himself. Or Cheney will do it for him if he decides to give up the office to avoid prosecution, like Mr. Nixon.

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

"He did?? You mean it's been closed down and the prisoners have been freed?"

No, but now it is becoming a POW camp, with all of the Geneva Convention protections afforded to the prisoners. That it took so long is sad, but typical of the legal system in our country. The important thing is that there is now a legal precedent so that the next president that wants to hold people indefinitely can't do the same thing as easily. The Supreme Court gave him a smackdown on both the "military tribunals" idea and the lack of Geneva Convention protections.

"It ain't over yet. He can pardon himself. Or Cheney will do it for him if he decides to give up the office to avoid prosecution, like Mr. Nixon."

That would only get him out of jail, not cement any policies that he implemented. As a practical issue, I'm far more interested in reversing some of his policies than I am in getting muddled down in the media-and-partisan circus that would be the trial of an ex-president. On the other hand, it would grind Washington to a halt, which is usually a good thing! :)

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

I don't believe the man has a working brain cell in his head. None of these policies are his. He really is just following orders, or more precisely, reading the scripts that were given to him. I don't think I've seen a more empty headed person in my life. Just look at him when he's standing next to all those G8 guys in the photo ops. The policies have been working long before he showed up. And they will continue after he leaves. The law is irrelevent. Accounting is where it's at. The guys are in Guantanimo for pure show. Nobody is going to have a real trial. And we still won't know how they are being treated. They could be undergoing medical experiments as far as we know. We will never know until somebody with a camera can break into the place. We have not a clue as to who or how many people are locked up there. The authorized photos weren't even taken there as far as I'm concerned. This is your Hollywood propaganda machine at its best. The downhill trend only speeds up or slows down as per the Nielson ratings. The phones have been tapped since the first line was ever stretched out of Alexander Graham Bell's house. It is naive to believe there ever was any privacy. It doesn't exist. It never did. You have no way of verifying that the government obeys any of these laws. Gen-pop stills has no idea as to who's behind 9/11, PanAm 103, or any other "terrorist" act that makes the papers. We only hear what's being spoon fed by the authorities. Hardly a credible source, since they stand to gain the most. There's nobody watching over them. The people that we hired are deliquent in their duties. And we are deliquent in not assuring otherwise. And we have no way of proving it either way. The tapes have been burned, the evidence destroyed. This is the way 99% of the voters want it. And this is the way it will stay. We have yet to stray from nature's path. Any animal that developes opposable thumbs and a large clump of nerve cells inside their skulls will evolve the exact same way. Bush is us, and we are Bush. "We are all bozos on this bus".

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

I think you are giving the government way too much credit - the efficiency and secrecy needed to pull off what you are talking about exists only in Hollywood. The government is too slow, bureaucratic, and full of power-hungry egomaniacs to ever successfully pull off such a huge conspiracy. Bush has handlers, to be sure - but they are all of his choosing. He's not very smart, I think, but his handlers seem to be - even if some of them are off the deep end. I know that a lot of the faces are familiar: Rumsfield, Cheney, Powell... but his family has been in politics for a long time.

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

They don't need any secrecy. They can do what they want right there in the open. All you need is a little distraction. That's what Hollywood is for. The bureaucratic bumbling is part of the show. The people you see are not the people setting policy. They are actors on a set, reading their lines and not bumping into the furniture(with the exception of Gerald Ford maybe). The policymakers will be forever unknown.

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

To convince me, or even get me moderately wound up, you'd have to produce some evidence. Barring that, your theory is essentially a religion - and I ain't got the holy spirit, if you know what I mean.

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

Just look at the corps' so-called "privacy" policies now popping up. The govenment is openly violating written law with the patriot act, the spying, the war, Guantanamo, etc. Court cases are continually being thrown out due to rights violations, and yet it still goes on unabated. Guilty verdicts are being overturned AFTER the person spends years in prison. Why? Because we allow it. That fact that the probes are being blocked is sufficient evidence to me. Those who make and enforce the law have no right to privacy in my book. They must be held to a much higher standard to hold such positions. If they violate the laws they they impose upon us, they should pay double when they violate it. You are free to choose to believe them when they tell they're not if you wish. You are free to stick to "official" sources if that's what floats your boat. That is your prerogative. I choose not to. That I don't remember where I've seen the evidence is irrelevent. It is there for you to see when you wish. It's not that far off the beaten path. So go ahead, stay nice and comfy in mass madia(Disney? Never-Never?) land, but don't be too surprised when you finally get bit. And besides, this is one case where you might want to "think of the children", at least yours, if you have any. They are more likely to suffer the consequences. Let's not go around thinking what's good enough for us is good enough for them. It's that kind of thinking that keeps us in our present day quagmire. I can't even image how the world would be if we actually did our best to make life easier for everybody, instead of simply believing that because we suffer, so should everyone else.

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

I would never expect any judicial system to be perfect - ours' is supposed to err on the side of presumption of innocence, but there will always be an error rate on the other side. Once you have accepted that the judicial system is imperfect, using distinct cases to point to a broader conspiracy is not possible - it is just the human brain doing what it does best: finding a pattern, even if one does not exist.

Note that I am not defending the judicial system per se, just saying that it is impossible to have a perfect one.

Additionally, the problem with using the internet as your source of news is that there is always someone out there with the same belief as you, and they are easy to find. If you smell a conspiracy, it's a sure bet someone else does too. I'm sorry, but as flawed as the major news outlets are, they at least have fact checking departments and rudimentary standards. Joe at bush-is-shit.com does not. I try to balance the domestic news by reading foreign news, as they are less likely to be polluted by any funny business on this side of the pond. Google News is great, because you even get the al Jazeera news sometimes.

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

I don't expect perfection. That's why we have to watch over them with a microscope. We can't just hand over that kind of power without keeping a close eye. As it is now, we are lazy. We just want somebody else to deal with the "problem". This is why the law is handled so sloppily(?) now. It's pretty much a case of just lock 'em up and throw away the key. The people in power, like kids and puppy dogs, will always do what they can get away with, just like everything else in nature. I've never said there is anything conspiratorial about it. It's simply the way things work.

I always balance Joe's "bush-is-shit.com" with Jane's "bush-is-god.org" and the Trib and many others. I don't mind having fact checkers, but I do want the opportunity to check all the facts myself, also. I don't like being denied access. As long as we have the alternative, I'm perfectly willing to check out mass media. I don't limit myself to the internet. I find bias everywhere I look, but I need both sides. Mass madie won't give us that. They have to stay in business. Somebody has to "check the checkers"(love the dog) :-)

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

The only thing I feel I still need to add, because I seem to like to hear myself talk, is that you can't just take two extreme sites to balance out your view - you should always throw in some boring old moderate sites as well.

One of my big complaints about TV mass media these days is that their version of being "balanced" is that they take a wing-nut from the left and a wing-nut from the right and let them have at it... what the hell? Where is the reasonable discussion there?

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

...you should always throw in some boring old moderate sites as well.

Most indubitably. (Damn, I wish I could remember who always said that.)

One of my big complaints about TV mass media...

It's all good. We have the aforementioned options now. Let the TV go nuts. Remember, their job is whack us over the head with distraction. But I don't want them to go away. "Pégame si quieres, pero no me dejes" I really enjoy the mindless chatter sometimes. Even FOX can come up with the occasional profundity.

Our posts are becoming shorter. Let's see if we can get them down to a couple of grunts and save Slashdot some disk space :-)

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

I'll make it easy: "O'Riley Factor"

(I expect your response to be some kind of primal grunt.)

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

I never heard O'Riley say it. I don't watch him often enough. I can only take about 2 minutes of him, and I only catch glimpses while I'm flipping through channels during commercials. Well, ok, I admit it. He is a bit of a train wreck, and you know, I can never turn away from a good train wreck. Ratings genius, I say. No, it was from a cartoon show I used to watch, somewhere between '62 and '66, and O'Riley is ripping it off.

uuuuOOOHH!(Hoo Ah?) I don't know how to type grunts. So much for that.

Re:sigh

[MightyYar]

Scooby Doo :) Or at least some Hanna-Barbara cartoon.

I don't have cable, but whenever I'm traveling I try to catch Fox News - it's like night time Jerry Springer, only the guests are high-profile politicians instead of trailer park crack whores...

Re:sigh

[iminplaya]

...only the guests are high-profile politicians instead of trailer park crack whores...

You mean... there's a difference?
(In my best Johnny Carson voice): I did not know that.

American Civil War 2?

[zyl0x]

Anyone else find this situation eerily similar to the one John Titor predicted?

Re:American Civil War 2?

[plague3106]

No, since a war implies people killing each other on a massive scale, which hasn't happened in the US (nor is it likely to, I don't know of many people wanting to start shooting yet).

althought it wouldn't suprise me if Bush lead America to destruction..

Re:American Civil War 2?

[zyl0x]

Way to reply to the title and not the content. I believe the phrase is "judging a book by its cover".

Re:American Civil War 2?

[plague3106]

The 'content' included a link, which said America would be in Civil War 2 starting in 2004 - 2008. My reply was that 'no, the events aren't suprisingly like those in the link.'

Re:American Civil War 2?

[zyl0x]

A Second American Civil War from 2004-2008, during which civil liberties would be surrendered under the guise of National security.

This is the phrase we're talking about, right? Because I was referring to the phrase "during which civil liberties would be surrendered under the guise of National security," which, by the way, is merely a summary of what John Titor actually predicted. I assumed people with the gumption to post comments such as yours on Slashdot would have the ability to do their own simple research, especially if they didn't know who John Titor was to begin with.

Also, please take note of the real content of the post you replied to, not just the content you want to see. The keywords "eerily similar" seem to stand out.

Re:American Civil War 2?

[plague3106]

Eerily similar to me would be that we were in a CIVIL war and doing those things. You tell me to take note of the 'real' content but conviently leave out the first part of the sentence to prove your point.

You can say 'civil liberties would be surrendered under the guise of National security' and apply it to WW1 and WW2 as well. So no, its not 'eerily similar' because its nothing that hasn't happened previously. Now if we WERE in a civil war, I'd agree.

Good move George

[Timesprout]

National security must be protected at all costs now that WWIII has kicked off and apparently everybody except the US leadership and those with real WMD are the enemy.
Christ on a stick how much more hysterical bullshit, civilian deaths and money grubbing do we have to put up with from these maniacs.

Re:Good move George

[Anonymous Coward]

i think invoking the words 'free world' should be the modern eqivalent of Godwin's Law.

Free to choose between 2 rich dicks with the same vested interests as the previous 2 rich dicks? Without truth there is no freedom. Just choice. And we're all consumers right and we love choice.

Re:Good move George

[StringBlade]

Two more years.

Re:Good move George

[db32]

Ironically...your comment explains in a nutshell how we got here
"Christ on a stick" pretty much encompases all of the ideology that has lead up to the current set events.

Fighting over who put Christ on a stick, or if Jesus was even the Christ (what seems to be little known yet terribly relevant is that Jesus Christ isn't the man's name...Jesus THE Christ)

Now just couple these few large groups arguging (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) over the whole thing with the fact that the vast majority of their followers are barely aware of the tenets of their OWN religion let alone someone elses...and you have the recipe for thousands of years of murder in God's name.

Jesus (the Christ or not) had a GREAT number of words on kindness and how we should behave...something about if someone strikes your face, you should turn the other cheek so that they may strike the other side as well.
Judaism, forgive me I'm not terribly sure WHICH of the main books it came from, but it says those who live with brotherhood towards their fellow man are blessed in the eyes of God.
Islam when one Mohammed found a dead woman and child on the battle field he asked his general why they were killed. When his general responded they were infedels Mohammed chastised him for killing the innocent, and that only those who are fighting should be killed.

So...forgivness, acceptance, and brotherly love are key tenets...not murder the infidels, blame the jews, or purge the muslims.

This is all just the logical extension of holy wars that have been waging for hundreds of years. We just now have more technology and better weapons.

Re:Good move George

[ChaosCube]

how much more hysterical bullshit, civilian deaths and money grubbing do we have to put up with from these maniacs.

Um, a lot more. Either until george finishes his term, or until there's a civil war...or never, since he's probably going to announce his emperorship soon.

So, just bend over and take it like a man!

Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that 'Freedom' stuff, that the US govt lectures the world about?

America (irony)

[Anonymous Coward]

My country,' tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills, like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees sweet freedom's song;
let mortal tongues awake;
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.

Our fathers' God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.

Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

... into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but the actions haven't been proven to be illegal yet. They are "allegedly" illegal, since no one has been convicted of a crime (if that will ever happen).

But this is typical spin... the fact is that part of the power of the President, of all Presidents, is to decide on the classification of information within the executive branch of government. When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public" before it is legal to actually do so. This is why we've been having these leak probes (although they haven't gone anywhere). It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

you give those in that concentration camp in cuba a trial and we'll start using the word allegedly. Fair deal?

(captcha was supreme...)

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

don't you mean.. "to prevent investigations into terrorist activities" carried out by mr bush against the american people?

This idea that the judicial branch is not allowed to oversee and check the powers of the legislative and executive branch is at best insane, at worst treasonous.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[dedeman]

and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

Are you sure about that? If so, how do you know? If Nixon were to classify activities at Whitewater as "investigations into terrorist activities", would that be more palatable, or more correct, or an attempt at avoiding embarassing surveillance?

When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public" before it is legal to actually do so.

Yes, this is true, but we're not talking about the declassification of program details, the issue is the inability for a branch of the judicial department to review the legality of a program.

I'm all for the keeping of certain details of the activities of the US classified, but when those actions breech the sanctity of the freedoms that we enjoy as US citizens, I take issue, as should we all, as is our duty as Americans.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Tom]

When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public"

This wasn't about going public. It was about a criminal investigation by a branch specifically designed to be able to investigate even top secret affairs.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[misanthrope101]

If any entity can declare itself immune from investigation or oversight, then they are effectively declaring themselves immune from the law. Ergo, the probability that the acts in question were "illegal" are inversely proportional to the odds that President Bush authorized them. Okay, so I'm being facetious, but the fact is that the acts can't be considered "illegal," ever if he can block investigation, and thus any chance of impeachment. I'd like to see someone, anyone, explain this in any way where it means something other than "the law doesn't apply to President Bush."

What sickens me is not so much that a politician would do this (who wouldn't want to have veto power over any investigations into their own conduct?) but that so-called "conservative" pundits will side with him. The side that ostensibly sides with limited, toothless government will enthusiastically support a President's authority to place himself beyond the reach of the law, just because that President is from their own party. It wouldn't be so grating, but I'm a conservative, one who believes in limited government, the fallibility of man, etc. I actually have the political principles that they claim to have (at least when a Democrat was in the White House) and so, in calling myself a conservative, I'm placing myself in the same wacko, Orwellian club that they've infected. But what else do I call myself, politically? I was reading James Bovard when Clinton was in office. I was concerned about runaway government. I was frightened by Ruby Ridge and Waco. I even agreed with a few David Horowitz articles.

But at the time the Republicans were right about where I was (though I couldn't have cared less about Clinton's sex life). After 9/11, they all went effectively crazy and I was left feeling like a schmuck because I actually thought they believed in small government and freedom, as I do. I'm effectively left without a party, because the Democrats are no better. I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that. It's a bit surreal to vote, to care about politics, in a nation where no one really cares about freedom. There is no political principle at work in either main party, and there isn't really a fiscally conservative/Amnesty International/ACLU/Torturewatch/anti-death-penalty etc party for me to vote for even as a weak compromise. There is just nothing. No, I don't believe it's a conspiracy. I'm just part of a ridiculously small minority of people who are abhorred by what's going on, and would be regardless of what party was running the show this week.

I'm beginning to understand how the abolitionists felt at the very beginning, when they were the only ones saying "slavery is wrong." When I tell people "torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind for the rest of the day. No one cares. I don't really see any way we can prevent a headlong slide into totalitarianism. If Bush outright suspended the next election, I'm convinced that at least 40% of Americans would support him. His base, the evangelicals (especially the Christian Reconstructionists) would definitely support him, because that's what they're after anyway. But I just don't think Americans at large think or care about any of this. It's not a very encouraging outlook to have on things.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[ilovegeorgebush]

It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

Though I don't deny there is a great threat from terrorism, I am disgusted at the overuse of 'terrorism'. I sincerely believe that Mr Bush & perhaps Mr Blair use this as a means to get what they want (think Blair & the Anti-terrorism law - allowing police to hold people for 28 days under the anti-terrorism act).

I just don't like the way you phrased that. It is so common and pretentious - do you actually believe that the information gathered by these NSA probes were solely in the name of "The War Against Terrorism"?

What I do think is that this article is a classic case of media-hype. Like you've rightly said, it's his right as a president, and indeed his job, to make such decisions in the interest of security. I don't however, believe these were his motives this time - he's covering his already shit-smeared back.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[X_Bones]

But this is typical spin... the fact is that part of the power of the President, of all Presidents, is to decide on the classification of information within the executive branch of government. When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public" before it is legal to actually do so. This is why we've been having these leak probes (although they haven't gone anywhere). It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but this article is not about the de-classification of documents whatsoever. It's about how the White House directly intervened in the affairs of the Department of Justice, disregarding the whole seperation of powers thing you might have heard of. It's about how the Bush administration forbade the granting of security clearances to lawyers with a proven history of competently handling sensitive material, who happened to be investigating a program which is highly embarrassing to the administration if not outright illegal. It's about the President himself weaseling out of personal responsibility by invoking the terrorism boogeyman, and people once again eating it up and swallowing it whole.

I'm curious to know if you can actually defend the actions taken by the White House mentioned in the news article, or if you get too hung up over a poor choice of words in the Slashdot write-up and re-direct the discussion (intentionally or otherwise).

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

one question, on a tangential note.. if you believe in the fallibility of man what do you think of pro-labor and pro-union legislation?

existing relgulations and government authority establish limited liability for corporate owners. as fallible men they obtain tremendous power which corrupts them, and unlike the government, which has limited accountability at best, they have none, and are able to hire behavioralists to determine exactly how to rob consumers and labor in a way which will divide and stymie any backlash.

please tell me you support at least some regulation to support the common man against unaccountable corporate beheamoths as much as you do checks on an ever more invasive government.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[mwvdlee]

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but the actions haven't been proven to be illegal yet. They are "allegedly" illegal, since no one has been convicted of a crime (if that will ever happen).

So something is only illegal if somebody has been convicted? That makes absolutely no sense.

However, see what fun stuff happens if we were to apply that logic to the case at hand: Wiretaps can only be authorized if there is an indication of or sufficient reason to suspect illegal activity happening, since no activity is illegal before a person has been identified and convicted, this would make all wiretaps unauthorized. Interresting concept.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

Yeah, but... the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch of government.

And if you read the Constitution, it's call very clear who has the capability to do what in what branch of the government. The Senate has the ability to oversee the actions of the President and visa versa, with the judicial being the mediator. So, if Congress really felt the President had overstepped it's authority, then they would start something, but they haven't. The Senate could use it's power to get those documents released, by committee and by using the judicial branch, if they really wanted to.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

touch`e.. but if this is true our founding fathers may have slipped up.. this screams "loophole" to me. I guess even the "supreme law of the land" is not immune to loopholes.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

The information has classified as "top secret" before the investigation began or before anyone even knew about it, so it's not like he's just decided to make the information top secret so the Department of Justice could not get to the information. The Department of Justice does not have access to this information because they are not classified appropriately to view it. By saying he effectively "blocked" them is spin, because what he actually did was implement proper access controls.

And thanks for bringing up Nixon... because it's the left's duty to try to compare Bush to Nixon as much as possible... and Iraq to Vietnam.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

It's amazing, you're like the 2nd person to say that either the Department of Justice is either part of the judicial branch or is it's own branch of government when in fact, it's a department within the Executive Branch of government controlled by the President of the United States (as his directive under the Constitution). It's why he nominates individuals as the head of the Department of Justice (like Clinton putting up Janet Reno).

I think it's time you get your facts right, before you come out making statements.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Rob the Bold]

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but the actions haven't been proven to be illegal yet. They are "allegedly" illegal, since no one has been convicted of a crime (if that will ever happen).

[sarcasm]Typical spin, sure. The President and the Republican Party and Fox News etc. are all such victims of "spin", aren't they? It's just ludicrous how these "anti-mercan" types will spin anything to their advantage, like calling crimes "illegal" even if no one has been convicted of them. After all, it can't be a crime if you haven't been caught and convicted. So much for the 'law and order' party.[/sarcasm]

It does makes a heck of an argument: "Your honor, as I haven't been convicted yet, my actions were not illegal. And since they weren't illegal, these charges should be dropped."

Oh, and I see your "ahem" and raise you a "harumph"!

Re:Illegal Actions?

[wathiant]

But what else do I call myself, politically?

You call yourself an anarchist and do whatever the hell you want. ;)

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

So, if you don't believe that the NSA wiretaps are to help fight terrorism, you must have some idea of why he would do such a thing. So, what is it?

So, if the "why" he gives is not reasonable in your eyes, what is the "why" that you think is the answer?

BTW, the thing about conspiracy theories and theorists is that they come up with a "how" but not a "why" that is plausable... usually it's far fetched and laughable. I'm sure some conspiracy theorist is going to say that the NSA wiretaps were put in place to make sure John Kerry wasn't calling Jaques Chirac for his endorsement... those are just silly statements. All in all, if you can not believe the President's reason (even if you do not agree with the methods), then you need to have another plausable reason why he would do that.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[gsurbey]

Do tell me dear fellow, how exactly is one able to "rob consumers" and "rob labor"? I would very much like you to explain to me how people doing willful transactions of trade may be "robbed" during the process. It's ok if you stumble while trying to answer this question, it's only because your argument is based on an economic fallacy; the fallacy that trade is zero sum.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

Not at all, as I said, Congress has the ability to analyze the actions of the President. If they wanted to do so, they would be.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Damek]

I'm just part of a ridiculously small minority of people who are abhorred by what's going on, and would be regardless of what party was running the show this week.

No, it's not that small a group of people, you're just letting your political prejudice keep you from looking in the right places.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[dwayner79]

Innocent until proven guilty... The GP is right... to call these activities illegal without an investigation is jumping the gun a bit.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[dedeman]

Are they not valid comparisons? Please tell me why we were in Vietnam vs why we are now in Iraq? I mean, the named goals are a bit different, but are the ideals?

Please don't use the word "spin", because I'm not "spinning" anything. I can tell by your word choice that you watch Fox, as do I, but I don't borrow loaded vocabulary to attempt to denigrate other observations.

Of course the program was classified. I don't term something I don't want people to know about me a "secret" retroactively. You classify something beforehand so people don't have access to it in the future.

But, I'm quite sure that the classification of this particular program was done in a spirit inconsistent with classification methodology; denying access to those who have the job of maintaining any oversight. How do you know what the intention was when "he actually did was implement proper access controls?"

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

Do tell me dear fellow, how exactly is one able to "rob consumers" and "rob labor"? I would very much like you to explain to me how people doing willful transactions of trade may be "robbed" during the process.

well lets see here... you establish yourself as a local monopoly, say the only substantive employer in a given municipal region.... or you collude and create "industry standard agreements" for employment or sale, you erect barriers to entry, listing all those barriers would be too cumbersome.. think of any one of the thousands of potential ideas now flooding your mind. Either way because you as a croporate owner or operator cant go to jail and are not held accountable, you have the ability to continue abusing your tremendous market power unchecked unless regulations are in place to allow for organized labor, collective bargaining, and protect consumers against unfair trade practices and gouging.

It's ok if you stumble while trying to answer this question, it's only because your argument is based on an economic fallacy; the fallacy that trade is zero sum.

nice try, no dice, it is zero sum.. every dollar is accounted for.. most of it goes to profiteer capitalists right now when it shouldnt.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Ihlosi]

I would very much like you to explain to me how people doing willful transactions of trade may be "robbed" during the process.

Here's some starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

Re:Illegal Actions?

[ilovegeorgebush]

So, if you don't believe that the NSA wiretaps are to help fight terrorism, you must have some idea of why he would do such a thing. So, what is it?
I didn't say that, did I? What I did say was:

Though I don't deny there is a great threat from terrorism, I am disgusted at the overuse of 'terrorism'.
I think terrorism is perhaps one of the reasons these wiretaps took place, but not the only one. Your last paragraph phrased is thus. And I think you're wrong.

So, if the "why" he gives is not reasonable in your eyes, what is the "why" that you think is the answer?
I believe the reason he is doing this is to cover himself from the resulting mockery and trouble that will arise from him approving and executing the NSA wiretaps. Read the last paragraph of my previous post. It explains that.

BTW, the thing about conspiracy theories and theorists is that they come up with a "how" but not a "why" that is plausable... usually it's far fetched and laughable. I'm sure some conspiracy theorist is going to say that the NSA wiretaps were put in place to make sure John Kerry wasn't calling Jaques Chirac for his endorsement... those are just silly statements. All in all, if you can not believe the President's reason (even if you do not agree with the methods), then you need to have another plausable reason why he would do that.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am simply someone who is skeptical about the Bush administration and it's intentions in situations such as this.
Democracy, freedom and choice is what America stands for, at least in my eyes (or, how I see it project itself). Yet this act from Bush (and the original totalitarian act of wiretapping from the NSA in the first place) contradicts everything said in the previous sentence. All in all, America shouts about Democracy and Liberation, yet its acts at home seem to contradict this.

Thanks for reading.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Don853]

Just an FYI, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch, which is why the President appoints the Attorney General. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of powers.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

You're little story doesn't fit. You can not use, as an excuse in court, that your actions were not illegal since it's the job of the court to determine if they were illegal. Silly, silly liberals. See, in the Justice system, a person is "accused" of a crime... but they are innocent until proven guilty, therefore until the President or someone else is convicted of breaking the law, their actions are not illegal. Their crime is 'alleged'. Newspapers have been sued for calling someone a murderer before ever being convicted of the crime.

There used to be something we said as kids, "it isn't illegal unless ya get caught". Although silly, it's really true. What seems wrong in your eyes does not count until a court says the actions were wrong. You feel that the President's actions were wrong; that's your opinion. Some people believe homosexuals marrying is wrong, and that's their opinion. Whether either action is ILLEGAL is up to the courts to decide. In the case of homosexuals marrying, some states have put into law that it is illegal, however, until the couple sees their day in court, they have nothing to fear.

But hey, it was worth a try... just like how liberals don't like to call people crossing the border improperly "illegal immigrants"... but rather, "undocumented workers". maybe we should call the President's illegal actions "undocumented maneuver".

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

Not at all, as I said, Congress has the ability to analyze the actions of the President. If they wanted to do so, they would be.

yes.. it's kind of convenient how they don't want to..

the point of checks and balances was so that any 2 branches could be compromised, but any actions would be righted by the third..

if the third is not able to do squat because justice is obstructed, and if the president really does have the authority you claim to "legally" obstruct justice.. then that's a loophole that needs closing, nothing more and nothing less.

Otherwise we really don't have 3 branches of government, we have 2.2 branches

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you figure out a way to convince both parties comfortable in the two-party system to give up their power to proportional representation, then we can start looking for third parties that match our pet ideas.

Until then, Libertarian Dems is where the power needs to shift. Are you up to being part of the solution?

Re:Illegal Actions?

[gsurbey]

And what is the definition of a local monopoly? How does one become a local monopoly? And industry standard agreements, why must a competitor follow those? Keep in mind that the only one who may use force in free markets is the government, for instance if a company "forces" another company or individual to do something then that is already illegal. There is no need for a specialized law in that instance. In a free market nobody can force anyone to do anything.

nice try, no dice, it is zero sum.. every dollar is accounted for.. most of it goes to profiteer capitalists right now when it shouldnt.

You are wrong sir.

"Trade is a non-zero-sum activity because all parties to a voluntary transaction believe that they will be better off after the trade than before, otherwise they would not participate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, mercantalist thoughts in a capitalist society. I'm sorry but you fail straight out of the box, economics are not zero sum, I would advise you read up a bit on the subject first.

The first half of your response is more interesting though, it might be possible to achieve labor lock in like that.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

You make the fallacious assumption of an ideally competitive free market.

It's a common assumption by people who have not taken more advanced (and often elective) economics courses such as industrial organization.

The truth is it is not a free market, it's fraught with hundreds of billions of miles of red tape. With rare excpetion markets are differentiated, semi-monopolistic, and have a tremendous tendency toward cartel behavior.

I'm tired of having to debunk this as an economics graduate to every misinformed and brainwashed yokle.. if you want proof of my argument that the so called "free market" does not result in balance and equality for the common man google "gilded age" and stop posting elitist drek here.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[ScentCone]

This idea that the judicial branch is not allowed to oversee and check the powers of the legislative and executive branch is at best insane, at worst treasonous.

You can't talk about it terms of the "idea" of it, because that's not specific enough to be useful. The judiciary (not to be confused with the DoJ, which isn't the same thing at all) does not "check the authority of" anyone. They merely compare actions to legislation to see if they line up, or (when asked, of course - not on their own), compare actions/legislation to the Constitution to see where it falls. The Judiciary cannot, for example, decide that a particular president shouldn't have control over the intelligence agencies in the executive branch - since those agencies are part of that branch, and constitutionally, that office is entirely in charge of what those agencies do.

Now, should a president's people be able to request and receive FBI dossiers on hundreds of political opponents, and have them delivered to the White House for review by campaign strategists? Probably not (and, ethically, certainly not), but that didn't stop Clinton's folks from having 800 such files delivered to them. Didn't really hear much screaming about that one, huh? It's not because it wasn't slimy (it was), but because it's actually a little hard to nail down exactly whether or how the CinC should or shouldn't be prevented from reviewing information that's collected by DoJ (like security reviews of Republican political opponents).

The point is that the constitutional role of the judicial branch is to play referee when other parties (the other branches, or citizens, organizations of citizens, etc) seek clarification on the actions of those other branches (or of lower courts) as it relates to the constitution or the constitutionally-reviewed legislation already in place.

If the house and senate, for example, were to pass some bit of nonsense about flag burning being illegal, the courts can't just stand up and "check" that behavior. Someone else has to make the case that it's a first amendment issue, and then the courts can weigh in as to whether or not that's true. In the current topic, we're talking about whether or not the DoD has the reasonable responsibility to look for international phone calls, especially those going to/from known terror finance/management types. Further, does the office that runs the DoD (the CinC) have the obligation and authority to run programs like that without having the operational details compromised by (in this case) lawyers that do not have security clearances looking into one of the most sensitive intelligence gathering operations that the country operates - or, (as is the case), should they simply brief the legislative branches that fund the program? The latter makes sense, and even the president's more rabid political opponents are quick to say that the last thing they want to do is actually end the DoD's program.

The courts are a vital balancing influence - but only if the issues brought before them by other parties pass muster. There are good arguments that too many people (all across the idealogical spectrum, left and right) look for ways to affect what should be legislative policy changes by simply suing each other into oblivion and hoping that somewhere along the line a judge (or even the Supreme Court) rules in a way that has the effect of passing a law for which no one actually voted. There's at least as much mischief in that form as there is in the executive branch.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[misanthrope101]

So you're saying I could be "part of the solution" by voting straight Democrat? Wow, you've made an insightful, cogent argument. Only not. Did you miss the part where I said I was frightened by Ruby Ridge and Waco? Has it escaped your notice that most of the Democratic party opposes withdrawal from Iraq? You're acting as if the Democrats have been staunch defenders of American liberty throughout the Bush presidency, when in actuality they shafted us right along with him. Your party, if in fact it ever stood for anything, is dead. Your candidates are cowards. Yes, my choice is between your cowards and the Christian Dominionists, but that doesn't make your candidates any less repulsive. I liked Kerry (on occasion) during the election, but ultimately he still supported the Iraq war. But he "would have done it differently." Wow. I'm floored.

