Slashdot Mirror
National Intelligence Director Seeks Expansion of Spy Powers
Erris writes "The Bush administration is seeking even less judicial oversight for their spying efforts both here and abroad. An AP story is discussing proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act proposed by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. 'The changes McConnell is seeking mostly affect a cloak-and-dagger category of warrants used to investigate suspected spies, terrorists and other national security threats. The court-approved surveillance could include planting listening devices and hidden cameras, searching luggage and breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.' One of their specific goals is prosecution immunity for communications companies who comply with the program, a sheild for groups that violate privacy laws in turning over information to the NSA. The article notes that 'Critics question whether the changes are needed and worry about what the Bush administration has in store, given a rash of allegations about domestic surveillance and abuse of power.'"
...fuck you Bush, get the hell out of office. I want my country back.
FanFictionRecs.net
I've often wondered - suppose they surveil a house, assume nobody's home, and break in ("legally", if not justifiably). Now, if you were home, just sleeping when they broke in, and you snuck up and attacked the person you thought was an intruder - are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? I fear that the answer would be yes...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
*sends the director a little orphan annie decoder ring*
Not just a Steven Seagal movie, now a political philosophy too!
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I'm also seeking an expansion of my Spy Powers. Invisibility would be nice. Maybe super-hearing and super-vision too...
..... living in Soviet Russia is looking better and better every day.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
LOL This is all bullshit. Everyone only knows this kind of stuff only happens in China.
If you are ever detained by Federal Authorities you should acquiesce to any request for a search of your person or property, but you can make it conditional. For instance you could say, "you can search my property but only if your search through the front of my underpants lasts at least fifteen minutes and is done by that nice looking agent over there."
IANAL.
I for one will take a decrease in national security if it means that my privacy remains intact.
Intelligence Director wants more spy powers.
IRS wants fewer tax exemptions.
Pope is Catholic.
Really, what do you expect someone in that position to want? Something to make his job harder? Not that I think he should get what he wants, I'm just not surprised he's asking for it.
..anything I damn please.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
If we don't like the idea ge will let us know that he is already doing it to make us feel better.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
...fuck you and Bush. I want my country back.
From TFA:
Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted," NSA Director Keith Alexander told the Senate last year.
Clarify the standards the FBI and NSA must use to get court orders for basic information about calls and e-mails -- such as the number dialed, e-mail address, or time and date of the communications. Civil liberties advocates contend the change will make it too easy for the government to access this information.
Triple the life span of a FISA warrant for a non-U.S. citizen from 120 days to one year, allowing the government to monitor much longer without checking back in with a judge.
Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
Extend from 72 hours to one week the amount of time the government can conduct surveillance without a court order in emergencies.
There is very little left to say about these continual abuses by the US goverment. Of course the one in charge of keeping the people safe want to increase the powers they have. No matter what they do or were stopped from doing if another terrorist attack happens people will blame them for everything they do. The problem is not that they are seeking power to protect their own interests it is that their is no strong oposition to it. If Americans revolted, held country wide strikes, marched down the street then you would see a change because not having that change would be even worse. As it stands, no one cares about your witty words and your self righteous indignation as yet more of your rights are removed. - I do agree that it's easy for me to criticize because i'm not an American and i understand that i just did the same thing here that I criticize in my post but what can i say I'm a hypocrite.
Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).
Anyway, I sure hope that they don't get expanded powers with less oversight. Maybe it's based on my predisposition to distrust the Bush administration, but they sort of earned that on their own over time. It seems to me that these guys are the reason why we have oversight. Actually, if you look at history, FISA was designed to protect us from the Bush administration (indirectly, of course). Some of Bush's cabinet members also served in President Nixon's cabinet. Many of FISA's provisions were written because of the Nixon administration's abuses against American citizens. The same guys that were screwing us over then are running the show now, and are claiming that we don't need to be protected anymore -- the same guys. I sure hope that they don't get what they're asking for.
-Turkey
What was I thinking?
