Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
> 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.
"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*
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just aim the probe out of the garden, for God's sake!
The above is most likely humour. Slashdot foot icon goes here.
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.
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.
Juvenal is the ancient Roman who asked "Who will watch the watchmen?" For George Bush, the answer is evidently "Preferably, nobody."
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
NSA warrantless wiretapping probe?
I am so proud today to be an American, where the rule of law.... errr..... I mean.... What I mean is ......
:/
errrmmm.........
Nevermind
Only on
The correct link was http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/09/qui-custode t-ipso-custodes/
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
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.
I'm a big tall mofo.
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?
Oh no... it's the future.
...this is how one "restores honor and dignity to the White House."
This was inevitable. The only thing that amazes me is that people genuinely thought this would go somewhere
Lie, Whitewash, Stonewall.
Rinse, Repeat.
These are dark days. And we still have two and a half years to go.
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.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
... 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.
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 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
I am anarch of all I survey.
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"
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."
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
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.
Oh no... it's the future.
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
"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?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
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.
I hate my sig.
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.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
Unless "NSA illegal surveillance scandal" referrs to some covert blog, I don't see how this impacts my rights online.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.
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'
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
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?
I hate my sig.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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..
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??
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.
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.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
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?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa s_the_2004_election_stolen
I hate my sig.
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.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
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.
I swear this was in the last season of 24...
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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
props good sir.. you said what I upon reflection should have said... bravo
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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*
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.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
No, I understand your envy and petty jealousy. I feel your pain.
>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?'.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
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.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
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?
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
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
Is this thing on? Hello?
Impeachment is the LEAST this asshole deserves.
Waiting for the revolution... harry
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.
... 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.
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
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!
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...
How is this action taken by the President not obstruction of justice? Or at the very least interferance with official acts of government?
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.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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,
A Nerd Looks At Politics www.blueworksbetter.com
bush knows he will not win the next federal elections. he is just "covering his bases" for a cushy retirement.
I believe that it should read "Warrantless Tapping Probe", not "Wireless Tapping Probe".
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.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Not even the DOJ disputes that the program engaged in domestic surveillance.
I quote, you jackass:
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.
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.
Read radical news here
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!
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
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.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
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.
Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.
--George w. Bush
Washington, DC
07/25/2003
I can only say, RTFM (where TFM==US Constitution).
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
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
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
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.
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: For the full, unedited article, it's worth checking the original source: washington post
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
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.
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?
RTFM; please, I beg you.
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.
I am not a crackpot.
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!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
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?
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.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
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
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
China is sounding more appealing... at least they have jobs.
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
Please do mot judge those of us that are by the actions of Bush. I beg of you.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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?
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
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
right now I am too scared of any viable solution I could think of (French revolution anyone?)...
:-( and here "we" only see the stupid war on terror crap.
And yes, I agree that only half your country voted for the asshole, but I am talking about the view from outside
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.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
what do you expect?
Of course, it's also trying to pack the supreme court when it has
the chance now.
Actually it's just choosing which theme to use for the same set of corporate swine.
In other words: different style, same content.
Your post is still there:o ld=1&commentsort=3&mode=thread&cid=15755606
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191800&thresh
It got modded down to zero as a troll. (unfairly I believe)
Some folks are touchy about being criticized by... non-Americans, I guess.
I hate my sig.
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.
>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>
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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.
--
make install -not war
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?
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.
.... there isn't much we CAN do, short of rebellion. ... What would you suggest we do?
I think you already answered that :)
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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?
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
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
>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
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.
I'm a big tall mofo.
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.
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".
May the Maths Be with you!
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.'
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.
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.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
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.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
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.
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.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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..."
Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
That's why I'm not voting for him for president this time around!
Oh, wait....
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.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
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?
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
mr titor is that you?
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
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.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
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.
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...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
it has yet to be established that the NSA wiretaps were illegal.
good luck libs.
And who's going to nab him for obstruction of justice? The Justice Department?
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
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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?
...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.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
it's an occupation. There's a difference.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
>>"So you say..."
:) 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.
;)"
>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
>>"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
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.
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.
Actually I think he already has assumed the position.
We should do this the California way. A total recall to terminate the Bush presidency early.
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".
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.
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
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!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
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...
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.
Last post!
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.
And what has being a veterinarian have to do with anything? You're one of those?
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 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.
what does that have to do with discussing what christian values are as defined in the greek text?
Perhaps, nothing?
a father to bed his daughter?
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?
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.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
the Court decided that military rule could not supersede the civil courts in areas where the civil courts and government remained open and operational.
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.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
>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.
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?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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?
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.
unmount isn't a *nix command.
http://outcampaign.org/
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.
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?
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.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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
Why are you changing the subject from Bush's not granting a security clearance to investigators to his starting a war you disaprove of?
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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
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
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
When is Taco going to allow the -1 Dumbass mod?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
No. What I said was:
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).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
Blar.
Your bloviating aside, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Go take it up with them.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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.
"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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.