Where does the Democratic position on Iraq leave me? Even assuming I believe the laughable assertion that we're there to "liberate" Iraq, I don't actually believe that it's the job of the US government to save the world. I'm real sorry that the UK installed Saddam, and I regret that the US and the rest of the west tolerated, funded, and supported him for decades, and I'm embarassed that we were so shocked an appalled over his gassing of the Kurds that we doubled his financial assistance after he did it, but I still don't think it's our job to ensure that every Iraqi child gets a pony. But neither major American party is coming out and saying "this is none of our damned business." They're all hedging and sliding around, but none of these jerks is really coming out and saying that we have no business at all over there, nor did we ever have any business over there. So to vote for your party, and be part of this "solution" you offer to me, would be to support the very policies that I find so objectionable.

What I want to know is this--exactly how is "more of the same, only different" really being "part of the solution?" How will that fix my wagon? Answer that, and I'll respect you. Otherwise, you're a hack, and you're no better than the O'Reilly crowd that Dailkos ridicules so justly.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[dedeman]

Hey, way to polarize any opinion on here, it really adds to the plausability of discussion.

Of course, to borrow from you a bit, "You can not use, as an excuse in court, that your actions were not illegal since....", and I add, "your actions cannot be investigated, presented, prosecuted, but are easily defended, in court."

So, if a defendent has the privledge of all evidence against them being deemed "classified", thus inadmissible. It sort of removes the burden associated with conviction, or, in this case, oversight. It helps when supporters believe that is ok.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[jpl166]

In case it makes you feel any better, just about everyone I know is scared sh!tless about all this. Of course, we all the evil ones... New England Liberals.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[roystgnr]

No, it's not that small a group of people, you're just letting your political prejudice keep you from looking in the right places.

Remaining wary of the left wing isn't political prejudice, it's just common sense that should have been reinforced by the last 6 years. What kind of mindset is capable of thinking: "The federal government has screwed up our military planning, screwed up disaster relief, screwed up our intelligence gathering, screwed up our world reputation and diplomatic ties, screwed up our budget... but gee, I wish they were also in charge of our healthcare!"

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Rob the Bold]

[I]t's the job of the court to determine if [your actions] were illegal . . . therefore until the President or someone else is convicted of breaking the law, their actions are not illegal

Although you back your arguments with little more than condescension, at least we seem to agree on the underlying principles of jury nullification. Something I think we'll be seeing more of these days in response to the "alleged" lawlessness of the executive branch.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[isa-kuruption]

As I have said in other posts, the people who need to determine whether the President's actions are wrong is Congress with the assistance of the Judiciary. They are the only ones who have oversight of the President's actions. The problem is that Congress was complicite in the decision to perform the wiretaps (they knew about them, didnt have a problem with them until the information was leaked to the NY Times), so it's unlikely they will do anything.

And I'm hardly polarizing the arguments... I'm just stating facts. If stating facts is polarizing to you, then you obviously live in la-la land, and no one can help you there. Hope you get better soon.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[roystgnr]

In a free market nobody can force anyone to do anything.

In a free market, I'd be the first in line to covertly buy a ring of land around your house. Sure, I wouldn't be "forcing" you to starve and die, but after you found yourself unable to pay my outrageous toll fee to get to work or the grocery store, our definition of "force" would start to feel irrelevant.

There are loads of natural monopolies in the world; while most of them aren't as potentially lethal as transportation right-of-way, each one is an opportunity to shut out competitors and squeeze people for every cent they'll bear.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[vokyvsd]

Maybe ten million other people are thinking to themselves, "I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that." Grow a pair and do it.

Remember the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos ran as Republican and Democrat candidates for president, and someone said he'd vote for Perot? The response was, "What, and throw your vote away? Mwahahaha!" Both major parties count on that sort of response.

What sort of terrible candidates would the Reps and Dems have to put on the ballot before you would vote Libertarian, or for some other third party? For me, that happened last election. When will it happen for you?

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Rob the Bold]

The problem is that Congress was complicite (sic) in the decision to perform the wiretaps (they knew about them, didnt have a problem with them until the information was leaked to the NY Times)

A handful of congresspersons knew about them, not the full body. You cannot assume that those who did not know were in approval.

If stating facts is polarizing to you, then you obviously live in la-la land, and no one can help you there. Hope you get better soon.

Bill O'Reilly? Is that you?

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

in all fairness I wouldnt necessarily call that cowardly. I didnt want us in iraq in the first place, but now that we're there.. we have 2 not so pleasent choices. We stay there.. and incur the continued ire of those who believe (probably rightly at some deep level) that we're profiteering occupiers, thus breeding more terrorists.... or we leave, and in addition to the ire of those who believe we're occupiers, we then incur the added ire of those who believe we abandoned them for our own craven self interests, and .. surprise, thus breed more terrorists. If we simply stay or go.. we lose.. the question is is there any graceful ways at all to exit this ultimate example of a bad idea. I'm not qualified to answer that, but until someone actually brings together a group of actual experts on this rather than political idealogues, we only stand to make our f**k up royally worse whichever action we take.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[mwvdlee]

I think you're confusing two things here.

1) The act
2) The person

"Innocent until proven guilty" has to do with a specific person. It implies an act has occured to which the person is accussed of committing. In order to be accussed of anything, one first has to establish that there is actually anything to accuse the person of. Therefore the legality of an act must be called into question before any accusations are dealt. What the GP states is that a person must first be found guilty before an act is considered illegal. But that would assume that at some point of time, that person must have been accused of doing something that is not illegal.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[dedeman]

Yes, your arguments are the point of polarization here:

"Silly, silly liberals."

and

"But hey, it was worth a try... just like how liberals don't like to call people crossing the border improperly "illegal immigrants"... but rather, "undocumented workers". maybe we should call the President's illegal actions "undocumented maneuver"."

I like how you pepper your posts with offhanded slights.

"..then you obviously live in la-la land, and no one can help you there. Hope you get better soon."

I hope the same for you. Perhaps one day we can get away from this labeling scheme that many people (both sides) love to employ. Notice how I haven't mentioned any afilliation?

Re:Illegal Actions?

[joss]

Most people vote against someone rather than for someone.
Anyone but Clinton, anyone but Bush... so, people vote for whoever
is most likely to unseat the person they hate the most.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[jsebrech]

Don't forget economies of scale, which are the reason that completely free markets over time become monopolies or cartels (because it is most profitable to all market players to let the market evolve into such a model).

Anyway, this "unregulated market is best for all" theory bugs me, because there is not a single example of it from the real world that speaks in favor of it (by which I mean a totally unregulated market that is stable and leads to prosperity for the agents involved in that market). I mean, if you favor something that has been shown to work somewhat (like communism), that I can respect, even if I may disagree (like with communism), but to favor something with zero real world backing? That's just crazy talk.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see someone, anyone, explain this in any way where it means something other than "the law doesn't apply to President Bush."

The law applies to Bush. The President has the responsibility to provide for the common defense. As I noted in another post to this thread, this gives him the right to classify and restrict access to documents which would be damaging to national security. As the investigation originated in the Department of Justice (which reports to him), he can block their investigation. What he can't do is block a Congressional investigation, unless he wants to risk their wrath (which starts with overriding his vetoes, moves through funding cuts, and ends up at impeachment).

I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that.

You're only saying that because the two-party system has brainwashed everyone. I vote Libertarian, and I'm proud of it. I have no illusions about winning, but I also don't feel dirty after voting. Also, my vote helps us get closer to the 5% automatic-ballot-access threshold, so we don't have to keep justifying our voter base every election with ballot access petitions where the Big Two get half the valid signatures thrown out.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[jsebrech]

If we simply stay or go.. we lose.. the question is is there any graceful ways at all to exit this ultimate example of a bad idea.

The UN is only too glad to send a peacekeeping force to Iraq to take over, but only if they actually get to take over. The US was only willing to allow a peacekeeping force if they kept control over the oil and reconstruction contracts. If america wanted out of Iraq without it falling into chaos and being blamed on them, they could.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[greg_barton]

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but the actions haven't been proven to be illegal yet. They are "allegedly" illegal, since no one has been convicted of a crime (if that will ever happen).

As we say down here in Texas, "If he ain't guilty, he don't have nuthin' to hide, right?"

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Arhat]

If Bush outright suspended the next election, I'm convinced that at least 40% of Americans would support him.

Dear Sir,

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the house and senate, for example, were to pass some bit of nonsense about flag burning being illegal, the courts can't just stand up and "check" that behavior. Someone else has to make the case that it's a first amendment issue, and then the courts can weigh in as to whether or not that's true."

Nope, the courts could just dismiss any case brought up.

The juries could decide "Not guilty".

The police could say "Please clean up after, sir" and move on to more important things.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[DaFrogBoy]

Quoted: " ... into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but the actions haven't been proven to be illegal yet. They are "allegedly" illegal, since no one has been convicted of a crime (if that will ever happen).
"

Similar to how if someone robs a bank and doesn't get convicted, the bank was never robbed...

Or if someone is murdered, and the killer is never convicted, the murder never took place...

Or if someone runs a stop sign, and no police are present to ticket them, then what they did wasn't illegal...

[sarcasm]It's quite obvious... Nothing illegal is ever done unless someone is convicted of it.[/sarcasm]

Re:Illegal Actions?

[gsurbey]

it's fraught with hundreds of billions of miles of red tape
What entity creates red tape? Government. And that is why monopolies cannot exist without government intervention/regulation supporting the propping up of the monopoly. Therefore in a truly free market without regulation there are no monopolies; there is only what the consumer chooses.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[ScentCone]

Nope, the courts could just dismiss any case brought up.

Which is a form of "weighing in" on whatever is presented to them.

The juries could decide "Not guilty".

Not usually an issue in Constitutional matters, and even in civil cases, jury decisions that seem to clearly be an attempt to legislate (rather than to evaluate the issue on the terms the judge instructs them to think about - something sometimes called "jury nullification") can and frequently are appealed to a higher court.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say may or may not be true.

But we can't re-run the simulation from Day 0 - the fact is that we have monopolies here and now, and they will fight tooth and claw to maintain their power. Even if you were to deregulate everything immediately, the fact is that they now control so much capital that they could simply starve out any competitor by giving away their product for free. Then it's back to gouging customers.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Damek]

One that realizes that incompetent government-hating right-wing leadership will always screw up necessary programs like disaster relief, defense, and medical care. Conservatives cannot run government programs because they believe they are all illegitimate. Naturally said programs suffer under their control.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Bush outright suspended the next election, I'm convinced that at least 40% of Americans would support him. His base, the evangelicals (especially the Christian Reconstructionists) would definitely support him, because that's what they're after anyway. But I just don't think Americans at large think or care about any of this. It's not a very encouraging outlook to have on things.

Don't worry. If any president pulled something like that without a damn good reason like alien invasion or China declaring war on US, then we'd find that president and his vice president dead at the hands of the either the secret service or the military. Our military would not put up with a dictator. It would feel wrong for our army/marines to kill a US president, but if a president was attempting to turn himself into Stalin or Hitler, than that president would end up dead faster than anyone could really believe possible. The sitting US president is a rather unimportant figure head for our government. Any one could be an equally good president if we had one go loony.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've missed my point. I said nothing about voting Democrat. I linked to a site whose stated goals are to "take over" and revitalize the Democratic Party with new, reformed positions. I specifically linked to a post on that site outlining a libertarian-themed vision of the future of the Democratic Party. If that's not good enough, however, you could still take the same tack with the Republican Party.

The two party system requires that citizens periodically reinvigorate each party, morphing it into something new. It's happened before to both parties, and arguably that is what's happening again, to the Democrats this time via DailyKos and their ilk. But I've seen enough traditional conservatives and libertarians express disbelief and abhorrance at what's happened to the Republican Party over the past decade or more. Surely there's room for the same activity on the right?

The problem on the left has been lots of criticism of the Democrats and no ownership of what they've become. Now we're starting to own the problem and realize that lack of participation, lack of compromise, lack of initiative has created a Party with a base that hates them. It's time for the base to take back the Party.

Maybe something similar could be said of the right. Libertarians chose, as did the Greens, to preserve the purity of their beliefs by constructing their own party - thus confirming their irrelevance. Even worse, they instructed their fellow Libs to vote Republican, making them even more irrelevant to Republicans. If you hate me but vote for me anyway, what do I care?

Better yet would be to do as the dKos people are doing and run libertarian candidates as Republicans, as "real Republicans" and restore the party of Lincoln to its roots, preserving American liberty and reason.

Now, I don't know if you're libertarian or Libertarian or whatever, I'm just using their party as an example. The point is merely that the two Parties are there for the taking. They're there to be controlled by the people. But when whole segments of our population loses sight of that and starts thinking of them as products to choose from, over which they have no control, everything starts to fall apart.

Political parties are not created by some mysterious force; they're not new cars with different options, and there's just not one for you on the shelf. They're created and formed by us, and we have the power to re-form them. Sure, you won't like everything because you have to work with others and compromises will have to be made, and not every candidate will hew to the party line. But you don't have to put up with everything, and you shouldn't just shrug your shoulders and wish it wasn't a two-party system. You'll just end up getting even more screwed.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Politburo]

Waco and Ruby Ridge were both disasters that could have been avoided. However, both Weaver and Koresh were accussed of committing crimes and would not allow the authorities to investigate or apprehend them. What would you like the government to do when this occurs? Just back down?

Would you be so sympathetic if these were black people in the ghetto?

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Scudsucker]

I agree with your sentiment, especially the spinlessness of our current batch of elected Democrats, but I have a couple of nits to pick.

Has it escaped your notice that most of the Democratic party opposes withdrawal from Iraq?

No, the vast majority of elected Democrats are in favor of withdrawing, the only disagreement is to when that withdrawl should occur.

Did you miss the part where I said I was frightened by Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Ruby Ridge happened before Clinton took office. You know, when George Herbert Walker Bush was President.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Scudsucker]

Remaining wary of the left wing isn't political prejudice

Problem: "not ultra-conservative" does not mean "left wing". By that standard, Nixon would be a flaming liberal hippie in today's GOP.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[gsurbey]

Your example case is representative of a negative externality in land property rights and therefore is a case of "the commons". In this case public easements should be allowed. The commons area of economics exists as the only exception to properties rights in the free market. The few cases of the commons are the only reason to have a need of government. However the commons cases are only an exception to the otherwise prevailing rule that the free market is always the most adept solution. What aspects may be governed over as a case for "the commons" however is always changing and open for discussion. According to the common's game theory I would say that today the need for easements, national defense, controling air pollution, and controling overfishing in the ocean are good examples of cases for the commons. However as an example I would say that for instance healthcare is not at all a case of the commons, and therefore government should not be involved in it at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common s

Re:Illegal Actions?

[GReaToaK_2000]

but they need to be able to INVESTIGATE it to determine IF it is illegal.

So, granted I will stretch it at this point but in my mind they are hiding it because they KNOW it's illegal. That, however, is MY opinion.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[gsurbey]

Economies of scale definitely bring down prices. Price is one aspect that a consumer uses when buying an item, quality is another. A smaller company may perhaps offer more quality, or maybe not. Are you telling me that when a company produces a cheaper and better product and a consumer chooses to buy it that that's a bad thing? Oh wait they're a really big company too... but wait the size issue doesn't really factor into this augment at all. Who cares how big or small they are. Let me reiterate, when a company, any company, produces a cheaper and better product then a consumer chooses to buy it.

You want the real world? Two Nobel prize winning economists with opposite theories, guess who won? (Hint: It wasn't socialism/communism) http://reason.com/hayekint.shtml

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote Libertarian, and I'm proud of it. I have no illusions about winning, but I also don't feel dirty after voting. Also, my vote helps us get closer to the 5% automatic-ballot-access threshold...

Heh, you just keep on feeling "clean" and telling yourself that stuff about "automatic-ballot-access." Yeah, that worked for the Greens. While the Democratic Party fell apart even more due to lack of involvement from purity-loving idealists. Luckily it seems enough of them have come around, and enough centrist people have been frightened out of their wits by Bush - the Dems really seem to have new fire in them lately.

Maybe if all you big-L folks would turn your numbers into a fire under the Republican party's behind (instead of an amusing side-note to late 20th century conservative dominance), you might be able to make a difference instead of just feeling pure...

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Scudsucker]

What entity creates red tape? Government. And that is why monopolies cannot exist without government intervention/regulation supporting the propping up of the monopoly. Therefore in a truly free market without regulation there are no monopolies; there is only what the consumer chooses.

Horsehockey. Microsoft gained a monopoly in operating systems by a combination of luck, timing, and good business decisions. The government had nothing to do with it.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Shajenko42]

You're only saying that because the two-party system has brainwashed everyone.

No, he's saying that because he's a rational person (at least in this instance - I make no claims as to how he lives his life otherwise).

The election rules (First Past the Post) ensure that the two-party system endures. A different set of rules, like Approval Voting, would make this much harder.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

Your example case is representative of a negative externality in land property rights and therefore is a case of "the commons"

no.. his example does not involve "the commons".. they can buy the land around your house and charge you tolls, a perfectly plausible example..

it's not a "negative externality" either. "Negative externality" implies an unintended negative consequence of a deal between 2 parties on a third. In this case the deal between the land buyer and seller has an intended negative consequence of charging tolls under threat of permanent imprisonment within the hypothetical ring of land.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[plasmacutter]

The point is that the constitutional role of the judicial branch is to play referee when other parties (the other branches, or citizens, organizations of citizens, etc) seek clarification on the actions of those other branches (or of lower courts) as it relates to the constitution or the constitutionally-reviewed legislation already in place.

uuhhhmmmm. . . no

the point of the judicial branch is to prevent a unified government.. such as.. i dunno.. this one? from instating legislative or unilateral action against the people in violation of the united states constitution.

They do this by reserving the right to declare unconstitutional any legislative measure, and to interpret existing laws in a (supposedly) unbiased matter.

The problem is they only way theyre able to work is if people can gather evidence and make a case.. by obstructing the investigators you obstruct the judicial branch's ability to balance the system... you may as well deny police squad cars and guns too while youre at it.

There are good arguments that too many people (all across the idealogical spectrum, left and right) look for ways to affect what should be legislative policy changes by simply suing each other into oblivion and hoping that somewhere along the line a judge (or even the Supreme Court) rules in a way that has the effect of passing a law for which no one actually voted.

no.. actually the case against "activist judges" is not a good case.. the rulings to which you refer have been an integral part of our history since the inception of our nation, and have only recently come under fire because the hysterical right can't stand the fact that their bright ideas are against the US constitution. A note: just because an argument ends up on fox news doesnt mean it's a "good argument"

Re:Illegal Actions?

[gsurbey]

If you consider a monopoly ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly ):
"A situation in which solely one company exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it."
Then Microsoft most certainly is not a monopoly because if the product in question is a computer Operating System then you have both Linux and Mac OSX as great examples of choice in the market. Again, people have choice, if they wish to get locked into a Microsoft product that is their prerogative. However, you may say that many people don't have a choice and must use the Microsoft OS as a kind of standard technological commodity in which case:
"An exclusive control over the trade or manufacture of a commodity"
However if the Microsoft OS is to be designated as a commodity then one must ask what grants Microsoft the control over this commodity. Patents and Copyright law. Both examples of government backed monopoly. Without these laws anyone could have an "unlicensed" copy Windows and even freely use the source code if they got their hands on it. Thus even if Microsoft is a monopoly, I'm still right, the government did it.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

I don't know if the UN would be exactly "too glad", but I agree that that's about the only way to get rid of this Hot Potato - pass it on. An added bonus is that the main target of Iraqi ire would no longer be the most visible occupier, and hell - maybe there would actually be enough troops. Could the UN say "no"?

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Fallingcow]

I would submit that the ability of juries to make judgements that are contrary to law is the main reason for having a jury in the first place.

It doesn't mean that they should do it all the time, but it's extremely important that they are allowed to do that.

I class it as being somewhere betwen "ballot box" and "ammo box" on the scale of political activism--though leaning more toward the "ballot box" side, obviously--and believe strongly that that ability should not be denied and should be embraced as valid.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Duhavid]

Why do we have this thing called 'rule of law'?
So that it can be set aside when it is most needed?
The whole checks and balances thing is there for a
reason.

Why dont you cut to the chase, and just lobby to have
President Bush granted permananent dictatorial powers now?

The NSA wiretaps may well be there to fight terrorism,
but there are many other things they can be misused for.
And it would not be the first time, either, in fact, I
would think that if this was used *only* for what the
publicly stated purpose is, that would be a first.

There are allegations that ex President Clinton misused
FBI data for political ends. Do you believe that President
Bush is entirely above that? If so, *WHY*? Did you
write his code?

Would you trust any President with this power? Or just
President Bush? If so, *WHY*? If not, then what happens
when he is out of office?

As to a plausible reason why he would do that,
"political advantage", "personal gain".

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is arguing that consumers will choose a cheaper and better product. This is obvious and the sign of a healthy market.

However, it only holds true when the price reflects the cost of manufacture.

Consider this hypothetical situation, wherein you are a small business owner in a small town. You have a bunch of regulars, great. Then Walmart rolls in. Suddenly, your customers disappear: lower prices at Warlmat. So you try lowering your prices to compete. That's natural and healthy.

Except that Walmart has stores all over the US to draw resources from, and their profits from a single business day can let them afford to practically give away their products until you - and, if they so choose, all the other businesses in your community - declare bankruptcy.

Furthermore, not only does Walmart control many smaller markets (for a correspondingly larger bankroll), but they can get their stuff a lot cheaper than you can. They can get their stuff a lot cheaper than you ever could.

This is always the direct result of a free market economy. Regulations are the only thing protecting us from monopolies forming. Once you own one market, even if it's just a podunk town in the middle of nowhere, it becomes easier to conquer another. And another, and so on, until you're only competing with other megacorporations, which is not really competing so much as colluding.

Don't get me wrong - I strongly believe in capitalism. But to insist on free market capitalism seems like a very bad idea, except for those few at the top.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[maxpublic]

I'm not sure this is going to help. The Libertarian party, in an effort to be more "inclusive", has become less and less libertarian (small 'l') over the last six years. At their current rate of backsliding on core libertarian principles, by 2008 they'll be about as libertarian as the Republicans these days are fiscally conservative. Lots of hype, very little substance, and in the end you replace one bunch of power-seeking assholes with another bunch of power-seeking assholes. The only difference will be the lies they told the suckers to get themselves in the drivers seat.

I used to vote Libertarian, but after the party re-engineering its 'image' I'll take a pass, thanks. They seem to be far more interested in winning than in actually standing for what they supposedly believe in - just like the Dems and Republicans.

Max

Re:Illegal Actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be the first in line to covertly buy a ring of land around your house. Sure, I wouldn't be "forcing" you to starve and die, but after you found yourself unable to pay my outrageous toll fee to get to work or the grocery store,

That's a very DEEEEEVIOUS plan you got yourself there, boy.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[misanthrope101]

Don't worry. If any president pulled something like that without a damn good reason like alien invasion or China declaring war on US, then we'd find that president and his vice president dead at the hands of the either the secret service or the military. Our military would not put up with a dictator

Your optimism may be running away from you a bit here. Historically, militaries have been firmly on the side of autocracy. I'm a bit foggy on my Roman history, but I think their Praetorian guard accelerated their decline from a democracy to being led by an emperor. A large standing military has long been thought to be a danger to freedom. Individual members of the military may be conscientious, but the leadership, and the culture at large, is authoritarian, and prefers the efficiency and predictability of strong leadership over the chaos of democracy. This is ostensibly just because of the mission they have to accomplish, but the mindset is a seductive one. There is at least one general I know of (Boykin, possibly, but I'm not sure) who's a Christian Reconstructionist.

There are a lot of Evangelicals at the higher levels of the military, which tells me that there are probably a few Christian Reconstructionists/Dominionists, and they have ideals that are very antithetical to freedom and democracy. No, I'm not saying that there is a plot afoot to take over the government. But if there was a large terrorist attack right before or during the election, with some prominent people killed, and Vice-President Cheney had to step in and become President, and the election was "put on hold" to the "tragic circumstances" I don't think the military or civil service would put a bullet in his head. Again, I'm not saying that there's a plot afoot, though you can Google "Operation Northwoods" if you consider it an ridiculous, bizarro idea. But I do think that, if the right confluence of events came to pass, the election could be suspended, and with the right PR blitz it could be effectively sold to enough of the American public to make it viable.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[lonecrow]

Vote Green - Niether left nor right but straight ahead.

Re:Illegal Actions?

[veritee]

I totally agree with everything you espoused....you are so on...the American people just do not seem to care that their freedoms are being stripped from them on every side and what's more their own money, in the form of taxes, is paying for it. It's insanity personified and I don't see any way around it!! When are they going to awaken to the fact that parties, either Democrat or Republican make no difference, they are all after the same end...power, complete power and they have almost accomplished this, in fact, it won't be very much longer when they have what they are after. And then what will there be, a 'benevolent dictator'?? An oxymoron if there ever was one but that's how they'll work it.

Get real.

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me how soon that people forget about reality.

The fact is that there have been thousands of terrorist attacks that have been halted due to these government activities. Just because Bush and the government is aggressively protecting us doesn't give anyone the right to complain! Sadly, it's hard for the government say "look what we stopped", because if we give the terrorists any information, we put ourselves at massive risk. I for one don't want to lose my way of life.

Would you rather have you and your children dead, or safe? That's really the question on the table. It seems like many here would choose dead. Supporting our president's right to spy on criminal terrorists is saving us from certain destruction. To risk a little bit of theoretical "personal privacy of innocent Americans" seems like an extremely reasonable price to pay.

This is war. Old laws can no longer apply if innocent American lives are on the line. It is the only morally just course of action.

Re:Get real.

[Tx]

To risk a little bit of theoretical "personal privacy of innocent Americans" seems like an extremely reasonable price to pay.

Posted by an Anonymous Coward. Now that's irony, Alanis.

Re:Get real.

[SnapShot]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

I decided to reply to this one because I think it's important for those of us who actually care about our country and the Constitution to realize that there are a lot of people who believe the parent's logic. It's basically a "think of the children" argument balanced against a "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" mindset. It's a very, very scary argument for our country but I think a lot of Fox viewers believe this and no amount of parroting the Franklin quote or modding down anonymous postings will get them to change their mind.

So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?

Re:Get real.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?

Simple. Let America become a totalitarian state. It won't last, but it will scare enough people for the time that it does last to buy another two hundred years of freedom, after maybe a twenty year civil war.

We have failed to learn history. Now we have to take our medicine and repeat it.

Re:Get real.

[Kookus]

Might be a decent idea, because there would have to be a war to change it back into a democracy, and maybe then we can rid the country of the "bad" people...
Wait.. which ones are the bad people?

Re:Get real.

[Opportunist]

Actually it's the road to terrorism, not the solution to it. To the worst kind of terrorism: The one organised and executed by your very own country.

Ask anyone from Germany about it. If he's old enough he'll remember. If not, he'll know the stories his gramps told him.

Re:Get real.

[p0tat03]

The same way we fixed the last tyrannical government: civil war and a "reboot" of the system.

Much like Windows, democracy and freedom must be reformatted from time to time.

Re:Get real.

[madcow_bg]

Disclaimer: IANA, A as in american.

> It amazes me how soon that people forget about reality.
Me too. So why did you?

> The fact is that there have been thousands of terrorist attacks that have been halted due to these government activities.
You mean like the killer bees or the razor in the apple on Halloween?

> Just because Bush and the government is aggressively protecting us doesn't give anyone the right to complain!
OMG!!! Can I protect you aggressively by punching you? It won't hurt... much. But I will save you because I won't kill you. Agree?

> Sadly, it's hard for the government say "look what we stopped", because if we give the terrorists any information, we put ourselves at massive risk. I for one don't want to lose my way of life.
So, basically, we should trust everybody that says: I want your privacy? THAT is a sure way not-to-loose your way of life.

> Would you rather have you and your children dead, or safe? That's really the question on the table.
Heeey, you are sooo muuuch safer. From your neighbour and from your mother. That b**ch always wanted to kill you, right? And from schoolmates... THAT is a relieve, right? When did criminals started to obey the law, by the way? Newsflash: If I wanted to kill you NOONE could stop me. Deal with it.

> It seems like many here would choose dead. Supporting our president's right to spy on criminal terrorists is saving us from certain destruction. To risk a little bit of theoretical "personal privacy of innocent Americans" seems like an extremely reasonable price to pay.
No, many would choose freedom or choose death. Maybe you haven't noticed how many people have died in rebellions throughout the history of mankind. Terrorists are a timed event, but consequences of loosing your freedom will be a burden to your children as well. The 'little bit of theretical personal privacy' means you can be watched and you won't be able to find out who did it, let alone punish the bastards. That is lawful? I think it is even against the human rights convention. And it is only about BASIC human rights!

> This is war. Old laws can no longer apply if innocent American lives are on the line. It is the only morally just course of action.
And it will be as successfull as the war on drugs. So, if these were innocent lebanese or other middle-eastern people, rules apply. But for americans... it is (arguably) moral to spy in other countries. But at least there you won't have the power to put people in jail with it. Got the difference?

Re:Get real.

[crabpeople]

mr titor is that you?

Re:Get real.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be all for it, just to see the smugness wiped from so many "land of the free no matter how many improsoned" faces, if you guys weren't right next door. When America does the Big Foom - I have a standing bet with my brother on a military dictatorship in my lifetime - the circle of collateral damage wil be huge.

Re:Get real.

[Kazoo the Clown]

So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?

I wish I knew the answer to this. What's truly ironic is that creation of totalitarian states appears to be actually the goal of these particular terrorists, turning us AND them into ones, and given that, it looks like they're achieving that goal and our gov't is completely obliging and oblivious.

Re:Get real.

[novus ordo]

We have failed to learn history.

You mean we have learned to fail history?

He is admitting he has no responsibility?

[ChadL]

The name is the Office of Professional Responsibility... and he told them to go away... That would indicate to me that he is admitting he is not responsible. But, we all knew that when he first go into office.

I'd like to be the first

[ignavus]

I'd like to be the first to welcome our new presidential overlord.

I know where quite a few of your enemies are, I believe I can help you round them up ....

Re:I'd like to be the first

[gsurbey]

You fool! For surely the first candidates would be us here on Slashdot because we are freethinking individuals. You'd be getting rid of the trolls, moderators, grammar nazis, mac elitists, and linux zealots all at once! ... on second thought... you're right, let's round them up.

Re:Has your outrage meter pegged, yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had the liberals gotten their way we would be a territory of Iran by by now...

Endanger National Security

[lcba]

"giving more people access would endanger national security"????

Sure it will endanger national security!!!!, everybody will be able to see what kind of things this administration has really done, and everyone will be so mad, it will cause serious political damage to the current government (at least)... ooh!! and by "national security" they meant "our administration staying in power"

Re:Endanger National Security

[Chris Cata]

My question is, come time for new administration, does the current power have the ability to keep secret what they say now is a national security threat...?

Bush asserting same powers as Adolf?

[transporter_ii]

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/81616- crisis-0

In effect, Bush is asserting the same powers seized by Adolf Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.

Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the President in his role as Commander In Chief. Thus, once the president is at war - even a vague, open-ended "war on terror" - Bush's Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and the indefinite detention of American citizens.

In a further bid this week to tighten their grip upon the United States, military leaders have announced that their nation's judges no longer have oversight over their actions, and as we can read as reported by the Reuters News Service in their article titled "US Says Gov't, Not Courts, Should Judge Spy Secrets," and which says:

"The United States government, not any court, is the best judge of whether to keep programs such as its controversial effort to eavesdrop on citizens a secret, an assistant attorney general said on Wednesday. Peter Keisler, an assistant attorney general, and other U. S. officials made the claim in the latest filing to a lawsuit alleging that telecommunications firm AT&T illegally allowed the government to monitor phone conversations and e-mail communications.

"In cases such as this one, where the national security of the United States is implicated, it is well established that the executive branch is best positioned to judge the potential effects of disclosure of sensitive information on the nation's security, they wrote in a filing on Wednesday evening."