I know the bumper sticker that says "Freedom Isn't Free" refers to wars and the cost of defending our country. But I think the saying is MUCH more appropriate for garbage like this. If having freedom means I'm slightly more vulnerable to a terrorist attack, FINE. To all the cowards out there who will sacrifice anything for the slightest illusion of safety, I say "Freedom isn't Free", move somewhere else.
Ditto.
I agree, who cares if government thugs come in and ass rape our sisters at night. Aa long as it isn't a GODDAMN A-rab terrorist!!!
The politicians do care about witty words and self righteous indignation to the point where they want to promote the creation of even more forums where even more people can use even more witty words and express even more self righteous indignation because, as long as people are talking about it, they aren't actually doing anything about it--and that's what government is all about.
I've already taken my stand and they made me homeless by treating me like a third class citizen on the job and then spreading enough garbage to prevent anyone else from wanting to employ me when I left.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
I'm torn - I love the Simpson's reference... but on the other hand, wishing someone's daughters dead is not the mark of a stable person.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin I think that sums it all up.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
...breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.' One of their specific goals is prosecution immunity for communications companies...This actually looks really scary to me. Seems they can have your ISP hack your computer (using it for illegal crap) and press charges against you, while the law would prevent them from pressing charges against the ISP.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
It is bad enough that you are one of those morons that unleashed another four years of misery on the world by voting for a party color instead of using your brain and look past the mudslinging. The main problem your country faces is it's two party/district system. That concentrates the power in two parties that inevitably will be very similar and will be mostly serving their own interests. You vote not (only) because you think your candidate is the best the country has to offer, but because the other lizard is even worse.
I would not know how exactly, but it is up to you (and the rest of the USian people) to change your country in such a way that excesses like BabyBush can not happen anymore. Getting rid of district and inderect voting would be a very good start (and likely cause a civil war as your overlords do not like to give up their cushy jobs).
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Because you made a phone call!!!!
God is real unless declared integer.
Everyone dies. He's just hoping it happens in a particular order.
I am not a crackpot.
We are the greatest country precisely because of our tradition of limiting government intrusion on our privacy and our right to protest the actions of the government. I'm not even a minarchist or anything (left wing statist, actually) and I can see this.
New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
Fuck all y'all. I want my country back!
Ia Ia - Cthulhu fhtagn!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
It was made LAW for the purpose of fighting organized crime. Opponents claimed that it could and would be used against others. They were right. Now, RICO is used about 10,000 times per year, primary to add additional funding to law enforcement budgets around the country. In one episode of "COPS", featuring the sheriff who went on to make police videos for TV, they met before hand to discuss how they were going to divide the "loot"...i.e., the property of the family they had targeted with the act. Even if it later turns out that they raided the wrong house the "police" aren't required to return the property they stole using RICO. In more than one instance the home
owner being raided at 3:30AM thought buglers were invading his home and were shot dead when they brandished a pistol in hopes of scaring off the "buglers".
The RICO act is being abused as badly as the police at the South Denver precinct abused their power, a couple decades ago. The police would roll up to a block in force, cordon it off to prevent pedestrian or car traffic, then proceed to a building in the middle of the block. There, they'd start hauling out property and putting it into the police van. Afterward, the owner was called and notified of the "theft". The property usually appeared in pawn shops later on, but no one was ever caught until someone with a movie camera filmed the whole thing from a third floor apartment across the street from the target building.
Reducing accountability for using FISA will only INCREASE its abuse. Public prosecutors like Mike Nifong, and even politicians, would use the added spy powers to further their own goals and political ambitions.
No one is safe from RICO abuse. No one will be safe from FISA abuse.
The Constitution? What's that?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
The current FISA court is basically a rubber stamp anyways, and it's not like us ordinary citizens have any oversight over it. Not that the Bush Administration or NSA bothered with FISA warrants (FISA warrant requests were minimal compared to during the Clinton administration).
I await the flock of RINOs accusing me of political mudslinging and or hating America.
Why settle for the lesser evil?
I remember the Florida recounts, that Democrats were whining, and "Dear God, when will this END!?"
I remember 9-11, and flying the biggest damn flag I could find.
Then I remember rumors of war with Iraq, and thinking we'd never do that--it was just about the stupidest thing we could do right then.
Then I remember them doing it, anyway.