As a foreigner...

[kinocho]

I think you americans do not understand the rage, the hate and the loathing that (almost) everyone out of your country feels right now against that pitiful "president" you have.

Worst thing is, that the feeling is moving towards the american people as well for elected him... TWICE!!

What are you gonna do about it? When the fuck are you gonna wake up??

Now you can troll me, I am just another peasant from the third world anyway...

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

The same goes for his baby sidekick Blair who licks his texan cowboy boots at every opportunity.
The pair of them will go down in history as the people who made the world a more deadly place. Exactly the opposite that they and their puppet spokesmen/women say they are doing. IMHO, they are nothing more than a pair of power mad meglamaniacs.
There is a nice little island in the Atlantic Ocean that is suitable for them and their ilk. IT had one resident many years ago. Another power crazy guy called Napoleon!

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can't blame the Americans. Bush and Kerry's popularity in 2004 was nearly equal:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/poll.sun day/index.html

I wasn't too happy about Bush's reelection. Most people I knew didn't like him either and were surprised when he won the reelection. The conservative folks I knew working in the government didn't like Bush as well, but they hated Kerry even more because he didn't stand for any position. They'd prefer a President who they could predict how he voted.

Finally, as to your comment about waking up, I think most Americans are awake. Bush's popularity is 38% and going lower. People hate him here. Unfortunately, the American media covers up much of the criticism going towards Bush. It looks like they're influenced by the President as well, after what happened to CBS.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Edax Rarem]

As a native...
I am pretty sure we (the majority) didn't vote for him.
Through a series of tricks and covert maneuvers this administration effectively stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. (see Robert Kennedy Jr's article in Rolling Stone).
Now, since these same people now control all 3 branches of our government there isn't much we CAN do, short of rebellion.

I believe we (again, the majority) are angry at what is being done, but the only tool available to change the situation is in the hands of those in charge.
What would you suggest we do?

Re:As a foreigner...

[hnile_jablko]

As a US citizen living overseas, I can fairly (not in a Fox news kind of way) confirm what you state.
Further to this, I have aggravated my friends int he US by saying we hold elections which have drastic effect (often to the worst possible end) on the lives of everyone on the planet, yet they dont get a vote.
Then I ask them, didnt this same condition exist in colonial america with the english? What did they do to solve this burden on our lives? Didn't we become terrorists?

Seems pretty obvious, but the looks on their faces or the stutter in their voice says it hasnt registered. *sigh*

Re:As a foreigner...

[Usagi_yo]

No, I understand your envy and petty jealousy. I feel your pain.

Re:As a foreigner...

[clickclickdrone]

>No, I understand your envy and petty jealousy. I feel your pain.
No, not envy or jealousy. Sorry to pop your ego but it isn't that. For most it is a mixture of fear and opened mouthed 'WTF?'.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do we realize it, we generally don't care. A foreigners opinion of our leadership is pretty much last on my list of things to give a rat's ass about. Well, right after who will win the next ESPN domino tournament. Unless you plan to do something about it, your rage is both wasted and misplaced. Did I vote for him? No, I don't vote. Am I glad that foreigners hate him? You betcha. Jealousy is a bitch..

Re:As a foreigner...

[renderhead]

Ah, yes. Robert Kennedy, Jr., the very picture of impartiality and fairness in a feud between Democrats and Republicans. Why, I can't think of any reason that he'd want to sway the debate in favor of one party!

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel this is where a multi-party parliamentary democracy (like in India) can be a little useful. Agreed that almost always the government formed there is a fragile coalition of many regional parties but that same model gives more power to pockets of people who can pressurize their local representatives to withdraw support to the central government and topple it overnight at anytime. Yes it is a double-edged sword that many a time these same regional parties can bring down a perfectly stable government to further their own agendas, but it keeps the central government on its toes.

With just two parties to choose from especially when it comes to choosing between Bush (a bellicose person (snicker)) and Kerry (an indecisive person) the American people don't have much choice and once they are elected it takes a pretty big effort (impeachment) to bring the government down.

I may be completely wrong but the best way for the US to go will be to adopt a government where the people have the authority to fire their Chief Executive if he blatantly sucks at his job; anything less (like suffering four years for a single mistake) is not even close to democracy.

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

I didn't vote for the guy, but you are really pissing ME off. Europeans hold America to a higher standard than you do yourselves. It must be nice to live under the military umbrella that the US has provided for you over the past 60 years - makes it much easier to spend on lavish social programs, doesn't it? I'm sure you would be much better off if the cold war hadn't been won by the US spending itself almost to insolvency, right?

Well, from my perspective, you all look like a bunch of racist spoiled children. You treat immigrants with such disdain, and then preach about human rights? You have domestic terrorism problems that you can't solve, and then you presume to tell us how to solve our terrorism problems? You are more than willing to ask for our help when things like Bosnia get out of control, but then your population would prefer to snub the US when it needs help? I'm sorry if I've offended any other Europeans, but really, when 70% of you think that the US is the major threat to global stability, you really need to reflect inward. If the US goes down, you are going down with it - we are very interdependent. It's a damn good thing that your governments seem to be more grounded then the population at-large.

As an aside, do you really think that Bush is this one yahoo that operates independently? He is not - all three branches of government are controlled by his party. When he went to war in Iraq, he went with the blessing of nearly every member of congress except for some wackos in California. Like it or not, Bush is representative of a large number of Americans. Not me, but many of my countrymen are deeply religious and have very fascist attitudes when it comes to social issues. Most of them cannot point to your country on a map, and frankly do not really care. Europeans are not very popular, especially when all we see is criticism from our "allies". One of the above comments actually compares Bush to Hitler. Yeah, well I'd compare the attitude of most of Europe as that of Neville Chamberlain - eager to solve the world's ills peacefully until one day they wake up and their civilization is nearly gone. Just because you don't want to fight anyone doesn't mean that they don't want to fight you.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Rob the Bold]

I think you americans do not understand the rage, the hate and the loathing that (almost) everyone out of your country feels right now against that pitiful "president" you have.

Assuming that you are a "foreigner" (w.r.t. the US, I presume) who actually feels "hate and loathing" toward the president of the US, you couldn't pick a worse way to work toward your goal (which is: changing US policies, I presume again).

I'm an American, I dislike the president, and I didn't vote for him. But if you really want to influence any Americans, you should try to refrain from insulting us. It's kind of like criticizing your spouse's family -- they can do it, but you can't. Cause once you start bagging on your husband/wife's stupid brother, you put them in a position of defending the idiot.

On the other hand, your approach would be perfect if in fact you were a shill for the US administration. You would be confirming the suspicion that the rest of the world is out to get us and we need to rally around the embattled president.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you americans do not understand the rage, the hate and the loathing that (almost) everyone out of your country feels right now against that pitiful "president" you have.

Yadda yadda yadda. We know, and we couldn't care less. There's nothing you can do about it anyway and even if there would, we'd simply wipe the floor with your carcasses with two fingers of our left hand while we flip through Playboy with the other.

I am just another peasant from the third world anyway...

Then you will know why your opinions ain't worth shit.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually have a hard time understanding hate.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really sick and fucking tired of this Democratic bullshit.

Let's see, which is more likely: Kerry was a terrible choice as a canidate, and lost an election because the only people voting for him were actually voting against Bush; or there was large-spread massive voter fraud and a massive consipracy that's somehow managed to remain secret even though the White House can't manage to keep things like this NSA wiretapping scandal quiet.

The sooner the Democrats realize that they're largely out of touch with America, the sooner they can stop being the Republican Jr. party (they're just like Republicans, except without the charisma) and start actually standing for something. (As opposed to their current platform of "we're not the Republicans, we just vote for the same things.")

You have to remember that Kerry voted to invade Iraq just like Bush did. The policies that the rest of the world hates America for were largely supported by Kerry.

Kerry was a less charismatic, more pompous version of Bush. (Hell, they both went to private schools in Massachusetts, no matter how much Dubya wants to pretend he comes from some place in touch with most Americans.) Kerry was just the Democrat Party's version of Bush. Both supported the war in Iraq. Both supported the US PATRIOT act.

Face it, Kerry lost because he was essentially a less-experienced version of Bush. (Less experienced as President, OK?) He wasn't substantially different from Bush that it made sense to change leadership while the nation was at war, declared or not. Bush made the mess in Iraq, I like many other Americans think he deserves another term to try and clean up the mess he made. If in 2008 things are still messed up in Iraq, Bush will have earned his legacy. Kerry already earned his as an unprincipled fool who changes position based on whatever the latest poll says.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who have an opinion want to sway the debate in favor of their views.

Re:As a foreigner...

[kinocho]

right now I am too scared of any viable solution I could think of (French revolution anyone?)...

And yes, I agree that only half your country voted for the asshole, but I am talking about the view from outside :-( and here "we" only see the stupid war on terror crap.

On another side... could someone explain to me where is my first post?? I didn't know that slashdot had any kind of censorship, but it looks exactly like that.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Edax Rarem]

Your post is still there:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191800&thresho ld=1&commentsort=3&mode=thread&cid=15755606

It got modded down to zero as a troll. (unfairly I believe)

Some folks are touchy about being criticized by... non-Americans, I guess.

Re:As a foreigner...

[eddy]

>What would you suggest we do?

Well, for years and years there's been smack talk about the need to "bear arms" in order to protect the people from the government. I suggest less talking, more shooting.

</tongue-in-cheek>

Re:As a foreigner...

[sauron_of_mordor]

.... there isn't much we CAN do, short of rebellion. ... What would you suggest we do? I think you already answered that :)

Re:As a foreigner...

[kinocho]

Thank you, I didn't see it myself, somehow I was actually expecting something like that, and believe it or not, my intention was not to start a flamewar.

Regards

Re:As a foreigner...

[Opportunist]

Usually I refrain from replying to rants, this time it has a compelling air that I simply can't resist.

The "military umbrella" you mention came at a price. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the days of the cold war, but I tell you, it's not enjoyable to sit about 5 miles from Communist territory and know that you wouldn't even get enough warning time to even THINK of using a shelter. Your country placed its weapons into ours, with us being the pawns in your bickering with Russia. Do you think we enjoyed this situation? Do you think we wanted this to happen? Yes, we "won" in a sense that the war didn't happen. Thank god. I remember what it looks like when the USA and Russia moved their pawns to war. Vietnam, anyone? Or Korea? Hindsight is always perfect, no doubt, but I do doubt you'd want to trade places if this wasn't the 21st century but 1970 instead.

Talk about "domestic terrorism". You don't have any. Oh, 9/11? C'mon, be serious. When you talk to someone in Northern Ireland or Israel and you tell him that's terrorism, he'll snicker and walk away. One attack. One single attack. Yes, it was earth shaking and a lot of people died. But since then? Nothing. Where's the fear? That's what terrorism is about. Fear that YOU are the next one. Try living in a country with some REAL terrorism that can hit you every day (and with a hint of bad luck, does) and we can talk about terrorism.

And yes, the US and its foreign policy is a threat to global stability. Iraq was a stable country. A dictatorship, and a cruel one at that, but it was stable. It was not a nice place to live in, but at least it was no threat of global impact. It was, for crying out loud, the ONLY place in the arab world where Al Quaida did NOT get a foot on the ground just because it was a completely secular dictatorship with internal security that put former Communist countries to shame. Now it's a AQ breeding ground. And more people die daily than before.

And finally, Bush isn't like Hitler. Hitler was a malvolent madman full of racism and delusions of grandeur who sought war out of his megalomaniac ideas of the great German Reich that represents the superior race of all humankind. Bush is benevolent, I give him that much that he WANTS to do good and that his intentions are good, that he wants to achive global peace by simply erradicating the ones that want war instead. But, as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and you can't achive peace by oppression of dissent.

I come from a country that stood between the two blocks of power, between East and West in the cold war. More often than not our politicians managed to get both sides to come and sit down to talk, and more than one heated battle was avoided that way, because neither side wanted war. We are facing a different problem now, one side decidedly wants war, and unfortunately, the US gives it to them. But you cannot win a war against an idea without attacking the idea and killing its underlying problem that fuels it, that drives more and more people towards it.

If you want to kill an idea, you have to kill the reason to support it. Not the people supporting it. That only creates martyrs. And if one country on this planet should understand the power of martyrs, it's a country so deeply rooted in Christianity as the US. Ya know, one of them was nailed to a cross 2000 years ago and see where it led us.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

when the people your fighting (saddam , osama, taliban...) are poeple you armed to the teeth and trained yourselves. why expect any sympathy from anyone else?

Re:As a foreigner...

[sauron_of_mordor]

>I didn't vote for the guy, but you are really pissing ME off. Like we care? >Europeans hold America to a higher standard than you do yourselves. So you say... >It must be nice to live under the military umbrella that the US has provided for you over the past 60 years err... > - makes it much easier to spend on lavish social programs, doesn't it? political predjudice here? >As an aside, do you really think that Bush is this one yahoo that operates independently? He is not - all three branches of >government are controlled by his party. When he went to war in Iraq, he went with the blessing of nearly every member of congress >except for some wackos in California. Who incidently look quite sensible with hindsight ;) >really care. Europeans are not very popular, especially when all we see is criticism from our "allies". One of the above comments >actually compares Bush to Hitler. Yeah, well I'd compare the attitude of most of Europe as that of Neville Chamberlain - eager to >solve the world's ills peacefully until one day they wake up and their civilization is nearly gone. Just because you don't want >to fight anyone doesn't mean that they don't want to fight you. I think you don't understand NC's motivation for his actions very well. thnx

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

You and I have a very fundamental difference in our world view - and I think that is one of the problems that hangs between the US and Europe.

You talk about the hell that was living in Cold War Europe, yet you seem to forget that you were on the free side. Would your life have been better had you lived in East Germany? I strongly suspect not. You also seem to cast the US as the sole player in the cold war, when Europeans were very much partners in it. Not to mention the very sinister player on the other side - the Warsaw Pact. Do you really believe that the US and USSR TALKING is what ended the Cold War? It was actually the bankruptcy of the USSR that enable Gorbachev to rise to power and make his reforms. Without the massive military arms race, the Soviets could have kept their empire together much longer.

"Talk about "domestic terrorism". You don't have any."

That was my point. I love it when we get lectured about the causes and solutions to terrorism by people who have shown that they cannot control it at home. I'm not saying "we're better at controlling terrorism", I'm saying "you suck at it". Maybe we suck, too - give us 30 years or so to get a track record together.

I love the double talk on Iraq. We were wrong for supporting a dictator. We were wrong for deposing said dictator. Seems like the US can't win in your mind - another reason Americans frequently discard European criticism. We figure we're damned either way, so we'd better just act in our own best interest. If your vision of world stability has dictators in it, then I'm sorry, but you and I will just never agree. Dictatorships are what cause wars. Democracies do not go to war against one another, or at least do only very rarely. Even if you reject that argument, you have to admit that dictatorships encourage internal unrest. A world full of warlords, kings, and dictators will never be a stable world.

Anyway, I'm glad we agree on a couple of points: that Bush isn't malevolent (though maybe some of his decisions make him seem that way) and that we need to attack the root of Islamic extremism. While I probably agree with your methods, I disagree with your martyr theory. Sometimes you need to fight a battle on more than one front. Kill the reason AND kill the people. Maybe I'm not a good person, but anyone who wants me dead? Yeah, I want them dead, too.

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

Wow. Is that really how you think? You are truly the polar opposite of the conservative nit-wits that got Bush elected. Life is not so black-and-white.

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

"Like we care?"

Yes, you seem to - you hit "Reply".

"So you say..."

Yes, I do. What do you say - I'm still waiting for some meaningful content and not just 13-year-old sarcasm.

"err..."

Is that the sound of your brain warming up? It's still cold.

"political prejudice here?"

Ah, your brain kicked in - but it's still not really saying anything. Yes, I have political prejudices... you don't? Personally, I think that Europe has largely bankrupted itself with social programs, whereas the US has bankrupted itself with military spending AND social programs.

"Who incidentally look quite sensible with hindsight ;)"

Cute, but no they don't. Their objection was that any use of military force is wrong - not that the intelligence was faulty. One of these esteemed ladies also voted against the Afghan War, which is absurd even in hindsight.

"I think you don't understand NC's motivation for his actions very well."

His motivations don't matter - the results of his actions do. He let a problem fester and ended up paying for it. England got dragged into the war despite his intentions. If you are arguing that he was just trying to buy time for England to gear up for war, well that is valid, but his peacemaking efforts still failed. You can't placate someone who wants you dead. Look at Hezbollah... they formed to force Israel out of Lebanon. They win. Then what, did they disappear? No, they grew stronger and attacked Israel even though they got what they wanted. A gross simplification, I know...

Re:As a foreigner...

[Opportunist]

I was living on neither side of the fence. I was living ON the fence. Quite pointy there, I tell you. The end of the Cold War was, as you point out, the bankrupcy of the SSSR. Mostly, though, it was also brought along by the fact that the people there didn't want to live in a dictatorship anymore and that even the best propaganda couldn't keep them in anymore. People were fleeing their countries, and that's usually the sign that a country is about to die. Funny enough, the development some of those countries took in the last 2 decades makes a lot of people want their dictators back. So... something went wrong, I'd say.

We actually dealt with our terrorists, and we won. The RAF was a german left-radical terrorist group that was very active in the 70s and 80s. There is no terror today in Germany anymore. I don't question that the US should deal with its terrorists, find their sources and make sure that those dry out, but I wonder where foreign wars come into play there. If I remember correctly, the RAF was funded and supported by some arabian nations, but I don't really remember Germany going to war with Libya and Iran. It was a different time, granted, and terrorism was a matter of capitalist vs. communist politics instead of the war of religions that it is supposedly now, but still, Germany dealt with it on its OWN ground. I.e. where the terrorism happened.

About Iraq, I don't enjoy the existance of dictatorships either. Let's not go into the question whether or not some dictatorships exist not despite but because of US intervention, but I think we can agree that dictatorships are usually not really a source of stability. Yet, they are more stable than anarchies. I wouldn't complain if the US completed what it started in Afghanistan and then went on, but so all that's left is two countries in turmoil with no trace of stability on the horizon.

Finally, to fight the reason for terrorism, you cannot fight the people. Fighting people only creates the will to fight back, but never peace. It might create submission when no other options exist, but as long as the air of defeat and oppression surrounds this submissions, the attraction to terrorism only grows. For a very drastic example, look up WW1 in your history books and how its "peace treaty" made WW2 possible altogether. The peace of Brest-Litowsk was no peace for conciliation. It was aimed at destroying Germany, which did only fuel the fascist ideology and led to one of the worst chapters in history. Peace can only be found when two countries meet as equals and try to accept each other as such. Germany and France were sworn arch enemies for almost a millenium, now they coexist and work together peacefully as the 2 most influential members of the European Union.

It didn't become possible until they both accepted each other's existance. And that is the way out of terrorism. Acceptance of each other's existance. Yes, it might seem idealistic, but when you're from a part of the world where you see, wherever you look in history, that prosperity and peace starts with the acceptance of each other (with Germany and France being only a small example, there are many more, from Finnland down to Turkey), you tend to become kinda peaceful.

War's never done anything good for Europe. We've had enough of it, about 3000 years of recorded history with about 200 years thereof peace. 'tis enough.

Re:As a foreigner...

[sauron_of_mordor]

>>"So you say..."
>Yes, I do. What do you say - I'm still waiting for some meaningful content and not just 13-year-old sarcasm.

I don't think so obviously, and you posted the amazingly generalized observation without much thought argument or justification - so quite franky the 13 year old sarcasm was from my angle quite appropriate.

>>"err..."
>Is that the sound of your brain warming up? It's still cold.

Ah personal insult time, a good choice of response :) Again if there were no US umbrella to protect us from the evil communist regime we would all be dead meat by now? More probably if the US did not exist many of the semi-conflicts that occured in that time would not have and the cold war may very well not have been as serious as it was - your conjecturing an an alternative history and completely missing that the US was an *active* participant in that rather than a *passive* defender of The Rest Of The World^tm. Your comment drips with an arrogance which is in part why so many europeans have the feelings that they do.

>>"political prejudice here?"
>Ah, your brain kicked in -

yep lets keep this on a personal level shall we....
> but it's still not really saying anything. Yes, I have political prejudices... you don't?

Of course I do, but I try not to project them by making wild sweeping generalisations about other nations decisions about how and where they spend their money. If the EU member like social programs, good on them - their happy, why are thei decisions a problem to you - unless of course they are 'evil socialists' which we all know is a close relative of communism, and not a viable form of democratic governance....

> Personally, I think that Europe has largely bankrupted itself with social programs, whereas the US
> has bankrupted itself with military spending AND social programs.

You can think what you want, but as I said I think most Europeans are quite happy with the product they spent their money on. I didn't notice France being invaded yet so perhaps they got the balance right?

>>"Who incidentally look quite sensible with hindsight ;)"
>Cute, but no they don't. Their objection was that any use of military force is wrong - not that the intelligence was
>faulty. One of these esteemed ladies also voted against the Afghan War, which is absurd even in hindsight.

Big generalisation. I know quite a lot of californians and quite a lot of Europeans. I've never met anyone who says "there is never circumstance that war is not the appropriate response" or a *very* small number of pacifists. What I have heard (at the time) are comments like;

"We will only make things worse with war" - turns out true
"Is the evidence really there that there is a threat" - turns out true
"Is it appropriate that the US leads the charge against the general consensus of the UN"
"Hans Blix is the guy running the show and he says no and we should believe the proffesional not the politician"

where the contrary position as it reached my ears was something to do with US and UK quoting each others intelligence services (so that they don't take liability later when its found to be baloney) to trump up the severity of the 'threat' and patently false media shots associating 9/11 with Iraq leveraging the existing (well founded) anger in the US populace. So I think I'll stick to my position on that one thanks.

>>"I think you don't understand NC's motivation for his actions very well."
>His motivations don't matter - the results of his actions do. He let a problem fester and ended up paying for it.

What you have to understand is that at that time there was no alliance. neither france nor the US had offered support and germany was strong. The 'result' of his actions - the important bit as you say - was that by the time Britain did get dragged in it was stronger (as you note), allied and the result was a win. The alternative was pro

Re:As a foreigner...

[NoOneInParticular]

About dictators. In the European view, the US has a very weird relationship with dictators and democracies. For one, the US doesn't seem to have any problem disposing of democracies and replacing them with a dictatorship if they so desire (Chili comes to mind). A socialist-democratic government seems to be worse than a ruthless dictatorship in the American view. America has destroyed more democracies than any other (democratic) nation ever. Most (European) democracies have been pushed towards true representative democracy through socialism (not communism). America is the exception here, not the rule. America doesn't like that and has been a detriment to democracy, much like the USSR.

From this, only one rational conclusion can be drawn wrt the foreign policies of the US. The US doesn't care about democracy, it doesn't care about foreign populations to decide on their rule on their own, it doesn't care about freedom. The bottom line is simply as it has always been: the almighty buck rules. US military is there for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect the economic interests of the American corporations. The deaths of US soldiers in Iraq is simply the sacrifice they make to try to make the US-rich richer. From this perspective most actions of the US government, including Iraq, make sense. And this is not bad per se. Our politics are usually concerned about the same (including attempts to destroy budding democracies, dictatorships are much more profitable trade partners). The problem lies in the unbridled and obnoxious hypocrisy that US policy is about morality, democracy and freedom. This is what makes our sensitive European stomachs turn. It's even more disgusting to see the poor, mentally challenged US populace take the propaganda hook, line and sinker; thinking that actually they're doing something noble. I'm sorry, your country does not want to get rid of dictators, it's much more profitable to have them around. The American troops will leave Iraq only when the US can trade on their terms with the established government, not sooner.

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the first: I am not a dem, I'm a libertarian.

Note the second: Who said anything about widespread? The election was close. As you note, Kerry was hardly the ideal choice of candidates for the Dems. Between this and traditional voting patterns (California and Texas were pretty much locks from the start, for instance) that just leaves a small number of swing states that need to be "influenced". In fact, it only really needed to be a handfull of districts in a handful of key states.

I would suggest you look into the charges more, ignoring the source. He did a pretty decent job of documenting it. And if you want some sources without being Kennedy Jrs, check out blackboxvoting.org. The paperless voting machines are horribly insecure, and it's insecurity by design not just by implementation. And the CEO of at least one of the companies making them publicly promised to deliver a key state to Bush. Between this kind of thing and the antics of some of the Republican appointees in other key areas, the kind of vote fraud mentioned in the GP is very much far from unlikely. Unfortunately, essentially no investigation into such things has been allowed.

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

"yep lets keep this on a personal level shall we...."

Yes, grunting and making sarcastic responses is in no way taken personally... sheesh. And you have the balls to call me arrogant.

You act as if Europe did not beat itself to a pulp for thousands of years before the US - admittedly in it's own self interest - stepped in after WWII. You can go on about how Europeans themselves were tired of war, etc, etc, etc, but the fact is that until two outside powers got involved (US and USSR), Europe was more-or-less constantly at war. For Europe to now turn around and preach to the US about peace? Yeah, we're the arrogant ones...

I don't really care how France bankrupts itself. My point was only that they didn't have to spend much on their "military" and instead could instead spend their money on social services. If you say that they are happy... well okay. But I've seen a lot of headlines about the worst economy since WWII, riots, retirement funds that can't pay out, etc. Sounds great.

I know a lot of Californians and more than a handful of Europeans. I have heard more than once the opinion that the only use for a military is in self defense, and that there is no reason to attack. So apparently we know different sets of Californians and Europeans. But I wasn't even talking about them - I was talking about a few of the idiots that they have elected to congress. One woman, Barbara Lee, was the only vote in the entire congress against Afghanistan. In the past she has voted against almost every common-sense military action that has taken place. Of course, she comes from the Oakland/Berkeley area, but still...

The politicians deserve the beating that they are getting on Iraq. I agree that the whole beating-us-over-the-head with bad intelligence is borderline incompetent and I'm glad to see them getting called out. However, now that the US and Britain are in there, what is the sense in opposing the current action? Would people really want the US out of Iraq at this stage? That seems supremely stupid to me.

Regarding NC, now you are the one conjecturing history, so I'll leave you to scold yourself in the same way you scolded me.

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

I'm afraid that you are using the US behavior during the Cold War, in which Communism was indeed a real threat, and applying today's world view on it. The US does still support dictators - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, to name a few. While my instinct is to be critical, I honestly can't fathom what the US should do instead - they NEED support from these countries. Can you imagine the situation in Iraq if Jordan and the Saudi's were also hostile?

Re:As a foreigner...

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part about being an American is being able to say "I don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks."

And I don't!

Have a nice day!

Re:As a foreigner...

[lonecrow]

We were wrong for supporting a dictator. We were wrong for deposing said dictator.

Well in the case of Iraq wasn't it the same dictator?

However I think that is beside the point, I think the poster a few levels down got it right. Do what your going to do to protect your interests but stop wrapping it in some noble goal of freedom and democracy, because it isn't.

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

"Well in the case of Iraq wasn't it the same dictator?"

Yes, which was my point.

"However I think that is beside the point, I think the poster a few levels down got it right. Do what your going to do to protect your interests but stop wrapping it in some noble goal of freedom and democracy, because it isn't."

Hey, I'll admit that US politicians use the "freedom and democracy" thing to pursue their self interests... politicians are a sleazy lot. But when will people from France and Germany admit that their leaders opposed Iraq largely because it was a huge market for them, instead of really caring about peace, love, and harmony? The politicians on both sides are full of shit, but they are so transparent that I'm not sure why people hate them so much. It's like a two-year-old insisting that he wasn't eating the cake when his face is covered in icing - he's such a bad liar that it's almost endearing. Everyone acts in their self-interest and decorates it with bullshit... it's just how humans are.

Re:As a foreigner...

[HuguesT]

Thanks for this opinion, it helps understand why there is so little understanding between the US and the rest of the world.

For the record, I'm Australian, and so perhaps somewhat neutral. If I may respond :

> Europeans hold America to a higher standard than you do yourselves

This may be the perception, however Europeans by and large don't pretend to save the world from itself, while simultaneously bombing everyone and pretending to be restoring democracy everywhere in the process. The US government pretends to do this all the time. The US Gov went to the UN in NYC, and basically said "We are going to restore democracy in Iraq" "The Iraqi are going to welcome us with open arms". Don't you remember this ?

Look at the score card, and tell me whose standards weren't upheld again?

> You treat immigrants with such disdain, and then preach about human rights?

Europe has exactly the same problems regarding immigration than the US does. I seem to hear that the federal goverment wants to build a huge wall along the Rio Grande to keep wetbacks out. I heard that Arizona wanted to specifically tax recent immigrants to help build that wall. That's more than disdain, that's downright humiliation.

> You have domestic terrorism problems that you can't solve, and then you presume to tell us how to solve our terrorism problems?

Actually I think Europeans are slowly solving them. The Lockerby Lybians were found and charged thanks to international cooperation. We know who masterminded the Paris Metro attacks, he was recently arrested and extradited to France via the UK. This particular procedure was very long, but European countries have signed an international agreement for faster processing recently.

Notice that the UK didn't bomb Lybia as a result of Lockerby (the US did for other reasons, though!) and that France didn't bomb Algeria for the metro attacks.

Notice as well that internal terrorism is also hopefully being resolved. IRA vowed to disarm a year ago, and went ahead a few month later despite considerable doubt in the Protestant camp that this would ever happen.

The bottom line is that Europe has been coping with terrorism longer than the US have. I hear that the US got some tips from the Israeli. This is good, because if there is a country knows about terrorism, that is Israel. Note that they, too, despite considerable military and financial help from the US, still haven't resolved that issue.

> You are more than willing to ask for our help when things like Bosnia get out of control, but then your population would prefer to snub the US when it needs help?

Bosnia was the best US deed from recent memory. Thanks. However on the Iraq issue the US was not *asking* for help, it was *demanding* it. As in strongarming, refusing debate and even calls to the most basic rule of reason. Note that in the case of Afghanistan, where terrorists and 9/11 masterminds were harboured, *many* nations responded to the call. Even the French, who count 7 casualties so far in Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, it was well-known that Iraq was not involved. GWB wanted to go there to settle some kind of score and grab the 2nd largest known reserves of oil in the process. Some European refused, insisting that Iraq was not going to be the easy walk in that GWB was hoping for. Can we blame them?

> Well, from my perspective, you all look like a bunch of racist spoiled children

A very slippery slope here. When I studied in the US, I saw very few African-Americans doing advanced degrees like master's and PhD's. Why is that do you think ? when did the African-Americans acquire

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

>For the record, I'm Australian, and so perhaps somewhat neutral. If I may respond :

For what it's worth, Americans have a very positive attitude towards Australians.

>This may be the perception, however Europeans by and large don't pretend to save the world from itself, while simultaneously bombing everyone and pretending to be restoring democracy everywhere in the process. The US government pretends to do this all the time. The US Gov went to the UN in NYC, and basically said "We are going to restore democracy in Iraq" "The Iraqi are going to welcome us with open arms". Don't you remember this ?

Yeah, and I thought it was a pretty rosy viewpoint considering the reality of the Middle East. If Bush really thought that, and wasn't just trying to get his way, then he really is incompetent.

>Look at the score card, and tell me whose standards weren't upheld again?

But we're still there! If we cut-and-run, then we lose quite a bit of credibility on that score, but I think that the jury is still out.

>Europe has exactly the same problems regarding immigration than the US does. I seem to hear that the federal goverment wants to build a huge wall along the Rio Grande to keep wetbacks out. I heard that Arizona wanted to specifically tax recent immigrants to help build that wall. That's more than disdain, that's downright humiliation.

In some ways, the European and American immigration problems are similar. However, the attitude here is much different than in Europe. Here it is pretty much accepted that people of "Hispanic" decent will eventually outnumber whites - especially in border states. There is resistance to this from a certain element in the US, to be sure. In Europe, however, they are much more insistent about maintaining the "character" of their respective countries. In any case, it doesn't matter where the situation is better or worse, my point was only that if they are looking for a place to improve human rights, they can look inside their own country and stop harping on us.