Then I remember Kerry vs. Bush, no great candidate on either side. I remember thinking it was his mess, and he should clean the damn thing up. Neither one was that great, right?
Then I remember more Diebold scandals. I still feel like they're frauds.
Then I remember Haliburton, we're paying them HOW MUCH!? As if we aren't far enough in debt.
Then I remember oil companies posting record profits while the rest of us were suffering. I didn't buy the "War for Oil" bit at first--Saddam was a bad guy--but damn if the oil companies weren't out to screw us over. I still think he got what he deserved in the end, but I don't think it was worth it in terms of the lives lost, let alone the way we went about it.
Then I remember Abu Garib... since when is America allowed to torture people!?
Then I remember hearing that they were holding American citizens and suspending habeus corpus. Isn't that illegal? If not, it sure ought to be. Even terrorists deserve a fair trial. NO government should be allowed to lock people up and throw away the key. Although I admit that I might be inclined to bend that rule if the people who originally did it were charged with treason and thrown in prison without trial...
Then I remember hearing that our own country was spying on us for no reason and suing to make sure we didn't hear about it.
Then I remember them blowing up lite brites in Boston, and getting even stupider, rather than calming down with respect to stupid security theater measures. Mind you, I've only flown twice since 9-11 and NOT because I'm scared. At this point, I'd almost rather walk than deal with airport "security" that's stupid, reactive and pointless.
Then I remember a few other things, but mostly I remember getting so pissed at the Republican party that I turned my back on it and helped vote their ass out of congress in the mid term elections.
I suspect other people may have similar stories.
This man deserves to suffer for his abuses. What better way than to have his children die before him.
Blar.
You helped get us (s)elected.
-Turdblossom
Bush himself is 0 for 4 with his excuses for starting an optional war.
At least it's mostly Bush voters suffering in Iraq...not that it makes a dishonorable conflict any more palatable.
Blar.
Bush and Cheney go duck hunting. Cheney shoots Bush in the face causing Cheney to have a heart attack, giving us our first woman President!
Oh shit, did I just commit a felony?
So he's either wishing for the premature deaths of Bush's "slut" daughters (what is he, Imus?)... or he's hoping that Bush has much greater-than-average longevity.
:)
Either way, not something I can get on board with
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
and i was thinking maybe i should move to united states in order to escape the ever increasing conservatist tendencies in turkey, mainly censorship.
Read radical news here
When the terrorists said "Death to America!"
His actions have condemed upwards of 100,000s of innocents to death. All in the name of bringing them freedom from a genocidal dictator...but only after the claims of al-quieda connections and yellow cake acquisition and ownership of WMDs were dismissed as lies. He fired experts that predicted all these current problems in Iraq
No...I'm too angry at his idiocy and treason to agree with you.
Blar.
First of all, this site is not typically representative of the general population so opinions expressed here are often skewed.
Second, what many people don't remember is that when we had the attacks on September 11, a large vocal fraction of the population screamed "Government, please do something to make us feel like this won't ever happen again."
The result of that is the government says, "Ok, that means you'll have to let us take some of your freedoms, because in order to check and see if someone might do these Bad Things, we have to be able to learn about them without them knowing that they are being examined."
Which is actually the only way you could even attempt to prevent such things from happening. The problem is that people are now starting to realize that hey, that's not really fun, but we still don't want to have some Bad People come in and mess us up.
You really have to find balance and pick your posion: you can either live with freedoms and protection from unannounced surveillance with the real risk of unwanted activity, or you can give up freedom and allow such "nasty" governmental behavior with the very small additional security that gives.
There is no practical way to have both security and freedom; they are diametrically opposed concepts by definition.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
You won't be in office forever, and you reap what you sow.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
specifically
You didn't respond when they redefined the commerce clause as meaning "anything we want it to mean."
?? That clause is actually one that most conservatives dislike and think its been interpreted too widely by Liberals. This was the reasoning behind Clarance Thomas voting against the regulation of marijuana
You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-sell-to lists.
?? Export controls? Those have been around for years and years, and really aren't specific to a single party AFAIK.