As for the wall, which is really a separate discussion, I think that until Mexico gets it's act together, SOMETHING has to staunch the flow of immigrants into the US. The border states cannot absorb an unlimited number of immigrants - their economies will collapse. The real problem isn't that we don't let Mexicans into the country, the problem is that we have two warring factions and a shitty compromise. On the one hand, we have the people that I'll call "nativists": they are all about saving American jobs and yadda, yadda, yadda. On the other hand you have people who need the labor. The two parties will never agree on a middle ground, so we have a bunch of laws that humiliate Mexicans by keeping them second-class, but they mostly aren't enforced because it simply wouldn't be practical. And, in any case, the people who need the labor are currently in charge of enforcement :) Until recently - it was an acceptable situation, but now some politicians smell an election issue and all hell has broken loose. Everyone was happy. Nativists could call them "wetbacks" and "criminals", business interests got the workers they needed, Mexicans got to make a better living than they would otherwise, and the Mexican government was happy that their poor were fleeing and sending money home. On this issue, Bush is actually quite sane. Perhaps because he had a lot of time to dwell on it as governor of Texas, which is a border state.

>Notice that the UK didn't bomb Libya as a result of Lockerby (the US did for other reasons, though!) and that France didn't bomb Algeria for the metro attacks.

After the Libyan raid, that idiot dictator left us alone. He didn't leave Europe alone, though. Incidentally, that incident illustrates why American's have so little faith in the European's ability to deal with terror. France would not allow a flight over their territory for fear of angering the terrorists... thanks, ally!

>Notice

Re:As a foreigner...

[HuguesT]

I just wanted to say thanks for the long, interesting and considerate answer.

For a few more quick points, first let's say that many Australians also have a deep distrust of GWB's motives, but I'm pretty sure neither Europeans by and large or Australians want Bush to fail. I think by now the point has been made that Iraq's invasion was considerably tougher than expected, and no one has a solution. Cut'n run is not going to have positive effects, and on the other hand, Americans will probably not accept another few thousands troop deaths. The US army is not going to like it either, this is dreadful for its future (recruitment, etc). I imagine fewer are signing up for ROTC today. Ultimately this is not so good for US society.

The only way out I can see is to go the UN (which in this context is just a forum) and have a multinational force sent in under US supervision, but including troops from nearby Arab countries. This might mean that Israel will be asked to tone down its bombing of Lebanon and resume talks with Palestinians, etc.

The situation is very complex in the Middle East. I think it would have been easier to wait out on Saddam Hussein and not intervene, but now it is too late. Everyone should join in to defuse the powder keg that is Iraq today.

The last thing I wanted to point out is that one should perhaps not limit one's impression of a country based on what can be read in newspapers. Even though the dispute between old Europe and the US on Iraq was really quite robust, in actual fact anti-terrorism collaboration between the EU and the US is widely regarded as excellent.

Re:As a foreigner...

[MightyYar]

"The only way out I can see is to go the UN (which in this context is just a forum) and have a multinational force sent in under US supervision, but including troops from nearby Arab countries. This might mean that Israel will be asked to tone down its bombing of Lebanon and resume talks with Palestinians, etc."

The US could go back to the UN, but it really is a pretty limp organization when it comes to anything but famine relief. The security council would never allow blue hats in Iraq - Russia and China would see to that, even if France and Germany acquiesced.

"The situation is very complex in the Middle East. I think it would have been easier to wait out on Saddam Hussein and not intervene, but now it is too late. Everyone should join in to defuse the powder keg that is Iraq today."

I think 11 years was long enough to wait - we were already hearing the shift to reducing the sanctions and maybe ending the no-fly zones. He would have outlasted the UN. At the time, I thought this was the real reason to go into Iraq, not some boogie man called WMD. However, I'll freely admit that I was probably wrong - though I suspect that much of the current trouble is a result of the botched occupation. I'm angry at Bush, too, but not because he went into Iraq. I'm angry at him for listening to the optimists instead of the pessimists (not to mention his bizarre domestic policies). I still think that he has the best (or at least decent) intentions, but is ultimately incompetent.

"The last thing I wanted to point out is that one should perhaps not limit one's impression of a country based on what can be read in newspapers. Even though the dispute between old Europe and the US on Iraq was really quite robust, in actual fact anti-terrorism collaboration between the EU and the US is widely regarded as excellent."

Agreed. Like I said before, I am very thankful that the European governments seem more practical than the opinion polls show the populace to be.

What illegal actions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, just exactly _what_ illegal actions occured?

Correction: you mean the "red" states

[4alexnyc]

CORRECTION: It was the (stupid) "red" states that voted for him twice. I and my fellow "blue" states had nothing to do with it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2004_swing_st ates

Re:Correction: you mean the "red" states

[Opportunist]

How about another secession?

Fascism

[Edax Rarem]

From Wikipedia:
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

Re:Fascism

[minus_273]

Wikipedia:
An encyclopedia that anyone can edit and often has wrong info.

liberalism? huh? you need to figure out what liberal means (notice the small L). Liberal= leftist. liberal= free. BIG difference.

Re:Fascism

[Edax Rarem]

Ok, how about this from THE DICTIONARY:

      1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

      2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Re:Fascism

[dunkelfalke]

in this case you are the one who has got wrong info.
read it up.

Re:Fascism

[minus_273]

" 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

lets see, communism matches all of that. Sounds like saying fascism is anti communist is an oxymoron isnt it?

Re:Fascism

[HuguesT]

Hello,

> lets see, communism matches all of that.

Not racism, which is an important point. Under communism, everyone is opressed equally !

Also fascism advocates a system of society where big corporations are given preferential treatement by governemnt (see automobile and weapons manufacturers in both fascist Italy and Germany). Under communism (of the kind practiced by USSR and China) there are no independent corporation, everything is own by the state.

Re:Fascism

[minus_273]

"Not racism, which is an important point. Under communism, everyone is opressed equally !"

riiiight tell that to my tibetan cousins.

Assumptions

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Kind of telling how not once but twice in the article the author assumes the program was illegal. Witness my daily happy dance that judges rather than partisan hack columnists decide what is illegal.

YRO?

[brunes69]

Unless "NSA illegal surveillance scandal" referrs to some covert blog, I don't see how this impacts my rights online.

That's it exactly

[Tony]

Umm, just exactly _what_ illegal actions occured?

That's the question we'd like answered. It appears the President used his position to order wiretaps without bothering to get judicial authorisation, which is illegal. Or, at least, was at the time. That's the point of the investigation, to learn exactly what was done, when, by whom, and for what purpose.

If the President illegally ordered wiretaps, it's a Very Big Deal.

Re:That's it exactly

[Opportunist]

Wasn't there something about a hotel or something about 30something years ago in a hotel called Water...something...:)

Re:That's it exactly

[Kazoo the Clown]

If the President illegally ordered wiretaps, it's a Very Big Deal.

Or did and then covered it up... Let's not forget that a previous Republican president was forced to resign over just such a thing in order to avoid being impeached?

I wonder how a "deep throat" will fare these days...

Incorrect Assumption

[jackalope]

The submitter started with an incorrect statement. He stated that the foreign surveillance program was illegal. It is not. The only people that still claim it is illegal are those that cling to the mistaken notion that the wiretaps were for domestic calls, they were not. So, I guess the slashdot editors continue either in blind ignorance or willful ignorance of the facts of the situation.

So, it seems very justified that the President would block a useless investigation of a legal program especially since it seems that nobody in DC can keep their mouth shut about anti-terror programs.

Jack

Re:Incorrect Assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

The submitter started with an incorrect statement. He stated that the foreign surveillance program was illegal. It is not.

You are correct sir, but for the wrong reason, it is not illegal, it is ALLEGEDLY illegal

The only people that still claim it is illegal are those that cling to the mistaken notion that the wiretaps were for domestic calls, they were not.

So, you claiming they were not for domestic, either means you blindly accept what this amdinistration (who has been shown to be wrong and lied several times) says is truth, or you have insider knowledge? Care to share which?

So, I guess the slashdot editors continue either in blind ignorance or willful ignorance of the facts of the situation.

Again, what Facts are these you speak of? see above response.

So, it seems very justified that the President would block a useless investigation of a legal program especially since it seems that nobody in DC can keep their mouth shut about anti-terror programs.

It also seems probbale that if it was a legal program, they could have gotten a warrant (HELL they could have gotten warrants after tehe fact where only a small FISA court would have had knowledge) and they didn't. This means they had something to hide even from a small group of judges who regularly deal with issues such as these. The fact that they hide it, implies lack of legal grounding. And were I in Bush & Co's shoes, I'd damn sure try to hide my illegal actions too.

Re:Incorrect Assumption

[dangermouse]

Are you batshit insane?

Not even the DOJ disputes that the program engaged in domestic surveillance.

I quote, you jackass:

The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the United States.

That's the whole damn controversy, here-- domestic surveillance without FISA warrants. Nobody except wingnut wackjobs are arguing that this has not occurred. The administration itself has taken the tack of inventing fatuous legal "justifications" involving the AUMF (which anyone with half a brain can see were conclusively kicked to the curb by the Supreme Court in Hamdan).

Furthermore, by all accounts this surveillance is performed by 'tapping' everything in sight and sorting it out later, so it's even worse than the DOJ admits it is.

If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.

Re:Incorrect Assumption

[dedeman]

If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.

You must be new he....

Nevermind, I just saw your ID :/

Re:Incorrect Assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.

Actually I think he already has assumed the position.

Re:As an American

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't fucking care what you "foreigners" think, feel, cry about, love, hate, blah blah blah. Get over it.

Pravda.ru isn't.

[Bieeanda]

Pravda has the same 'journalistic' mandate as the Weekly World News. This is the same site that recently claimed that centaurs were real, and the result of humans fucking horses.

Re:Pravda.ru isn't.

[transporter_ii]

Yes, the article is strange...but perhaps the strangest of all is that it is coming out of Russia. It is like a piece from the Onion that got picked up by Russia or something. Put personally, I thought it was a strange mix of fact and fantasy that made for a really good read.

Transporter_ii

Bush Makes His Own Rules - I Do What I Want!

[digitaldc]

It's funny how Bush loves to pontificate about the spreading of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' around the world, yet he is so good at suppressing it at home.
Apparently, he can do whatever he wants and not even the US Justice Department can overrule him.
Now I have to ask, do we really live in a 'Democracy?'

For futher reading, see: '1984' and 'V for Vendetta'

Re:Bush Makes His Own Rules - I Do What I Want!

[Don_dumb]

Late in 2001, someone (an American academic I think) said something along the lines of
"In a war for freedom, often the first thing to go is freedom". How right they were.

Re:Bush Makes His Own Rules - I Do What I Want!

[Unlikely_Hero]

The founders made a particular point that we live in a nation of laws, not a nation of men. People say "9/11 changed everything!".
Did it now? Fine, if you're going to say that and if that is how it is going to be, then we need to stop lying about America.
It can no longer be called a democracy standing for freedom, liberty and individuality. If there really is going to be an endless war, and if the president requires all these wartime powers, and one of those is to essentially do whatever he wants then you have a dictator, just a dictator that changes every 4-8 years (for now). It is important that people realize what they are actually saying, and not to have this fantasy in their minds that their rights will return. A war on terrorism is by definition unwinnable, so if you're going to fight it, realize what it is. IT IS AN ENDLESS WAR. If people are going to be willing to give up their rights PERMANENTLY, then if enough of them in the country vote that way, that is their right. (I will be leaving). It is also my right to fight for my beliefs tooth and nail until I see recovering the nation to be impossible and strategically retreating. The fact remains, if you are going to have a president who can do whatever he/she wants for as long as there is war, and if the war is endless by definition, then stop saying you have a president. You, for all practical purposes, have a dictator that is ocassionally changed (until one decides that their leaving office would be "dangerous"). Of the Bush supporters/war on terror supporters I have made this particular point to, most have either renounced support or have become (at the very least) very unnerved and disturbed at what they have been advocating. There is still hope for this nation and even for the people who currently spew propoganda day and night! To all of you out there who feel as I do, don't give up. There is still so much good here, there are still so many good, smart people. We are, however, approaching a point of no return. This is where we have to begin to make a final push or we may never get another chance. This nation must rise up, and reclaim what it has stood for for over 200 years (granted...there were some iffy parts, but the majority was good). So if there are Bush/WOT supporters in your family/area/work/friends, make that pitch to them, ask them if they are ok giving up their rights that are currently "curtailed" permanently. When they say no (and ohhhh god hope that they say no), ask them if the war on terror can ever end. When they say no (and most do) just have them reconcile that, most will get wide eyed.
Good Night!
And Good Luck!

well, almost

[Tom]

"By denying [...], President Bush has effectively blocked the [...] investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place."

Technically, yes. Pragmatically, he has made it very, very obvious that it was either he himself or someone very close to him.

Bad moderation in parent.

[kkiller]

Parent doesn't deserve to be marked as a troll, IMO. If that was true, then the whole page is a huge anti-conservative troll festival.

Someone who gets it

[Tony]

It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

Precisely!

So why is the President using it to block an investigative probe into misconduct? If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.

Re:Someone who gets it

[TexasDex]

If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.

I don't like that sentence, it's too reminiscient of arguments to remove our civil rights, e.g. 4th amendment. What we should say is that with all the evidence made public so far, the public deserves a search warrant.

Re:Someone who gets it

[isa-kuruption]

Why does it have to be what he has to hide? Why isn't it about what he's trying to accomplish by protecting the American people from another terrorist act? Since this is his claim, and it's a reasonable claim, why are you so suspicious to think the President is lying about it? Do you think he implemented such a program for other reasons? Or do you accept his explaination and question his methods? If the former, then you're more concerned with bashing him than actually getting answers. If the latter, then you can not say he's hiding anything, but simply trying to protect the information that gives sensitive details about a program used to protect Americans (and probably others in the world).

Re:Someone who gets it

[hamburger lady]

yes, but he's talking about the goverment. we have 4th amendment rights. the government does not.

our consitutional rights protect our right to keep things to ourselves (or at least they're supposed to). the government, technically, does not have that right except in special circumstances such as secrecy acts.

personally, i kinda like turning the right-wingers language back on them.

Re:Someone who gets it

[shillbot]

To paraphrase "The President," only criminals need privacy.

So why does he keep demanding all this privacy?

Re:Someone who gets it

[vokyvsd]

So why is the President using it to block an investigative probe into misconduct? If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.

Precisely! And if you have nothing to hide, why should you worry about the NSA wiretapping you?

Re:Someone who gets it

[imthesponge]

"Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels... In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation."

That may have something to do with it. Trust, but verify.

Re:Someone who gets it

[Darby]

Why does it have to be what he has to hide? Why isn't it about what he's trying to accomplish by protecting the American people from another terrorist act?

Because this is the real world and not your delusional fairy land.

Since this is his claim, and it's a reasonable claim, why are you so suspicious to think the President is lying about it?

No, it isn't even remotely a reasonable claim. Just because you're a boot licking coward who wants to piss away the rights and freedoms my forefathers fought for does not make a ridiculous claim that flies in the face of every fact and against every action Bush has taken so far "reasonable".
He's lied about so many things so far that the only reasonable assumption to make about anytrhing he says is that it's a lie.
You really are a naive little kid.

Do you think he implemented such a program for other reasons? Or do you accept his explaination and question his methods? If the former, then you're more concerned with bashing him than actually getting answers. If the latter, then you can not say he's hiding anything, but simply trying to protect the information that gives sensitive details about a program used to protect Americans (and probably others in the world).

What utter crap.

If the former, then you have demonstrated basic simple common sense.

What an insane, dishonest, and utterly repugnant argument.

"Durrrrr if you think he had other reasons then obviously you only think that because you want to bash him."

That's a circular argument, Sparky.

Susoecting that he has other reasons than the ridiculous ones given is just simple basic common sense at this point.
Trusting *any* politician of *any* party in *any* government to this extent is an act of utter insanity.
Doing so for one who has demonstrated his contempt for our laws and our constitution so blatantly on so many occasions is delusional and cowardly beyond redemption.

Re:Someone who gets it

[cat_jesus]

If the latter, then you can not say he's hiding anything, but simply trying to protect the information that gives sensitive details about a program used to protect Americans (and probably others in the world).

Can there really be a wiretapping program whose details are so sensitive that there are no investigators trustworthy enough to have access to them? I find that very hard to believe. Federal investigators tend to be very patriotic and would not divulge classified information that would harm the US or its citizens. They also would not allow high government officials to get away with breaking the law.

Why do you mistrust our federal investigators?

Re:Someone who gets it

[Money for Nothin']

As Ronald Reagan is known to have said, "trust, but verify".

Open the doors on the NSA wiretapping. Government must always and everywhere be transparent to its people, if the government is to remain anywhere close to the ideal of being free of the stench of corruption and abuse of power.

If government has no skeletons to hide, then it should have nothing to worry about opening its closet doors either.

Why isn't it about what he's trying to accomplish by protecting the American people from another terrorist act? Since this is his claim, and it's a reasonable claim, why are you so suspicious to think the President is lying about it?

Perhaps because Bush has lied before? Once a liar, always a liar in my book (and that includes former President Clinton. Actually, it includes nearly every politician to ever get elected into office).

...why are you so suspicious to think the President is lying about it? Do you think he implemented such a program for other reasons? Or do you accept his explaination and question his methods? If the former, then you're more concerned with bashing him than actually getting answers. If the latter, then you can not say he's hiding anything, but simply trying to protect the information that gives sensitive details about a program used to protect Americans (and probably others in the world).

Just because one suspects Bush has implemented the NSA wiretapping for reasons other than the claimed reason of national security, does not result in a desire (necessarily) to bash Bush.

You have drawn a conclusion following the overly-simplistic logic of "if (suspectOtherReasonsThanStated), then suspiciousPersonIsBashingThePresident = true". It does not logically follow, because there are other possible cases than this single case described here; because there are other possible cases, your logic is too simple to model the real world. If you were writing code, you would need a block of nested "if" statements to make the determination, based on further criteria [1], that the person is simply bashing Bush.

Is there no reason why somebody could desire to hold the President's program accountable; to ensure that the program's purpose actually aligns with its design and output? Is there no reason why somebody concerned with following and enforcing the law might be concerned with ensuring that the NSA wiretapping is within the bounds of the law?

Of course there are such reasons. Yet, you have tried to exclude them from the debate by leaning on the same logical fallacy of false dichotomy that Bush himself used several years ago: "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."

Admit it: in stating (as you have) that questioning Bush's motives is just "bashing" him, you have admitted that you are an ideological defender of President Bush.

[1] e.g. the person promotes Green/leftist/communist economic ideals, person dislikes theocracy, person dislikes socialistic government spending (which has exceeded that of even Lyndon B. Johnson, whose "Great Society" programs stand as monuments to socialism in America), person dislikes corporate welfare, person dislikes Medicare welfare for the elderly, person dresses up as Bush for Halloween, etc..

Re:Someone who gets it

[zenhkim]

> if you have nothing to hide, why should you worry about the NSA wiretapping you?

I would worry because of the same reasons that social progress / political reform activists would worry about the police or the FBI following their movements, tapping their phones, or using undercover agents who pose as friendly volunteers: it means the powers-that-be view such activists as threatening, and therefore they are an enemy to be neutralized.

Historically this has happened throughout the course of America's lifetime. The organized labor movement ... Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the struggle for civil rights ... John Lennon and the anti-war protests during Vietnam ... even environmentalism ... all have been targeted by government intelligence and law enforcement surveillance programs. It's not about fighting crime, it's about consolidating power. You might want to reflect on the following words regarding unchecked government power over the people:

"All those who gain power are afraid to lose it."

"Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"Who will watch the watchers?"

Re:As an American

[kinocho]

Well, in my opinion as a foreigner, all of you can just go and die.

My problem comes from the moment YOU decided that U.S.A. have the monopoly on the law, freedom, international politics, commerce and then just started declaring wars to promote your own country against another ones...

Have you ever considered the possibility that we don't want you to tell us what is good and what is not?

I am pretty happy cleaning my house, why can not you stay in yours and do the same??

Conservatives against Bush

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm a pretty strong social and fiscal conservative. As you may guess, this also means I believe in the rule of law.

It's painful to consider, but I'm actually considering voting Democrat in the upcoming elections to help put the Democrats in the majority of at least one, but ideally two, houses of Congress. I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment. Apparently the Republican Congress/Senate that I voted for last time is unwilling to perform their duties in this area. I'm going to want to take a shower after I leave the voting booths this time. :/

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[glsunder]

I think a fiscally conservative politician is a myth. The last several years have proved it. In the end, they all give the most money to the people who put them there -- the donors. There are several cases where the return on investment is over 1000%.

I think if we want shit done, no party should have control of the congress for more than 2 election cycles. They have no fear that the people will revolt and kill them all, so kicking their corrupt asses out every few years is all thats left.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, liberalism is like.. totally wrong and dirty. liber. freedom. Such dirty dirty words. Excuse me, I've got to go rat on my neighbours, seems the wife is giving head to her husband. Dirty liberals.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[DoofusOfDeath]

There's a spectrum of views that are called liberal or conservative. We probably only disagree on a subset of what you think we disagree on. Maybe that makes me more of a conservative libertarian, I'm not sure.

For example, I don't think government ought to pass laws regarding what consenting adults do in private in most cases. And if drug use can remain truly a personal issue (and doesn't result in people driving while high, robbing people for crack money, etc.), I'd be happy to erase the drug control laws as well.

The areas that we disagree on probably center more around (a) my not wanting to be forced to use my tax money / military for things that I consider morally wrong, and (b) wanting to have the ability to bring my children up in a reasonably safe environment, and (c) me having the freedom to teach my children about right and wrong even if politically powerful groups disagree with my understanding of right and wrong.

So when I object to Liberalism, I'm not objecting to people having personal freedoms like the b-j example you gave. I'm objecting to the practice of some of the other concepts that have become loaded onto that word, namely those practices that restricted my freedom in areas (a) - (c) mentioned above.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[DoofusOfDeath]

I think a fiscally conservative politician is a myth. The last several years have proved it.

That may be over-reaching. It's probably more fair to conclude that the current political structure results in fiscal irresponsible spending. My suspicion is that a number of politicians are fiscally conservative, but find themselves unable to get the rest of congress to play along.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Scudsucker]

I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment.

For a liberal agenda, they'd have to elect a bunch of liberal Democrats, as the party establishment is pretty conservative. And unfortunatly, they are mostly ball-less as well, as long as they continually allow the neocons to set the terms of the debate.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal to vote Democrat. You should be careful. You might be considered an enemy combantant.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Go thump your fuckin bible, we don't need your charity votes you conservative nutbag.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[schnikies79]

I don't know what to think anymore. I voted for Bush both times (the first election was the first time I could legally vote), but now there isn't a chance in hell that I would vote for him.

It seems I have no party anymore. I'm very fiscally conservative, and do not believe in deficit spending, socialized medicine, or the current state of welfare/social security. Supposedly that what's the Republican Party believes in, yet I see no evidence of it. On the other hand, I disagree with the Patriot act, the dmca, torture, domestic surveillance, and basically any government snooping that isn't under a warrant. Personal freedom, and the right to be anonymous are core, as well as the right to own a firearm. I'm also very pro-environment and pro-science, being a chemist.

Oh yea, I hate being PC. If my religion/beliefs offends you, get over it. I'm not going to change what I say to keep from hurting your feelings.

Republican is out, Democrat is out. A third party is a wasted vote. What's someone supposed to do?

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't. The democrats were no better and anyone frequenting Slashdot during the Clinton years well remembers his party's attacks on rights and freedoms in the name of a different war. There's a very solid argument that Bush's abuses are built on Clinton's ground work. Both parties have the same opinion on federal power disagreeing only mildly on goals.

      Your political system needs a millenial enema. If holding your nose to vote anyway pop that chad for the Libertarians, Greens, or anyone but the two majors. Make both party-o-pricks revisit their platforms and personel from the foundation up. Unemploy them. America's biggest political crisis is believing that being an ex-president's son or wife or the child of a political dynasty automatically qualifies a candidate for high office. FFS, you elected Arnold. Vote issues and not personalities (the latter which the Bush Admin has manipulated with consumate artistry) and you have a chance.

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Kazoo the Clown]

It's painful to consider, but I'm actually considering voting Democrat in the upcoming elections to help put the Democrats in the majority of at least one, but ideally two, houses of Congress. I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment. Apparently the Republican Congress/Senate that I voted for last time is unwilling to perform their duties in this area. I'm going to want to take a shower after I leave the voting booths this time.

Yes, quite some time ago it became pretty obvious to me that gridlock in Washington is a Good Thing(TM).

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

What's someone supposed to do?

Instead of fantasizing about home invasions that just never seem to come along, why don't you fullfill the other gun-ownership rationalization-- armed rebellion... Kind of ironic that your armed uprising won't be against godless liberals, isn't it?

Re:Conservatives against Bush

[lonecrow]

Fiscally conservative and anti-socialized medicine don't necessarily go hand in hand if by conservative you mean less overall government spending.

The US Goverenment pays 44% of every dollar paid for health services which is lowers then most G8 countries. However, per capita spending in almost double those same countries. So your government is paying 44% of a pie that is twice as large as most others (per capita). If you had a single payer system like say, Canada, the percentage that is paid by the government will go up, but the total paid should go down and you' ll save money. Ahem..not to mention you should be able to extend health care to all your citizens.

Figures from: OECD.org

Or does 'fiscally conservatives' mean "I'm against the idea that someone might get a free ride, even if it means I save a bunch of money because of it" ?

war?

[pedestrian crossing]

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude in how it conducts that war

Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war.

I agree, if we -constitutionally- declare war, then the president has exceptional powers to prosecute that war.

But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power.

Re:war?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war. I agree, if we -constitutionally- declare war, then the president has exceptional powers to prosecute that war.

That's an archaic analysis - no one actually bothers to declare war anymore. We haven't had a declared war in 60 years, yet we've participated in a number of activities that an observer would probably describe as wars. Congress passed multiple bills to finance the war, and also passed bills giving the president the power to execute the war, so I'd say that counts.

Re:war?

[zotz]

[But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power.]

When was the last time congress declared war? I am not so sure that this is unprecedented. Would you care to back that part up?

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)

Re:war?

[Usagi_yo]

I understand your point, but dont' agree. Congress did not abdicate responisbility. Congress authorized Military action which is war by another name. Everything else was political expediency.

Wars cannot be run effectively by committee or consensus. Wars end when when somebody is defeated. The framers of the U.S constitution were very wise in giving these powers to the Executive (President). As Commander and Chief prosecuting a war, they are total and absolute. And yes, it is totalatarian -- but only during a time of war. And we are at war.

Read history. You'll be shocked, totaly totaly shocked at what Presidents have done during war. This is chump change compared to things President Lincoln did. Or like what a past president said when the Supreme court differed from his opinion during a war .... "The Supreme court has made it's decision -- lets see them uphold it".

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has not abdicated its responsibility to declare war; they have just have not declared war. These are not the same thing.

Re:war?

[pedestrian crossing]

Wars end when when somebody is defeated.

And there is the rub. If you declare war, you can declare an end to the state of war. If you don't declare war, you run on "political expediency", and effectively you have a state of "war" without end.

I argue that Congress -did- abdicate their responsibility. It is not just their privelege to declare war, it is their responsibility to recognize the necessity and play their part. Then, yes, they get out of the way and let the CiC run the actual war.

By abdicating their responsibility to declare war, they have set us up for a constitutional crisis.

War declarations are not a prosaic artifact of the Constitution, they are a serious responsibility to be used as necessary.

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

Thats a bunch of crap.

I refer you to JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

There's you declaration of war.

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And we are at war."

Bullshit. This is a war, where only 3000 Americans have died in 4 1/2 years? More than that probably die each year from sneezing to hard. This is nothing but a line of bull whose only purpose is to give the President unlimited powers for as long as he wants. Too bad so many people are lining up to roll over and play dead and give up their American rights for nothing. Why do you people hate Americas freedoms so much you stand by and cheer when they are thrown out the window?

Re:war?

[Low2000]

Doesn't that put it in the president, and congress' best interest to always be at war?

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time congress declared war?

Easy, December 8, 1941. Here's a pic. Also see Declarations of war by the United States.

Some resolutions have come close like Gulf of Tonkin Resolution but there has not been a formal declaration of war in accordance with the US Constitution since 1941. The fact that George II every day keeps repeating the mantra "We're at war." shows his either his treachery, total ignorance or "a little from column A, a little from column B".

Re:war?

[zotz]

[When was the last time congress declared war?

Easy, December 8, 1941. Here's a pic. Also see Declarations of war by the United States. ]

That's kind of like what I figured which is why I took issue with calling this "issue" unprecedented.

A fairly simple point really.

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is an exerpt from a longer bill wherein the Congress declares war? Granting the president war powers != declaring war, although the outcome is largely the same. Nonetheless, the person you're arguing against is correct. This is not a declaration of war. That involves 1.) declaring war, and 2.) declaring who we're at war with.

Bonus question! This authorizes force against those responsible for attacks on the United States. Please explain how this bill justifies a multi-year occupation of Iraq?

Re:war?

[MntlChaos]

So that explains our presence in Afghanistan. Fair enough. What about Iraq?

And how does that allow civil liberties intrusions?

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

A resolution is not the same and carries much less weight than a declaration (see Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution). Resolutions are for the naming of Post Offices and stating opinions; that's why the Constitution say "Declaration of war" and not "Resolution of war".

With that said I hardly think the >50k dead Iraqis the US has killed would see much of a difference.

Re:war?

[MrNougat]

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Re:war?

[Shaper_pmp]

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia"

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are 100% incorrect. As admitted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently, the AUMF is not the Congressional declaration of war described by the Constitution.

Gonzales: Of course there's been no declaration of war here...

Feinstein: ...you're saying, clearly, that the AUMF does not carry the full constitutional weight of a declaration of war?

Gonzales: (long pause) Yes...

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

This has nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq.

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

Really, this has nothing to do with Iraq.

As for the civil liberties intrusions, El Presidente is merely excercising "all necessary and appropriate force"(in thisn case tapping out phones) in order to determine who amongst us "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks"

If that is an "appropriate" use of force should be the focus of this debate. The whole "we never declared war" argment is a distraction from that.

Re:war?

[EllisDees]

>And yes, it is totalatarian -- but only during a time of war. And we are at war.

No, we are not. If you look at that declaration of war from WW2, you will notice that it uses the words "declare" and "war". No such thing has happened for Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter. Hence, we are not at war and the president gets no special powers. If congress wanted him to have those powers, they would have declared war.

Re:war?

[Dausha]

"Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war."

Wrong.

"But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power."

Wrong.

I rebutt your wild-eyed acusations with the opening sentence to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: "Pursuant to Congress' Joint Resolution authorizing the President to 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided," the' September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF) . . ."

Translation: Congress gave the Executive full access to his War Power in the AUMF. The Constitution does not have a pro forma requirement for declaring war---only that Congress must enact legislation empowering the President to do so in a way that puts the opponent on notice. When Congress gave the President "use of _all_ necessary and appropriate force [against those that] he determines [were actively involved in 9/11]," then the there is a declaration of war. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not challenge the AUMF as a declaration of war is very telling. That decision operated under the conclusion that the AUMF was a valid conveying of War Power---that is, all eight justices rendering an opinion agreed in valid conveyance. (Roberts recused as he was on the lower appellate court's panel in that case.)

A declaration of war is essentially a public statement putting the "warred against" nation(s) on-notice of war. Compare the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which was done without formal declaration of war, with U.S. entry into WWI, where Germany knew we were coming. AUMF tells all those actively involved that the President has the power to punish them. As they were actively involved, they knew AUMF refers to them---so they are on notice.

Therefore, because Congress has declared war, it has not abdicated its responsibility. Also, the President has not engaged in "an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power," because Congress declared war.

Of course, the operative word in this is "consolidation." All your adjectives apply to that. Omitting them, you're stating that the President has enaged in consolidation of executive power. FWIW, Executive power is consolidated in the President. That's like saying that Wal-Mart is consolidating management of its stores---of course it is. There's nothing illegal about the President exerting his power.

It is no more "extraconstitutional" for the President to rightfully exercise his War Powers than it is for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to invent a fundamental right not in the Constitution---and that has happened repeatedly. To conjure a right for a woman to have unprotected sex with a man she doesn't like very much, SCOTUS has operated extraconstitutionally. In fact, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing homosexual sodomy), SCOTUS operated, as you say, in an "unprecedented" fashion (they did reverse a precedent from 20 years ago). Of course, when Courts operate in a way that favors your cause, you'll applaude the breach of precedent. However, when you think the President has usurped his authority, you will cite the breach is unprecedented and, therefore, illegal. You can't have it both ways.

More importantly, the plurality in Hamdan operated extraconsitutionally--don't forget SCOTUS can still violate the Constitution as can any government Branch. Over 135 years of presedent, in "every anglo-american case," when Congress enacts legislation stripping SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction, SCOTUS has refused to continue with a case.

The earliest example was 1869, where an appeal had been argued and SCOTUS was about to render its opinion (in the afternoon). That morning, Congress stripped SCOTUS of its appellate jurisdiction, and the Court said, "when Congress has removed our appellate jur

Re:war?

[dragonsomnolent]

I contend that it is never appropriate to violate the 4th ammendment. It is never appropriate to circumvent our civil rights. If they want to wiretap me on the grounds of the undelcared war on terror, they can go to the FISA court and get a warrent, even a retroactive one. That, at least has some judicial oversight. blanket monitoring of all people for terrorist activity == all people are to be suspected of terrorism -> all people are terrorists until cleared of wrongdoing -> the terrorists win, because now the liberties that they envied in us have been taken away.

Really there are better ways of gathering intel on terrorist plots than by blanket eavsedropping on converstations between everyone in the U.S. Even if all they are doing is monitoring call patterns, as some suggest, which would fall into the grey area of legality, as they are not invading privacy directly, it is a huge waste of effort, as there are many many reasons that someone would call overseas and then make several calls to domestic numbers. That in and of itself makes this whole excersise futile at best and a huge waste of time, effort, and money, as well as an invasion of privacy at worst.

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

Why does everyone keep bringing up Iraq? This has nothing to do with Iraq.

Here's the relevant portion of section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to. ...big list of thinkgs they can do removed for brevity...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

They don't need to make a law to declare war its one of the powers defined on their character sheet.

Wikipedia to the rescue link

Here's a quote

However, a legislature also uses resolutions to exercise one of its powers that isn't a lawmaking power. For example, the United States Congress declares war or proposes constitutional amendments by adopting a joint resolution. A house of a legislature can also use a resolution to exercise its specific powers, as the British House of Commons does to elect its Speaker or as the United States House of Representatives does to impeach an officer of the government.

:wq

Re:war?

[Enigma2175]

Great page, I found this quote to be quite apt in our current political climate:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

I agree with you. about everything except the undeclared war on terror part.

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

Like the rest of the administration, the opinion of AG AG (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) changes on almost a a daily basis. I'm sure if you went back through the records you would find a cite where he proclaimed that the US, in fact, was at war.

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, I don't see Iraq mentioned anywhere.

Re:war?

[funwithBSD]

Well, you have understand history. See, back in ancient times, cirra 1991, we got a UN backed mandation to invade Iraq. That action was never finished, and has only been a cease fire until the terms of the surrender were met.

Those conditions were never met, thus the cease fire was canceled and active engagement occurred again.

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real issue is that the administration wants it both ways. It *IS* a war when calling it that is expedient for them, and not a war otherwise. Take, for example, the actions of "contractors" at Abu Ghraib. During an actual WAR (as declared by congress), contractors are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can be held legally responsible for their actions. Because it isn't officially a war, the administration says there's nothing that can be done. It's my opinion that if we're no longer going to declare war as a matter of course, the regulations that are predicated on war actually being declared by congress need to be revised to reflect this.

Re:war?

[tdk2fe]

"And we are at war"

Damn, you must have missed Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech a few years ago. Don't you remember - all major hostilities have ended and we won!

tdk

Re:war?

[Ender Ryan]

They don't need to make a law to declare war its one of the powers defined on their character sheet.

Uh, what? Congress has not used that power, as they have NOT DECLARED WAR. Congress has authorized the use of military force and given the president certain latitude, which the president keeps abusing.

Re:war?

[Shaper_pmp]

My feelings exactly. Chillingly appropriate, no?

Re:war?

[lobsterGun]

MOTHER OF GOD you're right! How could we have been so blind?

I'll alert the Congress, you go give Saddam back his country!!!1! ...

The authorization for Operation Iraqi Liberation was granted by a Congressional Resolution in October 2002.

Re:war?

[Ender Ryan]

Claiming the country is "at war" does not constitute a formal declaration of war by any stretch whatsoever.

Re:war?

[ls -la]

This has nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq.

Yes and no.

This bill was the one which Bush used as his justification to invade Iraq, merely because he claimed Iraq had helped the terrorists.

Since we did destroy the country, it is arguably our responsibility to see that it is rebuilt, which is Bush's justification for staying.

Re:war?

[Politburo]

Incorrect. The War Powers Act makes it extremely clear that a statutory authorization of force is NOT a declaration of war.

Re:war?

[aztec rain god]

The same problem existed with Vietnam, Congress eventually got around their abdication of responsibility by using their control of the purse strings. I think that's how things will ultimately wind down (esp. if the Dems get Congress)- we won't be seeing the $80 bln "supplemental" spending bills go through, and we may see outright cuts in military spending (a la 1969/70). Just a hunch, though.

Re:war?

[AK Marc]

I agree with you. about everything except the undeclared war on terror part.

Is granting the power of war the same as declaring a war? It sounds like the discussion between a guardian and a parent. Is a court appointed guardian the parent of the child? They have the same powers. Or is a court appointed guardian not a parent until they go through the legal process to officially adopt the child?

I would argue that there are provisions to pass power without the formalities taking place. That is what happened here. War has never been declared. The power to cary out war has been granted. You are saying they are the same thing. I'm stating that, like the difference between a parent and a court appointed guardian, there was a step missed.

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was another bill giving Bush authority to attack Saddam's regime in Iraq. I remember that it started out broad, but quickly got narrowed down to Iraq, so Bush wouldn't have a blank check to go after any ME country for any reason.

In addition, regime change in Iraq -- the replacement of Saddam's dictatorship by a democracy -- was already official U.S. foreign policy. Had been, ever since Clinton signed a bill outlining that policy change into law.

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clinton thing you reference was about giving support to Chalabi's group, and was explicitly against boots on the ground etc. Simply having "Saddam is bad" as a longstanding policy does not somehow justify an invasion and occupation or make Clinton complicit by signing it.

As for that Iraq authorization, let me quote a bit:

[T]he President shall [...] make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

[..]acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So of course Bush turned around and submitted his legally required response in which he claims that Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror... and guess where Bush claims the evidence is from?

In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings
concerning Iraqs support for international terrorism. Among
other things, Congress determined that:
  Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its
citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
  Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations, including organizations that
threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.
  It is in the national security interests of the United
States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.

Now guess what "Public Law 107-243" is? It's the very same law that requires the president to give congress some certification or proof! It's circular logic based on congressional findings which do not exist because they're not findings but rather a request for the very information Bush claims exists.

Re:war?

[Fallingcow]

It's going to take someone with an absolutely HUGE pair to reduce military funding after all of this.

Since it looks like the world is going to have to get used to the occasional terrorist attack (We weren't already? Shit, how many attacks occured in the 90s and in 2000/pre-September '01 that could be classified as terrorist attacks? A lot.) anyone reducing the military budget runs a high risk of having an attack occur some time after that, and even though it would almost certainly be unrelated to the budget reduction, the opposition will cry, "see! We told you that those bums can't keep you safe!" and the public will buy it because most people are just that stupid.

Re:war?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the idea in 1991 was to push Iraq out of Kuwait? Though I haven't read the UN resolution in a while.

With your kind of reasoning the Korean war is still ongoing (no peace agreement, just a cease fire), but if the North rolled across the border tomorrow they sure would be seen as the aggressor.

Re:war?

[funwithBSD]

Yep, you are correct about Korea. However, the situtionations are not equivalent. Iraq was capitulation with a set of terms to be met by Iraq under pain of resumption of hostilites.

Korea there is no such peace terms. It is still a war and it is much more like a stalemate with no shooting.

Whoever breaks the ceasefire will be seen as the agressor in Korea.

Re:war?

[pedestrian crossing]

Or, do you only favor results that support your ideology and decry all others as violations of the Constitution?

By ideology, do you mean political affiliation? If so, you're way off the mark. Both parties are seriously fucked up, because there are only two of them.

My "ideology" is laid out in the Constitution and its system of checks and balances. Those who act outside of the principles embodied in the Constitution, are the real traitors.

It just happens to be a Republican at the moment, I would be just as pissed if it were a Democrat.

Would you argue that the president's unilateral decision to ignore the FISA with regard to NSA wiretaps of US citizens was/is legal? I think he over-reached there.

Re:war?

[MntlChaos]

Nice non-sequitir. Read what I was replying to. He quoted an authorization for the use of force in going after the 9/11 terrorists.

So now what?

[MobyDisk]

The DOJ can't just drop the investigation. Why can't they go forward with someone on the staff who already has the appropriate clearance? Is the DOJ colluding with the President in this cover-up?

Re:So now what?

[Fnord666]

Why can't they go forward with someone on the staff who already has the appropriate clearance?

I don't think he has the appropriate clearance...
<click>
In fact I'm sure he doesn't have the appropriate clearance. I don't even understand why you would assign him to this since he was very recently
<click>
identified as a potential terrorist and is scheduled for relocation.

The article referenced above:

[Edax Rarem]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa s_the_2004_election_stolen

Checks and balances

[CurtMonash]

I agree almost completely. It's all about checks and balances. My only small disagreement -- really, more of an emphasis shift than a true disagreement -- is that just as the threat is newly automated, the monitoring may need to be automated too, and I don't think we understand very well yet what that entails.

Re:Checks and balances

[Gablar]

agreed. I think is important to point out the role of technology in all of this. Computer power and telecomunications are the tools of this "new order". I think all slashdoters should keep this in mind as a lot of slashdotter develop technology that could later be applied for monitoring and policing the american people. The truth is that technoheads and scientist have created this technology with the good of humanity in mind but it has been put to a perverted use. I think whats ocurring right now is a natural process. People in power want more power, and technology has opened the flood gates towards that power.

    What will happen next no one knows but if history repeats itself, there will be a massive abuse of this power and dark times are ahead of us as you can probably predict. The good thing is that every action has a reaction so forces will eventually emerge against the abuses of the "government". That is unless the think tanks that control government policy are able to maintain a balance between control and freedom that will prevent a real revolt.

      I dont think there is much any of us can do as the danger is just theoretical in nature. Only people that are concerned for the future implications of this power are now activist or willing to do something about it, and that is a very small minority. If our fears ever come true then there will be enough of a force to fight back. Until then my only concern is my security and the security of my family, which is not directly threatened by the new fascist america as long as I dont fight the system. Priorities are a pain in the ass

Next on FOX...

[russorat]

I swear this was in the last season of 24...

oh lay off

[noneme]

Jeez, the guy says the s*** word once and he can't get a break. He was perfectly paying attention to the three (yes, three!) things blair was talking about in order to give that response, profanity or not. Now he's blocking an investigation which must mean he had to read something to realize an investigation on those papers is a bad idea. Someone give this man a medal for all the hard work and stop the bullying.

Re:oh lay off

[dqhqsq]

hard work? What, not preventing 9/11 when he had before hand knowledge, keeping the american public living in fear, or the other great accomplishments of his administration?

Re:oh lay off

[Opportunist]

I'm all for it. As long as the medal is heavy enough to crush him.

Re:oh lay off

[FloodSpectre]

And big enough to crush Rummy, Rice, and the rest at the same time.

Re:oh lay off

[Opportunist]

Now, now, let's not be too harsh.

Thinking about it again, what good does it do to shoot the muppet? You'd have to get the bastard that has the hand up his a..

What is good for the goose

[houghi]

should be good for the gander.

If The People have done nothing wrong, The People should not be afraid to be under investigation.

So if the NSA has nothing to hide, then they also should not be afraid to be under investigation.

This does not mean that everything should be made public. I understand that there will be numrous things that are completely legal and correct, yet should remain a secret.

What should be made public are non-legal things.

Literate Bush?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Machiavelli onto Orwell and now to Kafka! Who said Bush isn't literate?

This guy needs some mod-ups please!

[plasmacutter]

props good sir.. you said what I upon reflection should have said... bravo

Re:As an American

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

> I don't fucking care what you "foreigners" think, feel, cry about, love, hate, blah blah blah. Get over it.

You know what: Neither do I. The Iranians can nuke you back into the stone age and I really won't care. Give it another 2 years and I might even consider it justice.

Manfred

State secret my ass.

[AgentFade2Black]

The Executive Branch keeps hiding behind the idea that the whole program is a "state secret", and that talking about it will "endanger National Security." Too little, too late, my monkey friend in the White House. Once the NYT went public with this story, it can no longer be classified as such because it is no longer a "secret" in the eyes of the people.

well DUH?

[v1]

If Al Capone would have had enough pull at the IRS, I suppose he could have simply cancelled his audit.

Not much different with Bush is it really? He's doing illegal things, and our screwed up executive system allows him to simply cancel any investigations into his behavior. I don't like to say people are guilty by denying their guilt as that is a very slippery slope, but in this case he is VERY actively blocking investigations into his actions, justifying it with laughable invokations of "national security", and that raises one giant red flag that we need someone he cannot override (grand jury?) to haul his can into court and expose whatever it is he is hiding.

He did not do this for "reasons of national security", and the whole world knows it. He did it to keep himself IN office and OUT of jail.

As long as he's there he can play, but that only lasts a little longer. I will find great entertainment seeing him locked up in a few years.

It would be intersting to see them impeach him, but he's doing a good job of stalling for time so far so I don't know if that'll actually happen or not. There is certainly pleanty of talk about it tho.

Re:well DUH?

[wizkid]

Fortunatly he'll be out in a year or two. He's made a joke of the presidency. it's getting to the point I'd almost like to see him empeached. It's become a sad state of affairs in washington these days.

Re:well DUH?

[imikem]

You actually think this Congress might move to impeach the President?

Hah.

He could whip out an M-16, gun down a half dozen pedestrians on the front lawn of the White House in mid-afternoon, then pleasure himself on the dead bodies, and it MIGHT annoy some of our elected representatives enough to issue a mild public rebuke.

I'm voting every single incumbent out of office, of whatever stripe, this fall and in 2008. They've all just got to go. I want my f---ing country back. Here's hoping that others are with me.

One other thing - if we're at war, I must have missed the declaration. Surely it's somewhere in the Congressional Record?

Not Necessarily

[physicsphairy]

Just because people are willing to part with their freedom, liberty, and happiness does not mean that they want to risk something serious like losing karma on Slashdot.

More Information

[fishfish]

This Washington Post article contains more information about this story.

The interesting part is that the bush whitehouse has stalled the OPR investigation by refusing to give the investigators clearance -- these are Justice Dept. officials. That same whitehouse quickly gave clearance to the FBI when they were investigating who leaked the NSA wiretapping program in the first place.

This is the blatantly political part - say that secrecy is so important you dare not allow one dept. to look into goings on, but quickly let another investigate when it serves your political agenda.

He should've gotten a blow-job

[Tony]

Nice. Let's just let the President do whatever he wants, all in the name of fighting terror.

There have been allegations that Bush and others have used this program (illegal by definition, as he did not get court approval for a vast number of these taps) have used this program to spy on domestic groups in the US that publicly oppose the President and his policies.

Loose cannon

[spectrokid]

I guess most of you guys have heard of the Swift scandal as well. Well, for all those of you who think europeans are anti-american: imagine being an european minister or head of state. You want to fight terrorism as much as the next guy, and the biggest player in this game is the white house. But if are pro-Bush, you are allying with a government which does not respect its own constitution, never mind yours. Instead of asking Interpol or an institution under democratic supervision to monitor suspect international financial traffic, just send a CC of every single Swift transaction to the NSA. Is Boeing getting updates on Airbus transactions before Airbus gets them themselves? Hopefully not. But even if GWB doesn't allow it, Boeing is cooperating with 3 letter agencies on a daily basis, and what is a little memory stick among friends? Especially if there is no outside control on the use and spread of data? So the European voter brands the politician a gullible idiot at best, disrespectful of human rights at worst. And the Bush administration keeps on painting itself in a corner...

Re:Loose cannon

[Opportunist]

While we're at it. We don't hate the US. Actually, I love the US. I have many relatives and friends there. I love spending my time there. I love the people, I love the country, I love the ideal that it was built upon.

I hate the administration and what they made out of it. With a passion.

He has a point, you know...

[mi]

He does not want the details of that program to be leaked to press...

We sure all want for there to be checks and balances, but it is unrealistic (and flat out stupid) to expect one of the government's branches to want to be checked and balanced. Lawmakers hate it, judiciary hates it, and the executives, of course, hate it — they each think, they are right and that the other branches are wrong in their disagreements.

They all submit to it because of the laws, but granting the security clearance is, by law, the executive's prerogative, so there is nothing illegal about Bush's move... Nor is anyone's life in danger because of it, so let's not get too worked up over it.

Re:He has a point, you know...

[BCW2]

Damn, someone must be confused to let an intelligent comment sneak in with all the anti-Bush crap. Since he can actually do what the article is saying that means Congress passed a law giving him that power, oh, that means he's acting within the law. The simple fact is that everything he is being accused of is LEGAL, either from the Constitution or from specific acts passed by Congress. With the NSA wiretap, some members of the intelligence committees were informed, just not all, or it would have leaked sooner, the chair of the committee is the only one that HAS to be informed in most cases. It's funny how some members of Congress will vote for an act when the President is from their party and then whine when the other party has the White House and uses the same law the same way!

The larger problem is the fact that most of the congresscritters are bought and paid for by interests that are not good for the average citizen. Remember Congress passes ALL the spending bills that waste over 50% of OUR money!

Re:He has a point, you know...

[kilfarsnar]

"Since he can actually do what the article is saying that means Congress passed a law giving him that power, oh, that means he's acting within the law. The simple fact is that everything he is being accused of is LEGAL, either from the Constitution or from specific acts passed by Congress."

That's not entirely true. There is some debate as to whether the warrantless wiretapping program is legal. The Administration's position is that the authorization to use force that the congress passed grants the president the authority to have the NSA eavesdrop on americans without obtaining a warrant. But this claim has not been tested in court, so it's actual legality has not yet been determined. The Justice Department's investigation into the program would be a step towards determining the legality of the program's authorization. This is what Bush has blocked. The stated reason is to keep secret information from being made public. But this doesn't hold water. Secret hearings and investigations have been successfully conducted before; there is no reason to think that has changed.

It is interesting to note that the administration used the same justification (the resolution on the use of force) to claim the legality of trying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in military tribunals without allowing them to see the evidence against them or affording them the protections of the Geneva Convention. So this too was "legal" until the Supreme Court said it was not. The same could happen with the warrantless wiretapping. But without investigations, we won't find out.

Re:He has a point, you know...

[BCW2]

The terrorists at Gitmo are not part of a "uniformed force in the service of a nation state" and in spite of what any says have never been protected by the Geneva Conventions. To be protected the "Government" of the prisoners has to be a signatory of the conventions. They are not part of any recognised government.

I had to learn the Geneva Conventions when I was in the service. If you are not a vet, shut the fuck up!

Re:He has a point, you know...

[NoOneInParticular]

That's the prisoner of war clause. There's also the citizen clause, and given that quite a few of those in Gitmo have actually not been found on a field of war but rather been handed over by some random Afgani warlord for bounty, the citizen clause might apply. But then again, who fucking cares: they're Arabs anyway, fuck them all.

And what has being a veterinarian have to do with anything? You're one of those?

Re:He has a point, you know...

[BCW2]

When is Taco going to allow the -1 Dumbass mod?

Re:He has a point, you know...

[kilfarsnar]

Jeez, you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Your bloviating aside, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Go take it up with them.

Where are the Islamist spies?

[Guppy06]

Something that's been bothering me for the last few years about the cry from the administration for utmost secrecy in its actions is the way they never get around to saying exactly whom they're trying to hide information from. When all is said and done, is there any reason to believe that al Qaeda has intelligence gathering capabilities beyond watching satellite television?

We've had secret court cases before, we've had secret sessions of Congress, we have a whole series of safeguards that were apparently deemed necessary and proper when our foe was something as formidable as the KGB, why are we to believe that a non-state has the resources to do better? It would seem all that is needed to maintain secrecy from al Qaeda is to keep the information from being stored on USB drives in Baghdad. Does the administration really believe there are al Qaeda spies that highly placed in the United States government?

It's called voter fraud.

[plasmacutter]

Air america detailed some time back documented accounts by many people of suspicious activity regarding the electronic voting machines in the swing states.

One of my friend's mothers is involved in the group investigating iowa in 2004. I'm a sceptic and she has me convinced.

The point is the election was stolen.. TWICE.

The truth is in all those stores from the immediate post 9/11 period claiming "in recounts bush won" were misleading.. if you actually read the articles you will pull enough info to realize gore won.. they state it explicitly, buried deep in page 17. Why? when confronted with this they claimed they didnt want to undermine presidential authority in a time of war..

So no.. america did not vote in this madman. he and his ultra-right machine stole the election, and their propaganda minister mr rove with his loyal fox news crews backing him up covered the whole thing up, blasting anyone who asked questions and "unamerican" or "terrorist sympathizers"..

as a foreigner you should be praying for our safety, we stand on the brink of the death of everything the majority of us still believe in.

Re:It's called voter fraud.

[ScentCone]

The truth is in all those stores from the immediate post 9/11 period claiming "in recounts bush won" were misleading.. if you actually read the articles you will pull enough info to realize gore won.. they state it explicitly, buried deep in page 17.

Oh, come on now. If you have a link to a page that actually shows the facts, provide it.

After the recount mess in Florida, a collection of people - mostly reporters assigned to the task by newspapers opposed to Bush - counted and recounted the Florida ballots in every way possible. They did it according the standards that Gore's lawyers first asked for (where he was picking and choosing only those jurisdictions that would help him - how reasonable!), and then they did across-the-board state recounts. They used the most loose and the tightest interpretations of "voter intent" issues (like the ol' hanging chad mind-reading game), and they came up with only one conclusion: Gore lost. Period. Even by the most Gore-friendly counting methods, he lost. You've got all the room in the world to argue about whether or not the country (or just Florida) was or wan't smart about how they cast their votes, but you can't keep using the word "stole" in that context.

If you want to conjure up a villain for yourself, focus on the local (Democrat!) who designed the paper ballots in the districts that arguably might have gone to Gore if the people voting weren't too dumb to actually match up a mark on the paper with the name they actually wanted. Though I think the number of "oops, I voted for Pat Buchannon because I can't read well" voters didn't amount to enough to necessarily make the difference.

Re:It's called voter fraud.

[plasmacutter]

No.. the "headlines" cried the conclusion "gore lost".. the bodies of these articles said gore won... sadly most of these articles are 5 years old. It's hard enough finding 2 year old articles on online news sites..

but here.. enjoy.. some.. egg on your face: http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Re:It's called voter fraud.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. And the democrats.com didn't give you pause about the potential bias of such a piece?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11

At best, you might reach a conclusion like the WP:

"But there are too many variables in any effort to reexamine the ballots -- from varying standards in judging ballots in the counties to problems of getting an exact replication of the overvote and undervote ballots -- to be able to say with absolute certainty what might have happened in Florida."

Far cry from the absolute certainty your article expouses.

Can we please MOVE ON from the 2000 election already?

Mod as Troll?

[hotspotbloc]

Lie, Whitewash, Stonewall. Rinse, Repeat. These are dark days. And we still have two and a half years to go.

Modded as a Troll? I guess Dick Cheney got some mod points. =)

The sad thing is that my strangely named friend is correct. "Lie, Whitewash, Stonewall." accurately describes the MO of the Bush administration on the current NSA spy issue, GITMO, "extraordinary rendition" and many others.

Welcome to the neocon's amerika. Maybe someone could call the UN and ask for some troops on the ground to help us. I was going to tick the "Post Anonymously" box but suspect the "powers that be" already have running access to /. servers. Hey, if I lacked morals I too would use /. records as a "snitch book".

Maybe I'll check it for one last time. Maybe not since Moby didn't.

No accountability

[DuctTape]

What we have here is no accountability, no checks and balances, no responsibility for actions. Basically what we have here is a monarchy.

And either some "emergency" will be declared right before '08 elections, preventing the polls from opening and a transfer to the next president, and/or Prince Jeb will be next in line and will win courtesy of Diebold.

DT

Re:No accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not monarchy... it's DICTATORSHIP, where if you are above the law and you can declare whatever you want.

Re:No accountability

[tim_uk]

Basically what we have here is a monarchy.

You wish. What the USA has is closer to a dictatorship, supported by big business and the military.

Wakeup America

[wagner.harry]

What do you expect from the biggest fucking criminal ever to hold public office in America? W is a fascist pig. America needs to wakeup to the fact. Of course that won't be a simple task so long as W and the other fascists now in office control the media.

Impeachment is the LEAST this asshole deserves.

Waiting for the revolution... harry

Storm the congress

[Anonymous Coward]

worked against milosevic, after all.

The importing of brains.

[jbssm]

Well, it's not strange that most of the top scientific production of U.S.A. is made by people coming from Europe, India and Japan, seems like the natives (well, not the natives, but the ones that robed the lands, raped and killed the real natives to start with), just don't have the brainpower to think of much more complicated things than where the price of hamburgers is lower today.

The guy you elected for president is a real jerk. I wonder if U.S.A. television channels even posted is comments when he thought we was talking offline with Blair in the G8. I couldn't care less if he is ripping our country apart, but I'm tired of your stupid wars ... you know, my car uses oil, and it's not nice that because of you the oil price almost doubled in here during the last 5 years and that we had terrorist attacks in Europe because they start to associate us with you.

And please, don't come to me with that stupid excuse, "Oh, we also don't like our president, we are nice freedom and peace loving people really, it's just that our president is a jerk." That could pass during the Bush 1st mandate, but then YOU IDIOTS ELECTED HIM AGAIN there is no more excuse.

And to you all that start with the idiot comments "Get over it, you are just jealous you are not an American!" For christ sake, read a book people, you should do it at least once in your lifetime you know!

Re:The importing of brains.

[CokoBWare]

There's a strong debate going on right now whether or not there was election fraud with the electronic voting machines. Hell, there's no effective way to audit them. If the election exit polls aren't matching the voting record, then there's obviously something wrong in the states of America.

Re:The importing of brains.

[plasmacutter]

yes there is.. jerrymandering and electoral fraud..

go to my profile and look at my post on electoral fraud, i'm not going to shamelessly rant on in twice.

Re:The importing of brains.

[jbssm]

Well, I can believe there was elcetoral fraud, after hearing your president comments I can believe anything is going on in U.S.A. controlled by his administration.

But you got 2 hypothesis and both are really very bad:

1 - The elections were manipulated. Well, nobody know, the media don't talk about it, and let's face it nothing is going to happen to amend it. Isn't this of an extreme hypocrisy to a country that invaded so many countries and spilled so much blood in the name of Democracy?

2 - There was no fraud and the majority of the Americans really voted for him. This is absolutely unbelievable and proves that more than 50% of the Americans are really brainless. Your president is a real idiot, he is dumb. Damm, if he was some kind of evil genius I could understand, he would be smart and knew how to manipulate the public ... but this is not the case, he is not even smart enough to be evil, he is just a very stupid and dumb idiot that you elect for president and that is ripping you country ... and worst, the other countries in the world.

Re:The importing of brains.

[CokoBWare]

Again, exit polls are usually a good tool at gauging what the outcome is going to be. Only in cases where there is suspected fraud the exit polls typically show a measurable discrepancy between the actual vote and the exit polls.

Also it doesn't hurt when a company like Diebold is a heavy Republican supporter... I'm no fan of the Democrats either, so I would say the same thing if this was a Democratic ploy. It's dirty behaviour no matter which party you belong to.

Re:The importing of brains.

[spitzak]

Actually, whether or not there was election fraud, Bush won the election. Under any plausable scenario which limits the fraud to the counties that are questionable, it would require something like 70% majority in those counties voting for Kerry (the fraud then reports this as 49%), to change the outcome of the election. This is astronomically unlikely when neighboring countines that are very similar in demographics and only differ by not having suspicious results, clearly voted only 49% for Kerry.

Equating "there was election fraud" with "Bush stole the election" is a right-wing piece of propaganda, designed to stop any such investigation. In fact the previous election (much more than the 2000 one) is ideal for investigating such fraud, precisely for the reason that it will not make a difference in outcome even if the worst possible imaginable fraud was detected.

Re:The importing of brains.

[cdrguru]

The majority of Americans did not vote for the president. Of any party. The majority stayed home and let other people vote. Maybe if that changes we will not have quite so many people complaining about who other people elected.

Above the law... again

[CokoBWare]

Once again, Bush declares himself dictator and he and his Executive Branch above the law. Not good for the American people. Additionally, if some major event happens and Bush declares Martial Law, every American is screwed because the Constitution would likely be suspended and everyone would lose their most treasured rights. Removing accountability and oversight is essential to effective government, and the US government is now the most ineffective at allowing oversight than it's ever been.

I'm glad I'm not American...

Re:Above the law... again

[CokoBWare]

Let me correct my above statement... Rather than "Removing accountability and oversight is essential to effective government", I meant to say "Ensuring accountability and oversight is essential to effective government"

My bad...

WTF? Obstruction of Justice is a crime last I knew

[fudgefactor7]

How is this action taken by the President not obstruction of justice? Or at the very least interferance with official acts of government?

Do I really have to spell it out?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Unless "NSA illegal surveillance scandal" referrs to some covert blog, I don't see how this impacts my rights online.

This affects your rights. It affects your rights to privacy, your right to be not spied upon illegally.

If you are bent on interpreting "Your Rights Online" as "Your Online Rights", I would argue that this would affect your right to privacy online, since the NSA doesn't stop at telephones.

I, like many, prefer to think of "Your Rights Online" as my rights being reported online. This is my rights, I am online.

Yup, it's a -1 Obvious mod for me.

Re:Do I really have to spell it out?

[brunes69]

Actually you'd be totally wrong, since I don't live in the US.

This story as the US flag on it, but of course we can't filter these stories off the homepage without filtering off *all* YRO off the homepage.

Re:Do I really have to spell it out?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Funny, that. I'm not either.

The problem is, like it or not, the US of A is a bloody great international power. I read all this stuff because I know that these kinds of stories can cross continents when in the hands of the US. It may not happen immediately, but still, it pays to be vigilant.

For another thing, why did you complain about the relevence of the article if you don't live in the US? How did you even come to the conclusion that the article didn't belong in YRO for US citizens?

Re:Do I really have to spell it out?

[kilfarsnar]

"Actually you'd be totally wrong, since I don't live in the US."

Then the joke's on you my friend. We've been spying on you for years!

Besides, a Dem with the balls to do so would never

[Ellis D. Tripp]

get the party nomination in the first place.

The Democrats have a history of silencing voices within the party who have the nerve to push for real change or accountability. The party would never allow their presidential nomination to go to anyone who was pushing for an indictment of Bush or his cronies. Radical or even strongly progressive voices within the party are either ignored completely (see Dennis Kucinich), or they seem to end up in mysterious plane crashes like Paul Wellstone.