In general most of your rant is on target, but you should stick to things that are true and verifiable, otherwise a casual observer might remark that both sides are equally dishonest.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Funny how these "small-government" conservatives are the ones who keep busting their tails to shift power out of the hands of the American people and into the hands of the Executive.
Bush seems to still think that he can complete Reagan's vision of a perfect government: one that cracks down hard on individual liberties in the name of security, but still claims to be small and freedom-loving because it allows the biggest and the strongest companies do whatever they want.
No jokes, please
most States (outside of Texas), you are expected to try to retreat. If you had an avenue of escape (you do have an avenue of escape in your house designed to get you safely out in the event of a fire blocking your normal exits, don't you?) then the intruder sneaking around your house in the dark was not an imminent threat.
The bottom line is that it has been nearly six years since terrorists have attacked the mainland USA.
The "war" to protect our privacy and individual freedoms has been over for a few years now. Posting on the internet is not going to change anything. Anything you do, anything you say, anything you write is now fair game for surveillance and use against you.
It's over, people. Democrats will use these powers the same way as Republicans because it is not about politics, it's about power. The era where our country could be one of the good guys is gone, and now the world sees us as just another threat to freedom.
Stop wondering how other countries could yield to evil, they did it exactly the same way we did: quietly.
The article says
McConnell wants to: _Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
He wants to change the law to allow surveillance of foreigners inside the US, as opposed to the current law which, as I understand it, only allows surveillance of communications that involve a party outside the US. The current law has an objective standard that can be verified for compliance, namely that the communications goes outside the US. By changing the law to a characterization of the person, not the communications, it becomes less objective and more subject to abuse. Who is considered a foreigner by the people who want to spy on them? Someone who has lived in another country? A person with a green card? A person with a foreign accent? It is also easier to claim a "mistake" after the fact, and after the damage is done, when the criteria is so subjective.
"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted"
Once again, he is saying we should trust him to decide before the fact, based on his own judgment, whether seeking a court order to do the surveillance is even required. But more than saying the court should decide based on looser criteria, here he is saying the he shouldn't even have to go to the court at all, based on the extremely vague criteria "considerations about the target"
_Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
One of the very few checks against abuse of government power that we have is that companies who comply with a request that is illegal may be punished for their compliance through civil liability. This responsibility makes them think twice. This proposed change removes any incentive for a company to think twice about it's own culpability. The only logical thing for a company to do if this change were made would be to rollover instantly to any request for surveillance, since it would be the path of no risk.
These changes are simply more ways to dismantle checks and balances in the system, and make it harder for anyone in power to be held accountable.
Even if you believe that the people currently in power are acting in your interests and can be trusted, what happens when the next guy takes power? Will you trust him to act in your best interests? How will you know if he is, if there are no longer any objective criteria to measure his actions against?
"At least it's mostly Bush voters suffering in Iraq"
I don't think Iraqis can vote in US elections.
After 6 years of his catastrophic presidency we have less civil rights and right to privacy than ever, and yet we are less safe and more paranoid and under attack than ever... This makes no sense whatsoever ! I wish we could elect a new president today, to start undoing all the damage this one man has done to our country.
I can throw as many stones as I wish; my house is made of transparent aluminum.
If you count up the history since I began this account it will be obvious that, more likely, it's the group of chuckleheads endlessly hounding me with crap comments like yours.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Since the executive branch has carelessly demonstrated that they're ready, willing, and able to casually abuse power and lie so often, I'm sure we can trust them with even more power this time.
I'm sure we can trust them.
*GAZE INTO THE HYPNOTIC POWER OF MY EVIL EYE* You are getting sleepy. Sleeeeeeeepyyyyyyyyyy.
I'm sure we can trust them. This isn't the next step toward Fortress America you're looking for. Move along.
The problem is the patriot act (and a few side laws) as well as the massive breaking of the law. NSA and CIA is a group of professionals who really did their job in monitoring comms. In addition, CIA occasionally caused some side issues. NONE of these ppl were in a position to cause irreparable harm to whole groups of citizens (but they had the ability to cause issues to individuals and have been known to do so).