The Dems and Reps are BOTH beholden to corporate interests and Wall St. bankers. Choosing which of the 2 major parties to vote for is simply choosing WHICH set of corporate swine you want pulling the strings in DC.

Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[MannyGoldstein]

The Supreme Court (bless them!) ruled that the President only has "extraordinary wartime powers" as a temporary expedient to quickly do things that would take Congress too much time. But he must then work with Congress as soon as is practical.

Until Bush, all presidents had recognized this. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in areas where it was no longer effective - but he immediately turned around and asked Congress to codify his action, which they did. FDR did the same when he (unfortunately) interred Japanese-Americans during WWII.

Only Bush interpreted Article 2 to mean that he could utterly reject all checks and balances - that he could do anything, to anybody, forever, and that Congress and the Courts had no way to stop him,

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[Usagi_yo]

Thats not the whole story and not the complete truth. Bush did have a method and means and set of criteria for screening these actions, Bush did in fact brief Congressional leaders on a quarterly basis.

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[dschuetz]

The Supreme Court (bless them!) ruled that the President only has "extraordinary wartime powers" as a temporary expedient to quickly do things that would take Congress too much time.

I'm not sure I've heard that, though I have heard that such "extraordinary powers" most certainly do not extend to denying constitutional rights, no matter what Hollywood may tell us.

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the suspension in 1942 of civillian rule in favor of military courts in Hawaii was also unconstitutional (and this was a territory, not yet a state, that had just been attacked by a foreign power's military, and even under those incredibly exceptional circumstances the constitution wasn't permitted to be suspended).

Here are some remarks by the former Chief Justice in 2000, and again in 2002, that address the question of civilian versus military judical authority in wartime.

Can anyone provide clear case evidence of the court determining that the President *can* suspend certain civil rights or federal laws in wartime? So far as I've ever been able to ascertain, every single time a President has gone "too far" with the wartime powers argument, he's been rebuffed years later by the Supreme Court, which tells me, at least, that any argument that a president has special lattitude in wartime is a crock, at least from a legal perspective. From a practical perspective, though, since it's always taken the Court years to get around to it, it's certainly been proven true. (though if the Court can decide a presidential election question in a matter of days, you'd think they could handle these other serious issues more quickly, too...)

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[MannyGoldstein]

Your arguments are totally wrong/misleading.

First off, implementing his own method of screening is not remotely sufficient. As the Supreme Court and every other President since 1850 or so has recognized, Congress and the Courts provide checks and balances on the Executive.

As to the "briefings" - they consisted of "here's what we're doing - you have no means to comment or object, and if you talk to anyone else about what we just told you, you'll go to jail for violating secrecy". This is, obviously, utterly bogus - a fig leaf one micron in diameter.

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[Pendersempai]

Well there's always the case of Japanese internment in California during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld the internment in a case called Korematsu. That was a dark chapter in our nation's history, and we're not in nearly such bad shape today: things are bad, yes, but racial minorities are not being rounded up in ordinary communities in America and held like animals in prison camps. For all the harassment and inconvenience those who are visibly Arab face in our society today, no court has yet proved unwilling to defend their rights when push comes to shove.

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional.

My understanding is that that determination has not been made as a matter of law but included as dicta (writing that does not have the legal force of law) in some related opinions. I would love to be corrected, but judges I have found are often quite cowardly when it comes to correcting mistakes made by the government if they think it might lessen the power of the government at all.

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[flooey]

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional

Actually, it was a Circuit Court (though currently being headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) that declared that Lincoln couldn't suspend habeus corpus in 1861. However, Congress later suspended habeus corpus for Lincoln in 1863 (which they're allowed to do under the Constitution).

Re:Broad Powers Only As A Temporary Expedient

[Anonymous Coward]

We do have prison camps where people who appear to be of middle eastern descent are being held.

of course he is covering his ass!

[smallcaps]

bush knows he will not win the next federal elections. he is just "covering his bases" for a cushy retirement.

Re:of course he is covering his ass!

[dqhqsq]

By he, I assume you mean the republican party. Mr. Bush is on his second term and unless he chooses to ignore the term limits based on national security, our prison sentence with him as warden is up. Of course, we get to deal with all the crap he left as his "legacy"

Re:of course he is covering his ass!

[smallcaps]

that ("taking" a 3rd term as prez) would be another first in american history, and so many "firsts" seems to be the legacy he will be leaving behind.

Title of this piece is incorrect

[zorrodafox]

I believe that it should read "Warrantless Tapping Probe", not "Wireless Tapping Probe".

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

That post is not off-topic!

More information

[deblau]

See Executive Order 13292, signed into law by George Bush, which governs classified information. For the changes he made to Clinton's classification policies, see here.

WORSE than NIXON

[unity100]

DOH !

You americans sure have a talent for electing people that will make grand-scale scandals. And surprisingly, he who creates these scandals are ALWAYS republicans.

Re:WORSE than NIXON

[unity100]

Exposing scandals or creating them to oust their opponents is a general practice in politics round the world. However, creating scandals on their own, to save their own butt, is something republicans have single handed championship over it. Theres scandal, and there is scandal. Big scandal is what really matters as the smaller ones, less harmful ones are much too common.

24

[pedestrian crossing]

When I tell people "torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind for the rest of the day. No one cares.

I think you can blame Fox for this one. 24 did so much to put the idea into peoples' minds that we have to allow torture.

Every time the subject comes up, people ask, "what if it was necessary to prevent an impending attack?"

Never mind that that is a totally borderline case that has nothing to do with the routine involvement with torture (rendition, etc.) that the US has recently participated in.

If you think about it, you should realize that the vast majority of information obtained by torture is useless, especially if you actually want to legally prosecute someone.

This is exactly why a couple of European countries have had to let known terrorists go free. They had no way to prosecute without information that the US got under torture, and since it is embarrasing for the US, the US refused to provide the necessary information.

Re:24

[Floody]

When I tell people "torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind for the rest of the day.No one cares.

I think you can blame Fox for this one. 24 did so much to put the idea into peoples' minds that we have to allow torture.

Every time the subject comes up, people ask, "what if it was necessary to prevent an impending attack?"

Never mind that that is a totally borderline case that has nothing to do with the routine involvement with torture (rendition, etc.) that the US has recently participated in.

The whole torture issue is just insanity; it shouldn't even be an issue. Information obtained via torture must ultimately be considered unreliable. Under conditions considered torturous, a person will say or do anything in order to alleviate their suffering. They will tell their interregator the truth if they know it and believe it aligns with the interregator's desired responses. If they do not possess the "requested" knowledge or believe that differing information is desired, they will manufacture to suit. It's that simple; using torture, how can an interregator determine true facts from those manufactured by an individual with no knowledge? Extensive cross-referencing is the only option, and even when possible, coincidences may lead to considerable investigative effort being expended on ultimately incorrect information.

There exists a corollary interrogation technique. Take any given person, isolate them from their peers and media, but provide them with food, water, shelter, fresh air, sunshine/exercise and medical care on demand (essentially meeting all basic needs, but beyond this, providing them with a sense of freedom with the exclusion of peer or family contact and external current events/opinion). Simultaneously, arrange to have "counselors" (interregators well trained in psychology) spend a few hours a day, at scheduled and random intervals, communicating with them in a non-threatening but persistant manner. Within three months you will have gained this individual's full and complete trust and, more importantly, any information they possess. Yes, it's "brain washing", but it's also as far removed from torture as any captive interrogation technique can be. It's incredibly effective as well as considerably more expensive than torture.

The human psyche is well suited to withstand or escape suffering. It cannot withstand positive conditioning in the absence of external stimuli.

Saturday Night Massacre

[macinrack]

I think this is going to accelerate the undoing of this administration. This reminds me of the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" by Nixon on Saturday evening, October 20, 1973, where Nixon was growing increasingly paranoid about how close special prosecutor Archibald Cox was getting to the truth, and fired Cox. Congress was livid, and in the days following, numerous articles of impeachment were introduced. We all know where this story ended. I think it's unfortunate that the lesson learned seems to be how to better avoid getting caught.

Bush Quote

[desnoyp]

Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.
        --George w. Bush

Washington, DC
07/25/2003

Re:Bush Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an idiot quote mixed with some serious doublethink...

RTFM

[pedestrian crossing]

I can only say, RTFM (where TFM==US Constitution).

Re:RTFM

[Mr. Underbridge]

I can only say, RTFM (where TFM==US Constitution).

And I can only say, modern law can NOT be explained via a reading of the Constitution alone, like it or not. In this case, in any event, Congress gave the president the authority to do what he's doing in Iraq, whether it's a war or not, whether you choose to call it that or not.

Re:RTFM

[pedestrian crossing]

In this case, in any event, Congress gave the president the authority to do what he's doing in Iraq, whether it's a war or not, whether you choose to call it that or not.

The issue at hand is not what we are doing in Iraq. It is about the president effectively saying that, since we are at "war", he no longer has to act in accordance with the Constitution (ie., warrantless monitoring of US citizens' phone calls).

Re:RTFM

[Mr. Underbridge]

The issue at hand is not what we are doing in Iraq. It is about the president effectively saying that, since we are at "war", he no longer has to act in accordance with the Constitution (ie., warrantless monitoring of US citizens' phone calls).

Different story. I was responding to a post that claimed that everything done in Iraq is 'illegal' since it wasn't an official declaration of war. Certainly a question needs to be raised, namely how far do war powers extend?

As an American Democrat...

[danaris]

I think you foreigners may not understand the rage, the hate, and the loathing that a significant number of us feel for our (tongue firmly in cheek) Glorious Leader and for all the morons who voted for him. (Though a lot more for the very smart criminals who actually "won" him the election).

If Bush had to run again today, there's no way he could beat Kerry. He probably couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton, and she seems to be nearly as polarizing a figure as he is, almost universally hated by the Republicans... Hopefully, the Republicans will lose enough seats in the midterm elections that their power will be broken, and we can start to (slowly) repair the massive amounts of damage Dubya has done to our country, and to the world.

Dan Aris

Re:As an American

[Siward]

They're probably unhappy because we've gone and decided that the middle east also qualifies as "our house". Of course we don't want the rest of the world telling us what's good and what isn't, just the same way many children don't want to hear what's good for them from their parents. There was a time when the international community respected the US, you know.

Frankly, it galls me to think that this issue is still seen as liberal vs. conservative. Has nobody noticed that Bush administration recently agreed to let the FISA court (which was created for this specific purpose) review these cases? I don't feel less safe because our newspapers report on these programs; I feel less safe because our President and his administration believe that the terrorists can win because the media did their jobs.

Was it a threat to national security when Robert Novak leaked Valerie Plame's identity? Shouldn't an administration committed to national security have investigated this seriously? I guess it's okay because her husband didn't tow the line (whether or not you believe Joseph Wilson's story is another matter entirely).

After the post-9-11 hysteria died down and it came to light that what happened that day was the culmination of several intelligence failures, I stopped worrying about terrorism. That's not to say I believe we have a foolproof system in place here, just that it took a number of governmental failures for such a thing to happen.

Do we have to be smarter now than we were then? Absolutely we do. Islamic fundamentalism (and indeed, Christian fundamentalism as well) bent on societal destruction will be tough to defeat (if such a thing is even possible). Frankly, I would like to be secure in the knowledge that once we overcome this adversary, that we have civil rights left to enjoy. Is it dramatic of me to say something like that? Maybe so, but at least I haven't told you that opposing viewpoints are less American.

Don't Blame Me - I'm From Massachusetts!

[MannyGoldstein]

Sadly, the US has become a strongly polarized nation - the Blue states, which look similar to the rest of the developed world, and the Red states, which look like the developing world.

The Blue states could try to break away - but secession was tried in the 1860s, caused a very big mess.

Clarification

[bhmit1]

President Bush effectively blocked a Justice Department investigation of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, refusing to give security clearances to attorneys who were attempting to conduct the probe, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.
...
Last week, Specter and the administration agreed on a proposal that would allow Bush to submit the program to the government's secret terrorism and intelligence court for review of its legality.

So, is the government's secret terrorism and intelligence court the same as the Justice Department? This story didn't make it clear, but looking over similar articles, no, they are different. So the president agrees to investigation B and then says that it's better if a bunch of staff members in investigation A aren't granted access. It seems a bit over the top to then say that the president is getting away with the wiretapping unchecked before we know what is happening with the secret terrorism and intelligence court.
While I'm more conservative than most of the vocal slashdot crowd, my concern with the wiretapping is that there isn't a check to make sure it's legal, and that doesn't appear to be happening... yet. In fact, a point made many time in the other articles is:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping has been subject to legal review every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. "The Office of Professional Responsibility was not the proper venue for conducting" a legal review, Snow said.

For the full, unedited article, it's worth checking the original source: washington post

Re:Correction: you mean the "purple" states

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, they were "purple".

Cover up!

[harris s newman]

Impeachable offense!

Revolution!

[RoiDaGaubert]

As we say in france: Bush take you guys by the balls ... you gave him power he abuse of it! Dont fear the revolution and send him where he should be --> in france playing poker with chirac

Re:Revolution!

[CokoBWare]

Or headbutt him when he insults your mother... either way, it will do the trick. :)

Executive privilege should carry responsibility...

[TheRealStyro]

The easy solution to a president [ab]using executive privilege to cover the action of the administration is to make executive privilege carry responsibility. If a president [ab]uses executive privilege to stop, obstruct or unduly hinder an investigation then that president should have to answer to an inquiry/subpoena/warrant (under oath & in a public court) and/or be allowed to be charged with the crime being investigated. I believe a court can motivate a normal person to reveal the actual perpetrator of a crime by charging that person with either the crime being investigated or an obstruction charge. Obviously a president should be able to be likewise charged.

getthesemotherfuckingsnakesoutofmygovt

[rbochan]

is how I tagged this story. For the rest of this post, see the sig.

What about the future?

[beaverfever]

Isn't this something that can be reversed in the future? Couldn't the next president undo this and allow the investigation to continue? If so, what could Bush hope to suppress if it could only be dredged up later on? Is buying a few years delay worth the effort?

Re:What about the future?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah. No president is going to have the balls to do that, lest he wants to end up like JFK.

Party System is the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Jefferson originally wanted a no party system and it seems to me this is the whole problem in America. There seems to be too many behind the scene deals going on in these two major parties. Good ideas are thrown out the window since the party as a whole doesn't agree with a view. If you didn't have a party system, forget election problems. People would really have to look at a canidates values and history a lot closer. They also won't have the advantage of a huge party behind them. In this system, atleast there would be a chance for an average American to become President.

Of course this will not solve the current issues and even this system has problems with it, but we have seen in history how party systems can get corrupt and really cause major problems for a country (Pre-Nazi Germany). There has to be a better way.

Side Note:
By the way, all those ready to rebel to solve this countries problems are not looking at all the angles. Yes we have the right to do it, but if this country got into another civil war, it would end up causing this country to get weak and then we most likly would be overrun by either terrorists or another country.

It's an interesting issue

[paranode]

Although I am against some of this wiretapping nonsense (the lack of oversight is what concerns me most, not that they are doing it), I find it interesting to see the fingerpointing in this. There is a lot of bias and misinformation, notably in the blurb's rant about 'illegal activity'. Well you can blame Bush for this all you want and the 'war on terror' but the truth is this program has been around for a long time and Clinton used it as well. It's debatable to even call it 'illegal' really. Anything relating to rights and terrorism is a big buzz in the media and so it gets played up. I think some things need to change but all of this 'Bush is the evil slayer of my rights!!' stuff is a bit misdirected IMO. Where were these Chicken Littles for the past few decades?

Nothing will change, get used to it

[plopez]

Lot of comments going around about impeachment and possibly having the other retake congress in the midterms. Unfortunately nothing will change for a number of reasons:
1) Bush doesn't care he is the decider.
2) Congress will not act because they are his rubber stamp.
3) The voters can't do anything since redistricting has given the Republican congress a comfortable majority in the house.
4) The courts, now packed with right wing activist judges (esp. the supremes), will do nothing to restore democracy.
5) The constant state of war can be used to manipulate information and therefore the public.
6) The Senate is not subject to redistricting and could be taken back but that would take 6 years. Also the Senate cannot begin impeachment, only the House can.

The only it is going to change is if the Dems take over more state legislatures, redistrict, then retake the House. This will be difficult due to pork barrel politics (by voting in a Rep. a district will get more money) and campaign contributions. And if the Reps. get into trouble again, they just trot out the terrorists and homos again.

Get used to it. It will probably be 'One Nation, One Party, One Deceider' type rule for the next 20 years.

Enjoy!

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[e40]

This is the most insightful political comment I've seen on slashdot in a LONG, LONG time. Every word of it is, unfortunately, true.... dammit!

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot a state legislature can call for impeachment hearings, congress is obliged to hold hearings in that case.

There is also the consititutional convention which can bypass the federal government.

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[plopez]

But impeachment is NOT conviction. THe Senate must do that, IIRC. Constitutional convention would be tantamount to civil war. THe current gov't would decree any results as illegal and refuse to dismantel itself. Then you're looking at open conflict.

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[hr raattgift]

More to the point, a legislature can only petition for impeachment; charges transmitted by a state legislature to the House of Representatives will be referred to a committee for study, just as if they were raised by an indiviual Representative. Only a resolution of the House of Representatives to Impeach the President of the United States can begin the removal of the President -- if the House passes articles of impeachment, only then does a trial begin in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senators present may convict the President, removing him from office.

Constitutional convention would not be tantamount to civil war, because there is almost no liklihood that an Article V convention would result in any sort of consensus among the requisite 3/4 states on any issue. Indeed, just getting 2/3 of the states to apply to the Congress for such a convention seems unlikely at this time (and has never happened).

The wording of Article V leaves Congress with enormous latitude to game the process and procedures. While it would be the states doing all the voting, it is clearly Congress's show. The Executive and Judicial branches do not have a constitutionally-defined role in such a convention any more than they have a role in amendments proposed directly by Congress. The latter process has not so far led to civil war.

There is uncertainty which cuts both ways, however: the Congress and the states face substantially the same electors and opposing one's electorate openly is politically unsafe. Moreover, if there were opposition between the Congress and a 3/4 majority of the states, both "sides" could propose constitutional amendments until the situation is resolved (perhaps by an election). Although Congress has an edge with respect to the procedural aspects of a convention (e.g., it could slow a convention down enough that it could make its own proposals first, however any such proposals would require state ratification), Congress has no power to block any amendments proposed by 3/4 of the states. The Senate relented in its opposition to the House of Representative's initiations of what ultimately became the Seventeenth Amendment because of this.

Decree any results as illegal and refuse

The federal Executive has no constitutional role in the federal amendments process, as recognized by Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798). By inference, no state Executive has a constitutional role in the federal amendments process. Hollingsworth did not precisely address the question of a veto, however it would be very difficult to retain the ruling as stare decisis while allowing a veto. Moreover, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) [footnote 21] read the Hollingsworth case to explictly exclude a Presidential veto.

Chadha argues that the Article I veto is essentially meaningless because of the numbers required to propose and ratify an amendment in the first place. The most wriggle room would revolve around the question of a sort of "suspensive" veto, wherein the President might be able to require a second vote, although this was directly addressed in Hollingsworth ("[Since] two thirds of both Houses are required to originate the proposition, it would be nugatory to return it with the President's negative, to be repassed by the same number"). Arguing that a delay would not be nugatory in a particular case might be successful, however the Executive is on very shaky ground with respect to this, and the Courts (even the current SCOTUS) are likely to rule that the Executive really has no constitutional role whatsoever with respect to Article V.

Assuming that the Congress sides with the states, open conflict between the federal Executive and the legislators cannot be won in a constitutional way by the Executive, as Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) could easily starve the Executive of supply (i.e., no money to spend on continuing the conflict)

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[plopez]

I wish I could mod this 'informative post of the year'.

Thanks, lots of details I did not know.

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[novus ordo]

You forgot the most important thing in your impeachment deliberations--Cheney will take his place. Out of the pan and into...

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[lonecrow]

Sounds like a color is needed for this revolution.

Re:Nothing will change, get used to it

[Alsee]

Look on the bright side. If we work our way down the line of Presidential Succession, we could wind up with President Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens.

-

Allow me to say

[johansalk]

The US: the new banana republic. Generalissimo El Busho indeed and his legal enabler Gonzales. Congrats; Europe and Canada no longer consider you civil enough. How could bullshit like this fly with your voters? It only flies because you're not a civil enough nation. Not when most of your population take their voting fatwas regardless from the likes of Falwell and poverty is believed to be evidence of divine disapproval. What self-aggrandising fucks; "I drive an SUV because I deserve it!". Thank goodness I live in godless old Europe.

Breaking News May 10

[PMuse]

Did anyone not realize this back on May 10 when:

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.

"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey.

It couldn't just be that Jarrett isn't a Republican stooge, could it?

Where does the AG Gonzalez stand?

[adsl]

On the one hand the AG Gonzalez has been on Bush's side defending the legality of the NSA surveillance programs. On the other hand his lawyers have now been prevented from doing their job. What should be the position of the US AG now? Does he continue to defend his boss, or does he speak out against the secrecy cloak, which has stopped his own lawerys from carrying out their duty? Simply put: Surely the US AG has now to decide whether his greater duty is to the encumbent President, or to the US democracy and the people?

Re:Where does the AG Gonzalez stand?

[kilfarsnar]

I think we all know the answer to that!

Re: Here's your answer:... Congress

[patrixmyth]

There are elections coming up in a few months. Personally, wiretapping isn't my biggest concern, but if it was, then I'd be asking my congressman where he stands and voting against him if I didn't like the answer. I don't even research the challenger anymore. It's straight up or down on the incumbent. Either he's doing his job representing me, or he isn't. My biggest issue is pledging to spend at least as much money on improving life as we do on fighting Wars. If you want to spend $300 billion on Iraq, then fine, show me you're increasing spending $300 billion to combat AIDS, promote sustainable development or improve worldwide literacy.

It's time to evicerate security clearances

[gte910h]

It's high time for the judicial branch to strip the protections security clearence gives. Citizens rights to redress their government are more important than maintaining spying programs. This is an end run around the separation of powers.

                    --Michael

Ugh

[mediis]

China is sounding more appealing... at least they have jobs.

Re:Never been a executive cover-up

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
      -- Douglas Adams

BUSH IS NOT A CHRISTIAN

[pembo13]

Please do mot judge those of us that are by the actions of Bush. I beg of you.

Re:BUSH IS NOT A CHRISTIAN

[Money for Nothin']

Why not? Bush attends church, though not very regularly. He holds many of the same hypocrises that Christians do (e.g. "believe in freedom of and freedom from religion, while imposing the code of our religion domestically through the law"). He holds the same illogical belief in an unproveable, invisible friend that Christians do (and as do practitioners of any religion (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, athieism, etc.). I don't discriminate; I hate all religions, though with varying levels of disgust, depending on which one is responsible for the brainwashing and/or murder of more people in a given week).

Moreover, Christians generally love Bush because he does things that align well with their moral code: attempts to ban homosexual marriage, stem-cell research, and taxpayer-funded faith-based initiatives being the main examples.

Moreover, look at the voting patterns of church-goers vs. non-church-goers. People who go to church prefer conservative Republicans at the ballot box - like Bush.

IMO, Christians must be demonized almost as much as President Bush, because they have been his greatest supporters in elections. More than anybody else, they are responsible for putting this ignoramus in office. "So as ye sow, so shall ye reap."

Bush is a Christian, albeit a weak one; Christians elected Bush, and now Bush represents the Christians, working as a torch-bearer for their causes, having elected him into office.

Unfortunately, Christians, like all religious people, are goddamn dolts, and when they elect people to represent them, we get similarly-doltish people like President Bush.

Classical Conservativist

[tinkerghost]

There are currently 2 kinds of conservatives in politics

1. Conservatives in a classical sense are concerned with minimal government interfierance in the publics lives, small government, and fiscal responsabilities. In a sense they attempt to preserve the governmental structure with minimal changes - allowing society to grow & evolve around the existing structure.
2. Neo Conservatives are concerned with a 'conservative' social agenda - which is neither conservative nor social in nature. They attempt to preserve a non-existant social order through increasingly restrictive government interfierance.

The problem is not with the issues, it's with the people in power, and the people who put them there. The last presidential election only about 60% of the people elligable voted - that's 40% of US citizens were too damn lazy to get out of their chair and flip a lever in a voting booth. If you know there is this huge untapped pool of people - how do you get them to vote? - You create a polarizing issue - one in which the status quo supports the other person and change supports you. Why? because people who are happy - or indifferent with how things are - will stay too lazy to vote - so you gain votes, and the other guy doesn't.
Can you create polarization on the real issues of how do we spend tax dollars responsibly? It's accounting for gods sake - even accountants hate it!
But, if I tie spending billions on something wastefull, to spending a couple of million with a polarizing issue - stem cell research - I can polarize the whole issue, get enough votes, and get my billions to waste.

Face it, the only people who are really left without parties nowdays are the centrists like you & me. You can't make a platform based on ballanced fiscal responsibility, social equity, and personal responsibility. Only by creating a coalition of special interest groups can you get into office, and only by apeasing them can you stay there. I know one person who voted for Bush last time - why ? He was pro life --- she hated his spending policy, his military policy, and his general social policies, but he was pro life so she voted for him.
Polarize and win - if you can get enough people to vote for you for 1 issue and ignore all the others, you win. If you try to be ballanced and effective, you loose. It's really become that simple in American Politics.

Re:Classical Conservativist

[Anonymous Coward]

[S]He was pro life --- she hated his spending policy, his military policy, and his general social policies, but he was pro life so she voted for him.

Interesting example-- I agree with this woman regarding pro-life as the trump card! I would dearly love to have a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped. Unfortunately, we don't so I vote the best that I can.

Show me a pro-life candidate that opposes the way President Bush has handled the "war", and that is a person I can respect and will listen very intently to his or her arguments and positions.

Re:Classical Conservativist

[tinkerghost]

Interesting example-- I agree with this woman regarding pro-life as the trump card!

I guess that's it in the nutshell - 1 issue 1 vote - the problem is that life and politics arn't about 1 issue. They are about everything.
" a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped." I believe you ment to quote "unborn" in there, since children are dieing in Afganistan and Iraq at a high rate under current policies. "But that's different" you say, not really. Dead is dead, and neither has a voice in the matter.
Or let's look at it differently:
Your support of Bush solely on the Pro-Life issue results in:

• Limiting financial assistance for pre-natal care if the organization mentions the option of abortion.
• A stay the course policy in Iraq & Afganistan - resulting in continued military & civilian deaths in both - as well as a continued/accelerated propogation of terrorism supporters.
• Spending cuts on health care & social services - most effecting poor single parents.
• Massive overspending for projects of dubious bennifit - DHS control of airport security comes to mind - From a travel magazine at least it doesn't appear to have a direct bias - Wired tends to be more liberal but check the GAO & DHS papers refered to by PDF links in the 5th paragraph. Which results in not only a huge deficit, but further reduced spending for education, local services (Police, fire, ambulance), and housing.

So while you got a vote or 2 twords a pro-life campaign, you also got a pile of restrictions that dumped more crap onto those least able to cope with it - those children you are thinking so much of.
I am certainly not saying that the Pro-choice/Right-to-Life issue should not be an issue, but to make it the only one you decide your vote on, completely ignores the fact that it's not the only issue out there. That kind of blindness is what has gotten us here, and makes it impossible to stear the government on the centrist course it needs to serve the needs of all of the people.

Re:Classical Conservativist

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

And where did it get you? Is abortion illegal? Is it likely to be made illegal anytime soon?

With the backlash against all of the other crap Bush stands for, it's quite possible that your vote was a vote *against* your beliefs, since the Republican star is now falling, and you're not likely to find a Democrat who will fight against abortion rights.

Mind you, you're not likely to find a Republican who does much more about abortion rights than the Dems - aside from more cheap talk.

Face it - you were duped.

Re:Classical Conservativist

[Scroatzilla]

I never realized how extreme pro-lifers were till one night I stumbled into a conversation with my buddy--who I didn't realize was pro-life--in which I ended up presenting a number of extreme election scenarios and asking how he would vote.

He would essentially vote for the pro-life candidate REGARDLESS of that candidate's stance on anything else.

For example, he would vote pro-life even if the candidate's platform was to extinguish a particular race from the country, or to shut down every privately owned newspaper in favor of state-run newspapers, or to reintroduce prohibition, or take away women's right to vote, or to eradicate the presidential term limit, or to outright make elections illegal. His number one point that he kept repeating was about the innocence of unborn children.

essentially, yes

[misanthrope101]

The Corporation is a legal entity designed to insulate the owners and managers from responsibility, while allowing them to reap benefits. So yes, I support legislation restoring a degree of responsibility. I loved the documentary The Corporation, and I actually enjoy quite a few Lefty-type documentaries. I particularly liked The Merchants of Cool (if I remember the title correctly). I am a libertarian not in that I think unfettered capitalism is all that great, only that I think it sucks less than everything else. Plus, I don't think that what passes for capitalism really is anything like a "free market," so to support large government-subsidized corporations, with their government-protected markets and government-sanctioned immunity from responsibility, it really isn't "free market capitalism" you're defending.

But I admit I always get a little cautious when it comes to solutions. I distrust any top-down solution, however seemingly well-designed. I think the only way to really get away from the worst abuses of capitalism is for us to stop buying all this crap, and to ethically stop putting the profit motive first. But I'm no ascetic myself, nor do I expect anyone else to be, so I can't be very optimistic about the outcome there. It isn't very insightful to observe that the world would be better if people were better, but I think that's the only improvement we can really hope for. The world is this way because we are this way. I don't think we can come up with any solution to "implement," from the left or the right, that will cure the problems that we ourselves have gone to such great lengths to create.

Corporations exist because we want them to--we want the ability to go into business, make a buck, but not be bothered by actual responsibility for the debts and problems our decisions incur. Well, gasp, that isn't very f-ing healthy. Extrapolate that to the large scale, and you have Enron and Haliburton. So to me, this isn't just a left-vs-right type of thing. The enemy is us, because no one is immune to self-interest and greed. I have no idea how that could be changed.

Re:essentially, yes

[plasmacutter]

thank you.. i think youre the first right wing non-hyppocrite i've met.

The only problem with boycotting is these people pretty much control the mainstream flow of information.. thus the majority of people don't know enough to boycott.. or worse have been fed intellectually dishonest reasons not to... the DRM issue is a perfect example of this.

Other examples are the concept of "downsizing".. where companies realized they could sneak up the unit price on goods by decreasing the quantity in a given container by marginal percents, and "offshoring".. which i'm sure everyone who lives within 50 miles of air knows about by now.. i think even deep amazonian tribes talk about that one.

Re:essentially, yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, one interesting possible-solution is a democratic-style corporation. Something like a co-op, wherein all employees are also the sole shareholders. Liability is reduced, the ability to raise funds (albeit greatly reduced) still exists, and best of all, all employees take home a greater share of the co-op's profits. Furthermore, it becomes simpler for the co-op to maintain a sense of moral responsibility, because the employees/owners have to sit in that environment all day long - unlike the current shareholder system, where responsibility is largely abdicated by just about everyone.

Capitalism is supposed to run on a principle of enlightened self-interest; what could be more self-interested than a bunch of co-owners equally committed to making a buck?

Re:essentially, yes

[sgtrock]

Then you haven't been paying attention. There are a LOT of us. The problem is, as was mentioned at the top of this thread, we don't have a home. The Republican party has deserted its principles and the Democrats, God bless 'em, couldn't find their collective ass with both hands, a map, and a big neon sign saying "GRAB HERE".

Nope, politics in the US has clearly demonstrated that there is a complete failure of the two party system. I personally think we'd be a lot better off with a parlimentary one at this point. European politics don't seem to be as messed up as ours is lately. At least part of that has to be because everyone truly does get to have a voice in politics.

Re:essentially, yes

[Damek]

Rather than regulation, the solution would seem to me to be to change the law to disallow corporate structures that remove responsibility.

Or, perhaps an idea more appealing to libertarians who like how markets (not free ones, since there is no such thing) harness human self-interest to actually do something good - why not harness that even more, making all employees self-interested owners in their businesses? Something like a co-op which someone else mentioned.

Rather than being responsible only to distant shareholders, responsibility could be expanded to their own employees. This sort of thing worked pretty well for Henry Ford. I wonder why corporate America forgot it?

Perhaps we should use the law to redefine corporations. It probably would be better than using the government to regulate them.

Re:essentially, yes

[Darby]

thank you.. i think youre the first right wing non-hyppocrite i've met.

Then you haven't been paying attention. There are a LOT of us.

No, there really aren't.
If you agree with the principles that the other poster put forward which the parent above was expressing surprise with, then you are *not* at all right wing.

He misspoke, but you went along with it. If you believe in individual liberty, small government, free markets or anything of the sort, then you are what the right wing is directly and absolutely opposed to.
You are also what the left is directly and absolutely opposed to.

Don't kid yourself, and don't allow yourself to be put into a box that directly opposes what you believe in.

The right stands for corporate welfare and big oppressive government by its very definition.
The left also stands for big oppressive government though, so don't kid yourself that I'm trying to promote that.

Liberalism (in the classic sense) is the word you're looking for to describe your views, although obviously that word has been redefined by both the left and the right as Liberalism, the idea of *individual liberty* is the thing that both the left and the right are violently opposed to.

So, unless they come out and say that they believe in using big government to oppress unpopular groups and rip off the people to make the rich richer, anybody who calls themself "right wing" is either a hippocrite or doesn't even know what the term means.

If you honestly believe in the principles of individual liberty, small government and the like then you are a Classical Liberal, or perhaps a libertarian (note small 'l'). The Republican party has never really stood for any of these things. They just pay lip service to them in order to fool people like you into voting for them.
Ever since Reagan was elected, they gave up any pretense of actually believing in these things in a mad dash to fascism.

Re:essentially, yes

[sgtrock]

Actaully, yes, the Republican party did stand for those things 130+ years ago. They gave up on them 100+ years ago, yes. It just took some of us a long time to realise it. :(

Re:Yes and No

[mpapet]

Lawmakers hate it, judiciary hates it, and the executives, of course, hate it they each think, they are right and that the other branches are wrong in their disagreements.

Exactly right.

They all submit to it because of the laws

This is where you need to reconsider your opinion. One of the missions of the current administration is to vastly expand presidential powers. The President's office says, "Yeah that's okay for everyone else, but since I'm President, I have the power to do something else that I won't disclose but it's not illegal because I'm the President."

Or in the case of declaring war, I'm declaring war and I got the legislative branches to back me up. But this is a different war than the others so no current laws apply. Since no current laws apply, there is nothing stopping me from fighting this war the way I want. And since I'm president and my powers have been increased when the legislative branches gave me the okay for going to war, I'll start some other things that I can do when I have these extra powers to fight a war. But since this isn't like other wars and I'm the president I can do as I please.

The conventional process of law providing a mechanism to balance power in the U.S. has been overturned. Please consider this point carefully.

This is surprising why?-Slashlogic.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US. "

Slashlogic strikes again (what the hell are they teaching in school these days?).

IF A==B THEN assert C.

Now keeping in mind that a subset can have a majority. I assert that male geeks are the reason women don't have a larger role.

Or something more genereic like: IF A == White, males THEN assert that white males (that includes this forum) is oppressing the rest of the population. So give up some of that power why don't you?

Re:This is surprising why?-Slashlogic.

[MightyYar]

YOUR logic is flawed. The US is 75+% "Christian" (self-reported). Since it is very uncommon in our "two-party" system for a politician to be elected by a plurality of only 24%, there is absolutely no hope at all of the next highest religion, Jews (with 1.5% of the population) making a significant impact.

But I never claimed that I had somehow logically deducted the FACT that the US is a Christian-run country. A simple Google search will provide you with the religious affiliation of congress. You don't need logic to see that almost all of the congresscritters are Christian. Every single US president has been Christian. 48 of 50 governors are Christian. The supreme court actually has 2 Jews, so Christians "only" make up 78% of that branch of government.

I respectfully ask you to pass the joint along - you've had enough. I can't even believe that anyone could challenge the statement that the US is a Christian-run country.

Hey, Mr. Prez!

[Opportunist]

C'mon, what's wrong? Why suddenly all concerned with privacy, what happened to the "If you don't have anything to hide..." crap we get to hear as soon as some of OUR privacy is cut away again?

It's Not Like Congress Couldn't Do Anything...

[Greyfox]

If they really wanted to and these shennanigans pissed them off they could defund the NSA, censure or impeach Bush. If the Democrats do well in November, we might see just that sort of thing happen.

Just how many Christian values are there?

[1800maxim]

Christianity really isn't a philosophy that can be adapted individually, like buddhism. It has well defined principles guiding morality, as defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures.

There are certain statements that are not even a matter of principle - they are pretty much laws, if you wish to put it that way. Theft. Sleeping with another man's wife. Homosexuality among them (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) These really are not open to interpretation. Again, I am just pointing out what Christian values are all about, because you made it seem that things like abortion or homosexuality are perfectly accepted and allowed within Christian values, but due to fanaticism of individuals, they are not - that is not true.

So let's just call a spade a spade. Christian values aren't that adaptable - they are rather concrete guiding principles with some laws mixed in. What is adaptable is how much individuals agree or disagree with these principles, and wish to modify those Christian values to suit their own pursuits and goals.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[Oblio]

Bah.

Christianity has (and will continue to be) stretched in many different ways, all stemming from disagreements on the correctness of the bible. Translations are questionable, scripture inclusion and exclusion was a political process of the early church, some people reject the old testament, some people don't care for "Paulism", etc. etc.

I think your argument has a lot more weight if you are talking about Catholicism, as doctrine is defined as flowing downhill. But it is no coincidence that there are a large amount of "sects" which have differing interpretations of Christianity, all while being ostensibly "Christian" themselves. I don't really know of any protestant heretical belief's for example. :) Even inside Catholocism there are many doctrinal questions that are constantly being debated and changed.

On top of all of that, many Christians have no particular desire to codify their beliefs into law (thus forcing those beliefs on others), preferring that such morality is willfully practiced by adherents to the religion.

Christianity is almost as malleable as Buddhism. I would think that the only difference would be that the Christians claim the "truthfullness" of their documents while Buddhists are less concerned with the accuracy of scripture than with the message.

I don't think the grandparent was making any claims of values but rather political claims of what he supports legally (which are two very different things).

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity is almost as malleable as Buddhism.

Only because ~Christians(approximation of a Christian) make it that way. God is not malleable, the bible is not malleable, Christ's teachings are not malleable, they are there to read and to live by. Most ~Christians don't like it though because it's not convient for them to adapt their beliefs or set aside their self-prescribed importance do understand these things and live by them.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[jsebrech]

God is not malleable, the bible is not malleable, Christ's teachings are not malleable, they are there to read and to live by.

First of all, God may not be malleable, but your idea of him definitely is. Secondly, the bible is man-made (anyone having studied its history is forced to conclude this), so a valid opinion is that it is not the whole and accurate word of God, but rather a human perversion of God's message. There are many conflicting documents of christ's teachings, and once you start doubting the bible's accuracy and completeness, it's only a small step to doubting what was and wasn't a part of christ's teachings.

So, yeah, depending on where your beliefs lie, you can be a christian (someone who beliefs that christ was the son of God and sent to save us) and have completely different beliefs than what current bible canon dictates they should be.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[Enry]

How many? As many as there are Christian-based religions. And there's a lot, ranging from the more liberal Episcopal churce to the more conservative Southern Baptist. Each has varying degrees to how they interpret the Bible. Some think it's the Word Of God (TM), others believe it is the word of God transcribed and interpreted by man and thus may be fallible.

These really are not open to interpretation. Again, I am just pointing out what Christian values are all about, because you made it seem that things like abortion or homosexuality are perfectly accepted and allowed within Christian values, but due to fanaticism of individuals, they are not - that is not true.

It is. Go back to my earlier statement. It goes back to "how accurate is the Bible"? In my belief, a lot of it has to be open to interpretation. The most common reference to why homosexuality is bad is Leviticus. When you get a chance, go read Leviticus and see how many rules you're breaking there. My guess is, a lot. Does this mean you're damned for all eternity? Not in my mind. Do I think people who get abortions or are gay are going to hell? No.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[mrsbrisby]

Christianity really isn't a philosophy that can be adapted individually, like buddhism. It has well defined principles guiding morality, as defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures.

I agree completely.

Now excuse me while I sell my daughter into slavery, murder all the people at the seafood resturaunt, and anyone I can find eating pork.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[SuperJerms]

Secondly, the bible is man-made (anyone having studied its history is forced to conclude this), so a valid opinion is that it is not the whole and accurate word of God, but rather a human perversion of God's message. There are many conflicting documents of christ's teachings, and once you start doubting the bible's accuracy and completeness, it's only a small step to doubting what was and wasn't a part of christ's teachings.

So, yeah, depending on where your beliefs lie, you can be a christian (someone who beliefs that christ was the son of God and sent to save us) and have completely different beliefs than what current bible canon dictates they should be.

There are plenty of Christian values, but they all fall under the same basic tree. You are arguing semantics here (it has nothing to do with "valid opinion," it is a question of what you call your specific religion. Don't get me wrong -- definitions can be renegotiated, but at a certain point, you really are just better off creating a new term.

To take on such a label as "Christian," you also have to make some sort of claim about who is giving an accurate record of Christ's life. If your canon of choice is not the Bible, perhaps the common definition of Christian is not the most precise label for your beliefs. Feel free to believe in the Bible as an imperfect source, but do realize that you are misapplying the label of Christian. A good deal of people believe in Jesus, even the Jesus of the Bible, but would not subscribe to his Messianic teachings or call themselves Christians. I feel confident in assuming that the majority of intellectuals would agree: there are certain components of faith that cannot be ignored and still remain "Christian." Roughly 2000 years of Christian Church history would dictate that the belief in the Bible as the word of God (man-made, God-inspired, and thusly inerrant) is one of the most basic rules.

After all, once you decide the narrator is lying to you, you stop believing the rest of the story.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Infidel! Pretender! Only those blessed by Allah are truly able to have differences of opinion within their religion! Curse you and your militant crusadi christofascists!

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[jafac]

God is not malleable, the bible is not malleable, Christ's teachings are not malleable, they are there to read and to live by.

Bullshit.

If they're written in any human language, they're malleable. Period.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[jafac]

Do I think people who get abortions or are gay are going to hell? No

Do I think that people who think that people who get abortions or are gay are going to hell are going to hell?

Yes.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Don't forget ripping any ATM's out of churches, acceping the poor and lame into your home, giving up your virgin daughters for wanton use to entertain any amazingly powerful guests who might visit your house without warning, and marrying men who had nothing to do with your fetus's conception because the father skipped town and can't provide child support.

Re:Just how many Christian values are there?

[lonecrow]

I can't beleive people are trying to have a 'serious' discussion about such a silly subject. I can't really see a difference between christians, muslims, solarians, and tesla conspiracy theorists (the ones who think he invented time travel etc etc).

I would apologise for mocking or offending anyones faith but the rise of the US theoarcy prevents me. Where is the real silent majority? and why are they not preventing these doomsday cults from taking over their government?

This thread started as a discussion about values didn't it? So where is the enlighted conversation about when it is ok to put your own interest above your neighbours? god, christ, Allah, and Ganesha be damned they are not invited to the debate.

only in 1984

[Ender Ryan]

Yeah, it's true that other presidents have taken extreme measures during times of war... But THIS IS NOT A WAR. This is no more a war than the war on drugs is a war. This is a war like McCarthy's crusade against Communism was a war, ie., it's not, it's illegal, and this president is not acting on behalf of the people, but rather for his own personal agenda.

And... damnit, if this were RL I'd seriously want to punch you in the nose. Were you fucking asleep when it was revealed that these powers were being sought long before 9/11? Grrrr! Thanks for helping this administration throw the entire country in the toilet... even more than it already was.

Moonbats!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news, nobody cares.

Prez sez the program is secret...

[wiredpasture]

I have to think that we could find some good honest red-blooded American investigators who would sign something agreeing to keep their mouths shut. What's the problem then?

You probably know this.

[eddy]

The neo-conservatives need to project an formidable opponent, that's how they got and intend to keep control. It very plainly laid out in the first episode of The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

Not true

[Junta]

Roosevelt served 4 terms, and because of him we have the two term limit. It would be a 'first since FDR', but it wouldn't be an absolute first. It would mean more because he'd have to violate the two term legislated limit, which FDR didn't have to do.

Read the Gonzales testimony to Congress

[Tungbo]

He's the one who said Bush denied access to classified information to the investigative branch of DOJ, thus effectively ending the probe. If Bush
really wanted the probe to be effectively, he could have made sure that
access is granted to this branch which had ample experience handling
secret and very sensitive information in the past.

THINK for yourself.

When one party controls congress AND executive

[Tungbo]

what do you expect?

Of course, it's also trying to pack the supreme court when it has
the chance now.

Re:When one party controls congress AND executive

[Alsee]

The Supreme Court had 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democrat appointees, even before Bush replaced two previous Republican appointees with two new Republican appointees. The US Supreme is already stacked 7-to-2, and still the rightwingnuts have the unbeliveable gall to whine about the "radical liberal activist court". Apparently the only way to get a "Fair and Blanced" court is to stack it 9-0 with Republican appointees.

God forbid we get two or three Democrat Presidents in the next two or three consecutive elections... the we might actually end up with a evenly balanced 4-5 or 5-4 court. Oh the horror.

-

Re:Besides, a Dem with the balls to do so would ne

[Gulthek]

Actually it's just choosing which theme to use for the same set of corporate swine.

In other words: different style, same content.

One Ring to RULE them ALL

[brianben1]

I just don't understand how this country is rolling over and letting the Executive Branch of our Three , separate but yet equal, government branches control the other two branches(Legislative and Judicial) . These three branches were created as a system of Checks and Balances so that we do not have "One ring to RULE them all". The legislative branch is the only one allowed to declare war , but yet the Executive Branch is using all the Wartime Powers it has even though war has not been declared. The "War on terror" should have never taken us into Iraq. The Judicial Branch is effectively being denied the ability to Check the Balance of power from the order of the Executive Branch. This administration is masterful at the art of pulling the wool over our eyes. They claim to they are doing nothing wrong but every time an accusation of wrong-doing rears it's ugly head, our attention is diverted. Terry Schaivo, Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research, that damn pig Bush so desperately wanted to eat in Germany! Now we have the entire middle east in turmoil , and guess what? They don't really care for us too much.

You're probably right...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

but the GOP seems to have a closer relationship with the energy and military contractors, while the Dems seem to prefer the media conglomerates and telecom giants.

A Better Answer

[Doc Ruby]

Impeachment can be initiated by a single state in Congress. It doesn't require the entire House, a majority, a full committee, or even a team of Congressmembers. Of course, after impeachment is initiated, a majority of the House must vote to impeach - and the Senate must try and convict.

But that means you can work on state politicians, not just Congressmembers, to initiate the process.

Initiating impeachment is much easier than practically everyone thinks. And it should be much more common. Can you imagine how lawless the general population would be if it were so difficult and rare to initiate indictment for misdemeanors and felonies? Because impeachment is the equivalent for elected officials who are usually above the law by law, to protect the political process from political abuse of the criminal process. It should not surprise anyone that the political population is so criminal when impeachment is so extremely rarely initiated, let alone completed.

But the only barrier to political justice is public ignorance. Get educated, and educate someone else, for a better America.

Irony

[Alchemar]

So mr. W. doesn't want other people digging into all the personal information that he feels should be kept secret. Wouldn't it be nice to tell the NSA that they can't investigate you because they don't have the clearanc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H constitutional right.

Re:Besides, a Dem with the balls to do so would ne

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so everyone recognizes the problem, i.e. massive corruption by design. Given that everyone recognizes the problem, isn't it now the portion of the plan to fix the problem? Such as, for example, by forcing all political parties to only take campaign funds from the gov't or something?

Re: Whoa there, tex!

[Anonymous Coward]

...even though the White House can't manage to keep things like this NSA wiretapping scandal quiet.

Imagine that! They cant even keep a little thing like that secret!

The sooner the Democrats realize that they're largely out of touch with America, the sooner they can stop being the Republican Jr. party

I don't know, the democrats aren't all that out of touch with the American public, I mean, Bush didn't really win by that wide of a margin. But you make a good point, the two parties are very similar these days.

(they're just like Republicans, except without the charisma)

Aren't you just so cute!

You have to remember that Kerry voted to invade Iraq just like Bush did. The policies that the rest of the world hates America for were largely supported by Kerry.

Bush didn't vote for the war. He isn't a member of Congress. I don't know that the war in Iraq itself is what people are so upset about. I thought it was mainly the way Bush went about it Cowboy style and then botched the thing, though I could be wrong. Really, Saddam Hussein wasn't a great person, and not having him in power is a good thing. You could argue that things haven't improved I suppose, but you have to admit that he was teh sux0r.

Kerry was a less charismatic, more pompous version of Bush. (Hell, they both went to private schools in Massachusetts, no matter how much Dubya wants to pretend he comes from some place in touch with most Americans.) Kerry was just the Democrat Party's version of Bush. Both supported the war in Iraq. Both supported the US PATRIOT act.

Okay, except I really don't think that Bush is charismatic. The folksy thing just really doesn't do it for me. It just makes him seem to me like either a liar or a moron, and either way I don't like it. Also I don't think that Kerry is really Bush from Massachusetts, I mean he can speak english pretty well, he went to Vietnam, and he has actually been elected to public office.

Bush made the mess in Iraq, I like many other Americans think he deserves another term to try and clean up the mess he made. If in 2008 things are still messed up in Iraq, Bush will have earned his legacy. Kerry already earned his as an unprincipled fool who changes position based on whatever the latest poll says.

WTF!? Thats kind of like saying "You crashed the car because you don't know how to drive, so here's the key to the tow truck! Go get 'em tiger!". And as for the "flip flop" thing, Bush changes his positions just like every other politician. Just google "bush flip flops". I personally think people can change their minds, but again, maybe I am wrong.

'Wireless' Tapping Probe? Should be 'warrantless'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a mixup with the article title? I've never seen this called the "Wireless" tapping probe. Do you by chance mean "Warrantless"?

Are you a law scholar?

[bigtallmofo]

The program does indeed break the law.

You are likely not a law scholar, and you're probably also not even an attorney. The world isn't black and white, and you are in no position to determine what does and what does not break the law. Law scholars I've seen interviewed on this situation do not agree on whether it breaks the law or not so it's surprising that you can be so sure of yourself.

You likely do not have top secret clearance to know exactly what has been going on with this program. Therefore, you're relying on unofficial reports from unnamed sources that were reported in newspapers. It's surprising with such limited information that you again feel so sure of yourself.

I want to see Bush or Cheney do the perp walk. So do the majority of Americans at this point

It's a sad state when you're so biased you can't see your own biases. I don't mean that as an insult but as an invitation for introspection. The majority of Americans don't want to see a "perp" walk of Cheney or Bush. An "unfavorable" opinion is not the same thing as calling for the arrest of someone.

Re:Are you a law scholar?

[Politburo]

Law scholars I've seen interviewed on this situation do not agree

That's because they're blinded by partisanship. It is extremely clear that FISA does not authorize these actions without a court order and it is extremely clear that the AUMFs do not authorize these actions. It's hilarious how "originalists" or "literalists" can suddenly find things that aren't at all writen in the law.

You likely do not have top secret clearance to know exactly what has been going on with this program. Therefore, you're relying on unofficial reports from unnamed sources that were reported in newspapers.

Incorrect. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, have all made public statements, some of them to the Congress. You can look only at what they've disclosed (like the federal judge who recently ruled on the state secrets claim did), and it's obviously illegal.

History Won't Be Kind

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

History will look back upon George W. Bush as the undoing of what it means to be American.

I don't think history will be too kind on the Bush Administration. I think its time in office will be seen as a point of inflection for the course of the United States. The point at which it's preeminance in the world began to fade. Consider the status of the US in many spheres. It is in decline across the board.

• In political circles, the US is no longer the great mediator or leader of the free world, and has lost much of the goodwill of its cold war allies. International esteem for America is at its lowest ebb since Vietnam. Possibly more so.
  
• In the sphere of rights, the US is leading the way back into the bad old times of state supremecy over citizens, weaking separation of church and state, as well as rolling back decades of womens rights and bucking the trend when it comes to homosexuality.
  
• In science, again the US is losing its lead, with things like patents, intelligent design and science funding cutbacks all stifling ongoing progress. Much development is taking place abroad. India, China and the EU now have their own, new rival space programs, while NASA struggles with aging technologies.
  
• Militarily, the US has been broken by Iraq and the War on Terrorism. It's military is streched thin fighting shadows and imagined threats, and this weakness has been sensed by countries like Iran, North Korea and Sudan.
  
• In culture, Hollywood and Big American Media has lost its dominance in the age of the internet, as well as to emerging media producers in Hong Kong and Bollywood. Foreign consumers no longer buy into, American culture as a sign of modernity, as they once did.
  
• And of course, in financial circles, once the United States' most influential sphere, we find a country with a massive deficit, and the dollar no longer alone as the world's standard currency. The American markets no longer shake world markets as they did. Ben Bernanke does not generate as much waves as Alan Greenspan.
  

Much of this was inevitable. America was never going to maintain its position as the world's premiere nation for eternity. However, the Bush administration has accellerated, rather than retarded this decline. History will see the administration's time as a watershed period in history for America, when "Americian" ceased to be synonymous with "progressive" and "enlightened".

Re:History Won't Be Kind

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that your masturbatory delusional fantasies aren't worth dog shit, aren't you?

And that stuff like "accellerated" and "Americian" do not give much credit to your theories?

By the way yes, I'd like fries with that.

Re:History Won't Be Kind

[Raven_Stark]

"I don't think history will be too kind on the Bush Administration. I think its time in office will be seen as a point of inflection for the course of the United States."

Yes, please!

"The point at which it's preeminance in the world began to fade."

Noooo. [drunken gut wrenching moan]

I was really hoping you would say it was the point at which Americans said "enough," came to their senses and elected some decent leaders and fixed what is broken in our system. Leave it to historians to determine when America's time in the sun ended. If we say it is over now, then it is over.

Now that Bush has refreshed our memories about tyrannical leaders, let's do our best to see to it that no one like him ever holds office again. We have two years to make sure that the guy who wins each presidential primary is someone we would actually want as a president. Very soon we get to exchange one set of congresscritters for a hopefully less offensive and more capable group.

It is also high time for everyone who is not a right wing bible thumping jackass to "witness" to their neighbors who are. Convert them to reason.

These are my happy thoughts about what the future holds so that I can sleep tonight.

In related news

[Rooked_One]

Behold our glorious new dictator in 2008. I seriously he won't step down. It would be like him to use his powers he's given himself to say "its not in the best intrest of our country to hold an election or to change presidents right now, so i'm going to stay in office."

At which point, if people don't revolt in mass, i'm going to move to... umm... lets say sudan... at least they know they are in a shitty state and aren't in denial.

sketchy and disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this how a president of integrity acts? No, this is how a sketchy coward acts who knows he has broken federal law. Disgusting. Is this transparent democracy? Certainly not.

It's WARRANTLESS, not Wireless...

[Otis_INF]

I wondered, wtf has wireless to do with this, but TFA is pretty clear: WARRANTLESS tapping, not wireless tapping.

Although I can fully understand the outrage among some US citizens because of this blocking, here in the Netherlands, unwarranted tapping and surveilance is already legit by law for some time. Not that most people agree, but hey, what can you do against politicians who think that by limiting freedom they will win the next election.

This is an issue where citizen lobbying matters

[CurtMonash]

One the one hand, Congress is more motivated to do the right thing in this area than in many others, perhaps for no other reason than that their own status is threatened.

On the other hand, they're REALLY clueless about technology and its implications.

I really think we can make a difference by driving the public policy debate in the right directions.

Dear USA,

[trawg]

Good luck with this stuff. Seriously.

It seems you've already started to vote away your freedoms. If the rest of your country is going to take this lying down, maybe it's time for the rest of you to start taking up the arms that you've so rigoursly been defending the right to own (regardless of the cost in your society) to start taking control of your country back from the religious oligarchy that is currently in charge.

You dragged one President through the mud because he cheated on his wife. Now you've got another one breaking your laws and turning your country into the sort of place that people fifty years ago used to write books about to prove points totalitarianism.

Instead of posting about it on Slashdot, maybe the time has come to start educating your less savvy friends and family that maybe they should stop watching Fox and start engaging their brains to figure out what is best for their country, their family and their friends.

Until you figure out a better way to spend untold billions of dollars and priceless amounts of human life, we, the undersigned, consider ourselves at great personal risk of your policies, attitudes, and actions.

Signed sincerely,

The Rest of the World. (Please consult an atlas for our exact location relative to the United States.)

PS, if you could take money out of politics, you might find - as a completely surprising corollary - you make your country a better place for your citizens.

Re:Dear USA,

[Anonymous Coward]

Good leaders counter fear with love, seek knowledge to create understanding, attract competent people around them, reassure and inspire. Instead, this administration offers fear, secrecy, arrogance, war, corruption, and hubris. A scared populace is programmed/brainwashed to offer strong opinions in place of reason. Doublethink abounds.

Yes, it is quite unfortunate that the United States is gripped with fear. The administration is so afraid and incompetent that the only way they can see to handle a crisis of resources (which is a very serious problem), is to become authoritarian and oppressive. The "terrorists are trying to kill us" is just a ruse to scare the population into submission. 9/11 was a crime committed by leaders who can't lead.

There are several possible outcomes: conflict and eventual destruction through world war, internal collapse and disintegration, revolution with love. The last option will require an enlightened person similar to Ghandi, MLK, or Aung San Suu Kyi who is smart enough not to get killed by the Elite and who combines love and power.

Till then there is only hope.

In the meantime I recommend reading:

The Power Elite
War and Peace
The Iran Contra Connection
Crossing the Rubicon
The Politics of Heroin
Cocaine Politics
The Passover Plot
Siddhartha
Dark Alliance: The Rise of Crack Cocaine
Manufacturing Consent
1984

Re:Dear USA,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Rest of the World,

We are busy playing Captain America, please leave a message at the beep. Beeeeeep.

Angery Lefties

[neophyte13]

I think you all need to give the NSA "Illegal" "Domestic" wire tapping a rest. How come you can be so ignorant and biased; get so mad over this but not when your best buddy Clinton did it to the world with (Echelon)? You can't have double standards like that to be truely a liberal. Do some research come back tomorrow and we can play again. Class Begins 8:00am PST!

Read the whole thing please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Last week, Specter and the administration agreed on a proposal that would allow Bush to submit the program to the government's secret terrorism and intelligence court for review of its legality.

We're sorry Freedom doesn't live here anymore

[Gryphn]

Well, then ...

If you have nothing to hide...

"knock knock...."
"Hello, we're from the NSA. Since you have nothing to hide, we know you won't mind if we set up video cameras in every room in your house, your car(s), Your parent's house, your siblings houses. Oh, and while we're at it, we'll install some software on all your computers. And we need to put this little device in all of your phones."

"Roll up your sleeve please, we have a little RFID chip we need to insert"

"Just relax. This will be painless... Thank you for your patience..."

Adolph seen in DC area.

[relsch]

Is it me, or are there certain tactics being used by this president and vp (neither deserve a capital letter) and their administration which seem somewhat akin to those used by a certain leader many years ago during his rise to power?

- Expanding powers of "intelligence" and military agencies in the name of national security...agencies controlled by the executive.
- Blocking inquiries into policies and actions taken by the executive in the name of national security
- Developing new laws, agencies, and policies to protect "us and our interests"...at the cost of individual liberties

We call ourselves a democracy? Barely at this point.

That's why...

[arashi no garou]

That's why I'm not voting for him for president this time around!

Oh, wait....

Re:Besides, a Dem with the balls to do so would ne

[mrsbrisby]

The Dems and Reps are BOTH beholden to corporate interests and Wall St. bankers. Choosing which of the 2 major parties to vote for is simply choosing WHICH set of corporate swine you want pulling the strings in DC.

Actually, not so much anymore, especially with the Delay K-street missions. Since Republican party controls all four branches of government right now (Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Oversight^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe Media), I hope it's not exactly a big secret that coporate lobbyists are told that they either give to the GOP exclusively, or they'll be "shut down" by Republican votes.

Remember the "friendly donors" v. "unfriendly donors" lists?

What I don't understand is the Value Voters. Surely if the "representatives" were all about constitutionally protecting the American flag, mokney-ancestry [sic], fetus-rights, and faggot-beating, they'd have done so by now. Surely it's obvious to so-called Value voters that their party isn't the slightest-bit interested in their values unless it's time for re-election.

Back in the '90s they might have been able to say they didn't have a chance of getting it law, but now? They got wiretaps and secret prisons, and can put journalists in jail when the vee-pee's assistant breaks the law, they most certainly can get these laws passed if they really want to.

don't mix christian values and values of churches

[1800maxim]

I agreed with you that interpretations vary and there are many. However, Christian values are pretty straightforward, as one can obtain from reading the christian greek scriptures. Many churches, such as the more liberal ones, debate the meaning of words.

Just as one example, there is only one way to interpret adultery - sleeping with another person's mate. There are no if conditions, or no circumstances when that is acceptable by the values of Christianity. It really doesn't matter whether you believe the Bible is inspired or not, whether Jesus is the son of God or not. This is a purely investigative approach to what Christianity is about. However, many religious leaders will attempt to interpret this to suit their lifestyle and values.

There stems a confusion between Christian values, and the values of churches, religious leaders and religious organizations.

Another way to learn what Christianity entails is to read historians, such as Josephus, who described this "strange" sect/organization of the first and second centuries. You no doubt will learn of their values on matters of state/political neutrality, morality and other matters.

And speaking of the book of Leviticus and why homosexuality is bad. There is no reason given to why it is bad - it is simply not accepted in the hebrew AND greek scriptures. It is stated as unnatural, and that's all.

On the subject of breaking the laws of the old testament... There were many rules given on how to atone for sins, mostly with sacrifices. No eternal damnation entered the picture. The teaching of hellfire crept into christianity with apostasy in later centuries, and was not present in the Jewish faith at all. Certain offences were punishable by death. Not eternal damnation. Christ's sacrifice was the one final and ultimate sacrifice, and Christians were free from the rules and regulations of the Mosaic law. Christ fulfilled that law, and his followers lived by Christ's law, which can be summarized in just two commandments: Love your God with your whole heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.

So do I believe that persons who practice homosexuality or abortion or theft or adultery or whatever else not in harmony with the christian values of the greek scriptures will go to hell? No, because there is no hell. Will they suffer? Not at all - death ends existence, simply put. But I do believe that when it comes to christian values, those practices are at odds.

Re:There's your answer (?)

[Breiny]

by cluckshot (658931) on Friday July 21, @06:53AM (#15755886)
"any realistic choice who might dare to challenge the forming dictatorship having his character assassinated by this NSA data."

This is a move pioneered by William Jefferson Clinton by personally obtaining/maintaining detailed FBI files on people.

Release a little private data here or there just so that it paints a picture you want and suddenly a potent political threat becomes a laughing stock in the eyes of the general voting public.