The true problem is that we gave Carte-Blanche access to all of the same technology to the president, his admin, and esp. the DOJ. That is what needs to be changed. Basically, we need to strip that access and then give the NSA/CIA a bit more freedom, but with a LOT more oversight.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...if this passes. They control congress. Plus, with less than 2 years left, "the Bush administration" has little to gain from this because they will cease to exist.
Seriously: security is not a partisan issue. Stop painting it that way.
The Achilles heel of conservatism is a pride that blinds them to constructive criticism. The image of Kerry as power-seeking is one painted by the Republicans, and yet the very actions of the Republicans paint themselves as the power mad. Stubbornness, intransigence, and absolutism are mistaken for patriotism, wisdom, and religiousness. Reality based folks call it stupidity.
Pay more attention to actions and outcomes. Empiricism is a better judge of character than hot air.
Just like the people of this country scratched their itch for revenge against the 9/11 hijackers by supporting the attack on Afghanistan because they believed the terrorists originated there.
Are you against revenge?
Blar.
Why is it that when the news programs, even Fox News, do their "Lets hear from the troops", the vast majority of the statements toe the Bush Administration's line?
Blar.
Shit, Cheney was on Rush's show regurgitating that old lie about Iraq having Al-Quieda connections just last week.
If you cling to something in the face of evidence against it...you are complicit.
I understand WHY some people willfully delude themselves into thinking the excuses for war are still valid...but that doesn't make it right.
Blar.
The Washington Post
"Bush's voters were lied to"
That's bullshit. This is just an excuse people use to try evade guild and blame someone else. All the evidence that was presented was factually true, even if it was presented as being more compelling than it really was. It is up to the media, and private citizens to doubt what they are told and preform their own assessment, because no source is so impartial that it is beyond bias. People voted for the war because Sadam was a really bad buy, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, and a lot of people here felt like we had unfinished business from the end of the first war. The WMDs were just an excuse to claim that their was an eminent threat that needed to be eliminated. That's why people did not scrutinize the evidence.
If you supported the war, you need to stop lying to yourself, and admit that you supported it. If you feel that was a mistake, you should take responsibility for your mistake, and resolve not to let it happen again. Saying "I was lied to" is no excuse, and passing the blame like that will not teach you to be smarter in the future.
funny how you wound up way the hell down here!
Most folks simply don't have much trust, let alone respect, for someone asking for something they've already stolen. The nerve....
Really, what do you expect someone in that position to want?
I expect them to uphold their oath of office, "do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic." OK, that's not really his oath, it's for an officer and does not mention obeying the president. The president himself is bound by a similar oath. Violating the Bill of Rights is not expected behavior, it's disgraceful behavior and borders on treason.
Once upon an time, Republicans did not act this way.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
And I remember the media just going along with the notion that it would look like flour in an envelope. I haven't the foggiest what it'd look like, but some part of me really doubts that a letter with anthrax would actually look like that (my bet: you don't see any spores at all) and I have no way to test it. I'm sure as hell not going to try.
So now were scared of flour, sugar, etc. FLOUR! When 99% of the responses to it have been hoaxes, and we never did find out what happened the few times someone DID die of anthrax. For all I know, they were doing something classified, had an accident, and the government blamed it on terrorists rather than admit otherwise. I mean, why would they stop after killing so few people? There's a lot there that doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't know if we'll ever know the whole story.
But I bet even a single person could shut down Boston, again, with little more than freebie sugar packets. And that kind of induced cowardice disgusts me. The damn terrorists should be running scared, not America!
i want to know what keeps you all voting? i stopped years ago because i was convinced of the futility...
regards.
p.s. local elections still make a difference... run for city council!
Whether we should have voted for Kerry last election isn't the issue. The real issue is why, when Gore won the popular vote in 2000, did we end up with Bush stealing the White House RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES.
He stole the election and we've been paying for it ever since. I'm going to be glad to vote him out next year. Assuming he doesn't declare himself "dictator for life."
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
It's the greatest country because that's what you were taught as a kid, just like everyone else in the world who thinks that their country is the greatest.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Thanks for copying that here. I thought those specifics were important. The editors found another group of specifics that are interesting and I'm sure there's room for all sorts of nasties in the original.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I have never thought that this was the meaning of that phrase. It goes along with the phrase "With freedom comes eternal vigilance" or something like that. Basically it means that you may have to make sacrifices in your life to maintain your freedom or the freedom of your fellow men and women.