"The real issue here is the construction of a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve" --hahaha

"I know there are people here who will see this in a partizan light"
Well I for one am sure glad that YOU don't!! In fact, from reading your post, it appears that you are THE most non-partisan/impartial/unbiased person on the planet.(Sarcastically)

"The program has nothing what so ever to do with fighting Al Qaeda."
You're right. It has everything to do with tracking YOUR every move- to find whether you floss at night, are you lying to your mother, what you're smoking... You're right. I can see absolutely NO way that a program to monitor communication between people potentially linked to Al Qaeda could have anything to do with Al Qaeda.

"To prove this ask yourself the following question..."
While I may not agree with the president or a lot of what has transpired over the last few years, I have a hard time following your claim that America has done absolutely nothing since 9/11. You really should try to get out and meet some soldiers who have returned from Iraq. Then you can tell them to their face that their work in teaching people, building schools and public infrastructure...
Perhaps you were busy reading dirty magazines during the election and drafting of the Iraqi constitution?
While there are still problems, that doesn't mean that nothing good has been done.

"Every American regardless of party should wake up to the seriousness and awful reality of this situation." I agree with you here. Many Americans have a terrible disease called apathy. They are more concerned with playlists on their iPODs than growing instability in the world around us. It is our civic duty to be aware of everything going on around us and to strive to make our communities, cities, states, country and world a better place for our having been here. We enjoy INCREDIBLE priveleges and opportunities. Appreciate and use them to make a difference. Seek out the most honorable men, encourage them to run for office. If you can't find any, YOU run for office.

"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers"... Why limit yourself to such small exaggeration (10X)- if you add another digit then you can claim "200,000 soldiers".

I'm not sure if you've had any real conversation with "soldiers who are out there dealing with it" or soldiers who have returned or not. I have. Please don't malign/discount their efforts or claim to represent their views with a sweeping claim such as this.

"... if you cannot stand the truth..." ??? This is coming from someone who is evidently neither burdens him/herself with facts nor cares about selectively applying gross "hyperbole" (some might just call it BS) to try to make your point?

Dear scubamage,

[funwithBSD]

PlePlease don't add analysis and opinion in the summary without declaring that it is yours and yours alone.

The word illegal does not appear in the article, nor has anyone shown that the wiretaps did not comply with the law. Democrat Senators that would *love* to pin this on the President came away from the full briefing subdued and dropped the matter. Continued pressure has come primarily from those senators who were NOT at the briefing and thus are talking into their hat.

A careful reading of the law shows that any communications terminating outside the US is subject to surveillance in the interests of national security. It is not a civil or criminal court (nor is it admissible in such courts) and does not fall under the same rules. Even the judges on the supposed panel that would issue such warrants have said it is not in their realm of control. They are there to protect the rights of US citizens and legal residents who are being investigated solely within the confines of the US. There are some notable exceptions to that, any communications to a foreign powers embassy here on US soil is not protected either, because the embassy is technically (and legally) on "foreign" soil.

Any US citizen that thinks communications exiting the US borders are subject to the same protections as domestic communications is a fool, and ignorant fools at that.

Incoherent much?

[Von Rex]

Except that it wasn't John Kerry or any of his flunkies that denied the investigator's security clearances, thereby preventing them from actually, you know, investigating.

John Kerry also does not have the power to step in and make things right, as Bush obviously does. After all, he attached hundreds of "signing statements" to laws passed by congress saying that the laws do not apply to him. The new American constitution seems to be "What Bush says, goes".

Here we have the spectacle of a sitting president breaking the law openly and not even bothering to deny it. When your own elected government tries to get to the bottom of it, the administration takes the unprecedented step of declaring the whole issue a matter of "national security", thereby denying the ability of anyone to investigate it. At least, until they find a Bush family friend to head up the panel, as they did in his $800,000 insider trading case (the friend was later rewarded by being made ambassador to Saudi Arabia).

You Republicans make a lot of noise about liberty and freedom and the sanctity of the Constitution. But over the last few years you've bent yourselves into contortions to transfrom the office of the president into that of a pre-Magna Carta ("Magna Carter" as Bush once said) king. I hope you're proud of yourselves, because your founding fathers would have collectively puked at the sight of you.

In the old days

[ecorona]

Didn't the French kill their leaders when they got half as corrupt as ours? Americans have lost the cojones that built this country in the first place.

America Haters

[Seljo Myeri]

As an American, I think it is your right to hate me, hate anyone, if you like. I don't have to agree or even like it. But if you come over here, kill my people, try to kill me, and call me the great devil, then I'm not going sit here and take it. Situation:
Two people are fighting across the street. It's a great idea to talk to them, from you safe side of the street and try to get them to stop and talk to each other. I'm all for it. Now let's say they wuit fightig, for a while, but then they start again. You talk to them from your safe side of the street and get them to calm down again. Then one pulls a knife. Their figh escalates. Then the guy with the knofe comes accros to your side of the street, stabs you in the arm, abviously a non fatal wound, but it hurts like hell. What are you going to do? Talk to him some more? He's about to stab you again. This time it could be fatal. You don't know , and there's no time to talk it out. You pull a handgun and blow his head off. Is that murder?

I'll care what you other non-american people think when you've been stabbed. England and Spain know how it feels. Ask them.

For you Americans calling for Bush's impeachment; you'd be calling for the death penalty of that person who killed his attacker above. Idiots.

Confirmed by Congress members

[Anonymous Coward]

Members of Congress have been on The Daily Show saying the same thing about the briefings the President held.

Put a privileged child into office and you get these kinds of privileged actions. Chews with his mouth agape, massages foreign dignitaries, vacations extensively (even while there's a war on), spies on the American public without warrant, sidestep's Congressional checks and balances... he feels like he's entitled to all of this. I wouldn't be surprised if he still throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way.

Re:Confirmed by Congress members

[Anonymous Coward]

vacations extensively (even while there's a war on),

Oh, please. Those weren't vacations. They were How To Be President school. Look at how dense they were at the beginning of his presidency, and their timing.

Re:don't mix christian values and values of church

[aunticrist]

Just a quick few things: Be careful about citing -anything- Josephus said/wrote because religious historians and athropologists have for decades now shown him to have been an opportunist that would re-write religious history at a drop of a hat if it suited him and have found flaw after flaw with many of his writings. Please also remember that the Laws in Leviticus, although quite stringent are also quite extensive, and evenin all of that, still allow for some strange things, like a father still being allowed to bed his daughter. O.o You know...because that's natural. Let's not also forget that the ancient greeks were very big on the man-boy relations and have tons of depictions in their art of such things and it wasn't until the introduction of monotheism and the forcing out of their pagan ways did such idologies come into their thinking. Ideologies mind you that come from a culture that for a long time was primarily nomadic/desert people that even when they had settlements were few and far between so keeping an eye to survival and furthering of their species was tantamount, hence any activity that did not involve or end with a new born was deemed wrong, whereas established societies with no worry of population loss (ancient Greek and Roman societies, or even the Ancient Mayans) didn't have that fear, and therefore, homosexuality wasn't deemed "wrong".

Right and left have reversed roles...

[airdrummer]

and the color-coding matches;-) i remember when the dems were red & repubs were blue...

3rd Party!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote third party!

I know you think you're "throwing your vote away," but really, there's only one way to change our gov't from a two-party system to a multi-party system. Plus, if you vote third party, you don't have to vote for those 'stinky democrats.' You can still support the policies you believe in without supporting such a corrupt regieme. Do some research into all of the parties in your area, and make a decision about which one is best.

illegal ?

[itsdave]

it has yet to be established that the NSA wiretaps were illegal.

good luck libs.

Re:illegal ?

[funwithBSD]

They are complaining that the Bush Adminsitration won't give them fishing poles.

Re:illegal ?

[NoOneInParticular]

And calling of the investigation won't help. Well done, dictator.

Let's get the facts straight first

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd post this on my account but the droves of mis-informed people who actually believe the media is reporting the facts (including Slashdot) would mod me into oblivion.

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of White House-approved National Security Agency monitoring operations.
"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, a member of a special Intelligence Committee panel appointed to oversee the NSA's work.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.) has been on the FISA court that has known about and been monitoring the NSA's activities since 2001. She never voiced any problems with these activities until the Democratic party decided to use it as ammo against Bush.

Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has also known about these activities since 2001 and he also had not said word one about any problems until the Democratic party decided to assault Bush with it.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Vir.) is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and he also knew about these activities since 2001.

How can the Democrats pretend that there was any wrongdoing if they have known about and approved these activities for 5 years? There is no scandal, there was no wrongdoing, there was nothing.

Not only that, but the Washington Post (which is known for being extremely anti-Bush) published an article about how Americans in general feel about the NSA's activities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375_pf.html
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

When people have to invent stories and make up accusations about you, it means they don't have anything real to attack you with. Please people, turn your BS detectors back on for the love of God.

There's your answer: Veterans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bumper sticker: "If you can read this? Thank a teacher. If you can read this in english? Thank a vet."

Re:There's your answer: Veterans.

[Fallingcow]

Soldiers secure our sovereignty.

Citizens secure our liberties.

Both are freedom, but not they're not the same thing. The latter does largely depend on the former, but the latter may be threatened without simultaneous threat to the former.

Sometimes one is in greater danger than the other.

Re:WTF? Obstruction of Justice is a crime last I k

[200_success]

And who's going to nab him for obstruction of justice? The Justice Department?

There's probably MORE to hide than this one prog

[Locutus]

It is doubtful that a clearance would be limited to just one program so maybe Bush/Cheney are protecting prying eyes from 'seeing' what else is going on. And even if there is a one-to-one clearance system enacted, it would be likely that all the other 'things' going on behind the scenes of the US Laws are tied together via a few or the one "decider".

LoB

References?

[bchernicoff]

Illegal wiretapping, two (that's right, two) botched wars (the Taliban just took back two towns in Afganistan), extreme secrecy, Vallery Plame, calling for the State Secrets privledge across the board, botched operations after Katrina, Scooter Libby, Carl Rove, prosecution of reporters, prosecution of private citizens under the Espionage act, Free Speech zones, Halliburton, $7 trillion national debt, between $200-$400 billion spent in Iraq against estimates of $8B, depletion of the National Guard, NSA blanket collection of phone records, NSA collection of airline records, secret laws that dictate conduct at airports, secret laws that you are governed by but CANNOT READ.

It's unfortunate that more people in this country aren't aware of the events you list. Does anyone know of a website that has a complete list along with links to news articles detailing them?

Re:Besides, a Dem with the balls to do so would ne

[beckerist]

...that is, if you can FIND a democrat with cohones. The irony of it all is that, living in NY, the only candidate that comes even close is Hillary, and they belong to Bill.

points

[geekoid]

1) Voting for a btter government should never make one feel dirty.
2) voting blindly for a party is bad.
3) Being able to relize that your party is doing bad things and voting against them is good.
4) Democrates aren't as liberal any more.
5) The republicans aren't republicans, there fanatics who care about religeon and making everyone adhere to there belief.

I do not vote for any one party just to be voting for that party. I say these things because bad things are happening in are government and we need more people like you who can think for themselves.

I saw a bumper sticker with a Picture of Geaorge Bush, and it said 'Enough is Enough'
Enough is enough, indeed.

It's not a war people

[rsilvergun]

it's an occupation. There's a difference.

MOD UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fox Blocks Farmer Hen Tapping Probe...

In still more news...

Landline phones are deemed safe since "wireless tapping" is being used and not "wire tapping."

Are the *public* hgh school interns running /. again?

HERE'S...your answer!

[p33p3r]

Republi-con or Dema-crook, what's the difference?
A wise man once said politicians and priests should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
I agree.

Vote for checks and balances!

[Jagasian]

The best vote that you can make when you don't care for either the Democrat or Republican candidate is to vote in a way that will cause the government to become divided. In other words, you want to try to elect people in a way that the different branches of government are controlled by different parties. That way the checks and balances will keep the government from doing too much damage, as it keeps the branches fighting eachother as opposed to fighting its citizens. Right now the Republicans control the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. The Supreme Court is still roughly 50/50 Rep/Dem.

Hence the best option in this upcoming election, if you don't care for either party, is to give the Democrats a very small majority of the House and Senate. That way the executive branch would be 100% Republican, the legislative branch would be %40 Republican, and the Supreme Court would be 50% Republican. While voting this way is not ideal, it is better than not voting at all. Furthermore, our country was founded on the idea of a government consisting of checks and balances. If you believe in that ideal, then VOTE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES!

In 2008, if you still don't like what is going on, then continue to vote in a way that keeps control of the government split between parties.

Re:Vote for checks and balances!

[schnikies79]

Those are good points, thanks for the tips!

I refuse to not vote because then you don't have a right to complain.

Re:Vote for checks and balances!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court is still roughly 50/50 Rep/Dem.

Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents. How you get 50/50 out of that is beyond me. Especially since there are intentionally an odd number of judges.

Captcha: manure

Re:Vote for checks and balances!

[Alsee]

The Supreme Court is still roughly 50/50 Rep/Dem.

Yes, where 77.7/22.2 equals 50/50.

John Paul Stevens appointed by Republican Ford
Antonin Scalia appointed by Republican Reagan
Anthony Kennedy appointed by Republican Reagan
David Souter appointed by Republican Bush I
Clarence Thomas appointed by Republican Bush I
John Roberts appointed by Republican Bush II
Samuel Alito appointed by Republican Bush II

Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed by Democrat Clinton
Stephen Breyer appointed by Democrat Clinton

And STILL the idiot rightwingnuts rant about some fictional radical leftwing activist Supreme Court, and how they need to stack the court with a few radical conservative judges to "restore balance". Obviously the only "Fair and Blanced" makeup for the Supreme Court would be 9/0 and 100% Republican appointees, prefferably inclduing a few televangelists for balance.

And it's not like Bush's two new appointments shifted the court from 5-Repubican/4-Democrat into a newly 7/2 Republican landslide. Bush's Roberts appontment replaced Republican Nixon appointee Rehnquist, and Bush's Alito appontment replaced Republican Reagan appointee O'Connor. So the court was a 7/2 Republican landslide both before and after Bush's two new appointments.

Stephen Colbert famously quipped that he doesn't trust facts because facts have a well known liberal bias. Well if the wildly Republican slanted 7/2 are a liberal court, then it's just proof that the facts, the law, and the US Constutution also have a well known liberal bias. Just imagine how "radical liberal" the court would be if there really were a 50/50 split (either 5/4 or 4/5). And just for laughs, imagine if we had the exact same 7/2 split but slanted the other way.

-

Re:Vote for checks and balances!

[Jagasian]

I stand corrected on the makeup of the Supreme Court. However, I still think that the best vote for somebody that doesn't care for either party, is to vote for a split government, i.e., vote for checks and balances. Voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, but voting for checks and balances is voting to stop the government from doing too much bad stuff.

A logical solution.

[Phraghg]

We should do this the California way. A total recall to terminate the Bush presidency early.

Ah president Bush..

[biscon]

And thus I clothe my naked villainy...
with old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ...
...and seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

talk to Hugo

[Scudsucker]

Hugo Chavez has done something like this in Venezuela. The government is providing loans for businesses, with the provision that the employees own part of the company. Calls it the "new socialism".

damned if you do, damned if you dont

[Anonymous Coward]

This is poeple just looking for stuff to bash Bush about. If he doesn't do this, he gets bashed for not doing enough. If he does it, he gets bashed for doing it. What do you want him to do? Sit in his little office and TALK about doing stuff rather than doing it? At least he is trying to end all this terrorist stuff and not just having conferance after conferance about what we COULD BE doing. If Bush didn't bring this country to war, all this conversation would be bashing the Congress for not putting us into war. If Bush wasn't wire tapping calls, poeple would bash him -saying he needs to be wire tapping these poeple's phones for reasons of national security.

I would rather have him trying to get stuff done -and actually doing something, rather than him talking big and doing nothing.

Standard Oil Ring a Bell?

[plasmacutter]

the monopoly known as standard oil arose without government intervention/regulation.

the truth is without government regulation/intervention you get such lovely things as happened during the gilded age...

below-poverty wages, child labor, complete lack of basic safety standards, massive and unchecked pollution, and huge monolithic vertical and horizontal monopolies and cartels.

Heck, even basic laws against murder and extortion are "regulations".. why not get rid of those laws too, have some nice fat mafia activity determine market share.

but go ahead and stay in denial and believe what corporate elitists tell you.. i'm almost tempted to demand the remove all the regulations to see how long it takes us to descend back to the pre-third-world level we were in during the gilded age.

Wireless

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the terrorists don't use land lines!

The truth

[hrrY]

Guys and gals wake up!
Tremendous progress has been made in the area of generating ideas *for* people instead of people generating ideas *for* themselves...
The sad truth is that there may in fact be no end to a tyrannical, totalitarian, America; this very notion of idealism is being tested as we speak. Even if the evidence is looking us square in the eye saying, "Hi, my name is Evidence.", we are effectively and actively sanctioning a legal system that in all truthfulness, is unequipped to prosecute or even bring forward motions to prosecute certain crimes at the level they are being committed
the most recent example being Ken Lay of Enron...
This is a process that has been tested rigorously for years and now they are starting to get some real production value out of it. Many other examples can be cited, but I don't think any to date hold water the way that the Enron scandal does...it was a masterpiece.
*If* you indicted the president, in theory this country would be thrust into incalcuable woes of economic, social, political, and global upheaval in a way unknown to the history of the world. It's sad, but to preserve our way of life as the way that we know, or *knew* it we must sacrifice our liberty and objective thought and continue to feed and endorse a vicious, corrupt, hypocritical system.
Unless someone else has better idea...

Re:The truth

[geminidomino]

The sad truth is that there may in fact be no end to a tyrannical, totalitarian, America;

There's always an end. Whether it ends like that messy business in 1776, or like the Roman Empire collapsing under it's own weight, it will end.

You're not thinking.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

If the current administration wants to stay in power, they're not going to simply put off an election - they'd find another puppet who hasn't hit the two-term limit yet, thus maintaining the illusion that there's been a transfer of power.

what to do...

[plbg32]

what to do...i've sidestepped a few laws, and maybe the torture was a bit much, my freinds are richer then ever before, but no one seems to like me, i was booed at the NAACP recently, and i can't quite get the war with iran started. my brother wants to be the next president and dads beens seen hanging around with an adulterer. oh they want to impeach me for all the rights as citizens i've taken away...what to do.. i know , i'll make all the info a national security secret and no one can see it.

you have no clue

[1800maxim]

You and whoever modded you up have no clue what you are talking about.

Talking about anything remotely touching religion on slashdot is pretty much worthless. Whenever someone writes up constructive comments with insightful information on beliefs and religion, nobody cares to do anything other than come back with worthless, flamebait, trolling responses that others mark as "insightful". Why? Because it has some sort of anti-religious tone. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

Absolutely amazing, mate.

Re:you have no clue

[PixelScuba]

Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:7 "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."

I really like Leviticus 20:18 which warns me of being exiled for having sex with a woman on her period!

{x] has effectively blocked the Justic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

{x] has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation.
1) who is {x]?
2) is {x] = stem cells?
3) who is FEEDING this {x]?
4) does {x] make his own food?
5) is {x] food?
6) is starving {x] possible?
7) ...
8) is there life on other planets?

bravo, but you unwittingly went into hebrew text

[1800maxim]

what does that have to do with discussing what christian values are as defined in the greek text?

Perhaps, nothing?

So where in the pentateuch does it permit

[1800maxim]

a father to bed his daughter?

Re:So where in the pentateuch does it permit

[aunticrist]

Yep. In the litany of people whom is disallowed for the bedding so to speak in Leviticus (and they are VERY detailed in this list or possible incestuous relationships), and even though they go over this list at least 4 different times across as many pages to drive the point home, the -only- relationship not specificed as a no-no is that between a father and daughter.

i am quite familiar with greek society, but...

[1800maxim]

what does greeks' preferences for homosexual relations or monotheism have to do with the christian values as are defined in the greek scriptures of *any* translation?

Re:i am quite familiar with greek society, but...

[aunticrist]

Simple, those Greek scriptures are simply Greek translations of those original "laws" set down by a people that needed those laws for basic survival. They are not born from Greek culture. Furthermore, -nowhere- in -Christ's- teachings does he condemn homosexuality. The citing of Paul's letter, to the Corinthians no less, is faulty at best since many scholars also agree that it was most likely -not- Paul who even wrote the letter since the letter was a "well written" piece of work, but upon meeting Paul in the flesh, the Corinthians had a hard time swallowing that it was the same person who'd sent the letter to them.

DMZ

[FloodSpectre]

Anyone ever read the comic DMZ? How long before the backdrop for that comic becomes reality? A new American civil war? I just wish Americans would stand up and fight for their rights.

1866, ex Parte Milligan

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

the Court decided that military rule could not supersede the civil courts in areas where the civil courts and government remained open and operational.

There's nothing to discuss

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

until and unless the government shows signs of working to keep us safe.

Chemical plants were exempted from security rules, port personnel *still* aren't going through security checks, tests have proven that Customs won't catch something that comes from Indonesia and is full of uranium, the government can't figure out where military-grade anthrax came from, the unit dedicated to hunting bin Laden has been disbanded, and Logan airport (remember them?) is letting trucks onto the tarmac without being searched.

The government wants me to purchase a little temporary safety? Show me the merchandise, until then I keep my freedom-filled wallet in my pocket.

Vital and overlooked principle

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>If any entity can declare itself immune from investigation or oversight, then they are effectively declaring themselves immune from the law.

YES.

Civics class used to talk about "checks and balances". The Founders looked at the idea more directly. Throughout the Federalist Papers, over and over, the core principle of avoiding tyranny is stated as "no man may be judge in his own cause". Which is "no man is above the law" translated into actionable engineering terms.

if not now, when?

[misanthrope101]

No, the vast majority of elected Democrats are in favor of withdrawing, the only disagreement is to when that withdrawl should occur.

Okay, by your logic, the Republicans also favor withdrawing, the only difference being when. When should we withdraw, if not now? 10 years? 25? When Iraq is a peaceful, western-style democracy? The government of Iraq NOW uses torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, etc, and is corrupt up to its eyeballs, and in addition is seen as a puppet of the US by the Shiites. If our main goal is human rights, at what point do we re-liberate Iraq from the government they have now? When do we "liberate" all the other autocratic regimes we support? As I've said before, I'm sorry the west installed, financed, and supported Saddam, and I'm sorry we bombed the crap out of their country after we decided his government was no longer in our strategic interests, but at some point we have to realize it's none of our business.

The only other opinion that I would respect on this issue is one saying flat-out that we must retain control of, if not ownership over, the oil in that region, thus we must, by definition, retain a pro-US government in Iraq. It would follow from that that we cannot allow a Shiite-led, anti-US democracy or autocracy to take hold, and so we have to stay however long it takes to keep that region US-dependent and loyal, even if that means literally forever. That would indicate a permanent US military presence. Now, I disagree with that conclusion, but at least I would respect that conclusion. It's an intellectually honest position to have. Otherwise we just have a lot of hand-waving.

What we're doing now is called "chasing the pot" in poker. It's stupid and expensive, even if it feels right in your gut. This is going to be disgusting any way it plays out, because our hands are dirty up to the elbows already. If President Bush decides tomorrow to pull out immediately, as in right f--ing now, then suddenly pulling out will no longer be "cutting and running," but "the right thing to do." Whatever we do, whatever we accomplish, will be sold as "success" on Fox news and the administration, and people will buy it. The President can say ten minutes from now that it's not our responsibility to decide Iraq's destiny, that we wish them well and godspeed, and that we're pulling American troops home so we can throw them a parade, and Limbaugh, Coulter, et al will crow about his magesterial and sagacious insight. Would Democrats insist that we stay "until the job is done?" What exactly is "the job?" What is the objective? Saying "when the job is done" is nebulous because you've never specified the job. I know what Bush means--he means never, or at least not before Armageddon and the Rapture (in whatever order that's supposed to happen in). What do Democrats mean?

exclude != permit

[1800maxim]

And yet somehow i keep thinking that no one with such inclination (to lie down with his daughter) would dare to do such a thing in the camp of the israelites.

Furthermore, the Israelites' success depended much on expansion and procreation. There were provisions made for a brother to take his own brother's wife for the purpose of impregnating her should the brother die without having any offspring. There were other similar provisions (the case of Naomi and Boaz), yet nothing was mentioned about a father lying down with his daughter for the purpose of procreation, should her husband die without leaving a legacy of sons/daughters.

Hence, you may conclude that exclusion of father-daughter from the list of incestuous acts was done, not for the purpose of procreation, but simply for pleasure. Considering that other laws handed down to the Israelites governed the extent of pleasure they could experience with their own wives, or even through masturbation, any individual would conclude such stretch of logic to be absurd.

Re:exclude != permit

[aunticrist]

Actually there -is- a story of a father having the option of being with one of his two daughters to have progeny, so once again, it is condoned behavior. Like it or not, its in there.

Your sig

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

unmount isn't a *nix command.

perhaps a closer study of the greek text is needed

[1800maxim]

As for not having a record of Christ condemning homosexuality... He listed "adultery" and "fornication" as things that defile a person (Mark 7:21-23). The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that of adultery, and describes all forms of sexual relations outside of lawful marriage, including homosexuality. In fact, the writer Jude uses the same word (Jude 7) to describe Soddom and Gomorrah, that they "committed fornication excessively." They were judged, however, for their homosexual acts.

In as much as many scholars agree that Paul did not write those letters, even more scholars agree that he did. Conspiracy theories abound in all areas.

What's faulty is, not the accepting of Paul as the writer of the book of Corinthians, but judging the letter to be written by a forger based solely on the fact that Paul was not an eloquent speaker and did not have influential presence and wrote about it himself in the second letter.

A good example of critical works: various scholars and critics long assailed that Belshazzar, mentioned in the book of Daniel, was a fictitious name, for that name was nowhere to be found outside of the Bible. This was something that would be far easier to conclude than the forgery of Paul's writings. Such view on Belshazzar, however, ended in 1854, when some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient city of Ur in southern Iraq with evidence to rebuke even those very same critics. Which went on to attack other parts of the book of Daniel.

Bottom line? Experimenter bias, whether recognized or not, plays a large part when individuals find what they are looking for. The simpler explanation is often accepted as the most probable one. And it is far simpler to accept that Paul indeed was the writer of the books.

This discussion began on what constitutes Christian values... and the answer is quite simple. Christian values are the ones defined in the entire Christian Greek scriptures. There is hardly room for interpretation. Whether the writings were original or forged has no effect on what people today accept as Christian values. Any "adjustments" of the said values in the interpreation by religious bodies are simply because they no longer wish to accept such values and are looking for ways to fuse their personal beliefs with those of christianity.

Just so long as Bush is the dictator...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's going to be easy.

Re:As an American

[lonecrow]

Have you ever considered the possibility that we don't want you to tell us what is good and what is not?

LOL Well, you started it:
-they are an axis of evil
-this one needs a new government
-this one can have an A-Bomb, this one cant
-this one has something we need lets take it


The US has no trouble telling the rest of the world what is right/wrong. Do you think your special or something?

Global population: 6 billion USA Population: 250 million

Better get used to having other people around.

LOL I still can't figure out what mood you were in to actual desire non-americans to just go and die. Were you feeling playfull and funny, or stone cold serious? Why so sensitive to critisism?

Re:bravo, but you unwittingly went into hebrew tex

[Antique Geekmeister]

I stuck with the Christian Bible: both Old and New Testament. Admittedly, I reached back to the Hebrew rather than the Greek scriptures. But if I started citing the weirdnesses from Revelations, few folks here would know what I was talking about. Religion is often far more fun to mock than to take seriously.

I mean, come on: Pawning off a "virgin's" unmarried pregnancy on some poor unsuspecting carpenter as "the will of God"? Yeah, right, wait until you have kids and one of them says it "just happened". Joseph got made a saint for putting up with that, as he well deserved. And I really wish we'd heard what Mary's mother and father said about that mess. I can picture the conversation.

Mom: "But Mary, you're planning on wearing white for the wedding?"
Mary: "Virgin birth, Mom, remember?"
Mom: "But sweetie, the wedding's in six months, that dress, ummmm, won't fit! Yeah, that's it! The white dress won't fit! We'll find you something in a nice floral pattern, it'll be very slimming!"
Mary: "No, Mom, white. God says white. And Dad? God says no photographers."
Dad: "No photographers, my ass! I've already paid for that!"
Mary: "And Dad, speaking of your ass, we need the keys to the donkey for the honeymoon. Joseph has to go to Bethlehem for legal reasons, and by the wedding I'll be way too pregnant to walk."

You get the idea. Dante should have written Mary's parents their own ring of heaven for dealing with this.

It would be good to have Chenney

[jotaeleemeese]

Maybe then most USians would realize in disgust what they have done to their country (and the world) by electing this lot.

A more corrupt gang may perhaps never governed a democracy before.

so we moved from Law to story?

[1800maxim]

So there is a story of incest?

Yet originally you claimed that the Mosaic law makes provision to actually permit incestual relations between a father and a daughter. I don't need to point out the differences between the two claims, do I? ;)

Let's see what Leviticus 18:6,7 says:

"6"'YOU people must not come near, any man of YOU, to any close fleshly relative of his to lay bare nakedness. I am Jehovah. 7The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare. She is your mother. You must not lay bare her nakedness.'"

No laying bare nakedness of one's father (verse 6), although spoken to "man", would encompass all incestual relations between a father and his children. Or in verse 6, it speaks of any close fleshly relative. To assume otherwise is simply senseless.

Moreover, the story of incest that you are talking about is Lot and his two daughters - which happened hundreds of years before Moses and the Mosaic law. Lot's daughters intoxicated their father (suggesting that he would not have taken a part in such things were he sober). They did this because of fear their family would die off, being alien residents in a foreign land. The younger daughter gave birth to Benammi, through whom the nation of the Ammonites sprang up, and the older one gave birth to Moab (Moabites). The Biblical account in no way condones it, it simply relates the story of what happened. It also relates the relationship between those two nations (Ammonites and Moabites) to Israelites (descendants of Abraham, Lot's uncle).

Your statement that the mosaic law made provision to allow such relationship is absolutely false and incorrect, and is made with limited knowledge of the law and various biblical accounts. As is often the case, doing a little bit of homework will clear up many false accusations or ignorant misunderstandings. Blunt? Yes, but this is slashdot after all ;)

Re:Yes and No

[mi]

Why are you changing the subject from Bush's not granting a security clearance to investigators to his starting a war you disaprove of?

The conventional process of law providing a mechanism to balance power in the U.S. has been overturned.

There is nothing particularly "novel" in Bush's approach to laws limiting presidential power. An example sure to most infuriate a Bush-critic is a war waged by another Republican president — on his own people. A war, of course, like no others before it. Yes, I'm talking about Abraham Lincoln...

Re:Lincoln's Dead

[mpapet]

Why are you changing the subject from Bush's not granting a security clearance to investigators to his starting a war you disaprove of?

1. As an example? What about signing statements example?
2. Don't make a presumption of fact regarding my position on operations in Iraq.

Principals constraining presidential power have been repeatedly violated and no doubt many more violations of law and presidential constraint of power that have yet to see the light of day.

Yes, I'm talking about Abraham Lincoln
Are you suggesting the political/social/economic conditions that lead to the war 200+ years ago are similar to the current one? Really?

Re:Lincoln's Dead

[mi]

Are you suggesting the political/social/economic conditions that lead to the war 200+ years ago are similar to the current one? Really?

No. What I said was:

There is nothing particularly "novel" in Bush's approach to laws limiting presidential power.

Many (probably — all) presidents have done something like this — Bush certainly has not hit any "new lows" on trying to wriggle off the limits imposed by "checks and balances". Not with going to war ("Bay of Pigs" anyone?), nor with blocking an investigation ("executive privilege" was all the rage during the previous presidency, for example).

How trite.

[FatSean]

You don't help your cause with simplistic bumper-sticker-isms.

I mean, what about all the gun-owning Americans who would also stand up, if any army in the history of the world had the logistical capabilities and the man power to occupy the United States?

Are you implying that Ze Germans would managed to hold their conquests in Europe AND take over the United States?