Now, of course I don't mean sacrificing your fundamental rights under the name of protecting freedom, such as what the current US Government seems to be doing. Giving up your rights to defend them is like...fucking for chastity. Freedom not being free refers to the possibility of making the ultimate sacrifice and giving up your life on your feet in order to defend your freedom and that of those you care about. Unfortunately, given the comforts of modern American society, not many people seem to hold to this ideal any more. Patrick Henry must be spinning in his grave. "Give me liberty or give me death" has become "Give me liberty or give me American Idol". It's pathetic.
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I am a firm believer of this. Unfortunately, these days so few are.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
this sounds like an effort to sidestep the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T for particitpating in an illegal domestic spying program.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
n/t
No jokes, please
Why not? Give them the benefit of the doubt. They haven't led us astray so far.
You made the right choice in not voting democrat or republican. A vote is always worth one vote. Voting for the party that wins, or might win, does not increase or decrease the value of your vote. It is always one vote. You can and should vote your conscience, and you did. Kudos.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ try to find something you disagree with.... you won't! he is for real.
No one, including you, has successfully presented any specifics that show my post contained any errors. If you want to specifically characterize any of it as errors - or lies - by all means, the floor is yours. I'm right here, and I've got a reply with your (cowardly lack of a) name on it ready to fill in. So fire away from under your broad, thick, and yellow stripe, M. AC.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Considering "people" was Osama Bin-fucking Laden, I'd say good for him.
Interesting.'Cause you didn't just drink the kool-aid, you got a colonic irrigation with the kool-aid!
Your trolling could use subtlety.
Blar.
You can't compel someone to enlist their kids in the service. The Bush daughters are adult citizens and can join the military if they so choose, but suggesting what you do isn't any form of justice, it's a really just a pathetic fantasy.
Because these guys HAVE to know that when they are forced to parrot the party-line, that the war-supporters back in the states are using that parroting to discredit peaceniks as 'being against the troops'. Its late and I'm not forming this thought correctly, but that is the gist. They are being ordered to give Politically Correct opinions about the war on TV and in the press that they might not actually believe, for the purpose of manipulating the American public into supporting the war.
I understand WHY they do this, but it still isn't right. Something needs to change so that men in uniform can express their true feelings about the mission they are on. Otherwise the entire military becomes a political pawn used to manipulate the American people who are very very fond of those who stand up to defend them.
It makes me sick thinking about it.
Blar.
No rats, please!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"...and it doesn't mean that there really aren't things out there that need to be fought against."
Yes, but fought how? It's been shown time and again that fighting terrorism is best done through law enforcement. Did we do more damage to Al Qaeda by:
A) Finding and arresting its members and tracing and siezing its funds and resources?
B) Blowing up two countries?
For a tenth of the cost of the war we could have fielded and funded a small army of investigators to find those responsible and bring them to justice, or at least found them and sent in the special ops guys if an arrest was impossible. Instead, we spent billions on a "war" which primarily destroyed the infrastructures of two soverign nations, killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of their people, and created who knows how many martyrs and potential terrorist recruits.
Yes, we need to fight... but we need to use our brains and not our bullets.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Choose one from the following:
A. Civil Liberties absolutism, which only encourages Muslims to blow stuff up until you submit to Sharia. Not very sustainable in the long run as you either surrender to Sharia or a Man on the White Horse shows up.
B. Lots of spying ala Europe, Singapore, Japan, China, etc. so plots are stopped before they get to far. Skyscrapers stay intact, planes are not flown into buildings, and nukes don't go off in cities. Downside: danger Government could spy on you too.
C. None of the above, people make themselves "Muslim free" by burning down Mosques with or without Muslims in them, assault Muslims they suspect are suicide bombers, mob action, etc. after we lose a city or stadium or another skyscraper.
Regardless chumps, this problem is not going away. Globalization means more than just cheap Chinese stuff in your Wal-Mart. It means Jihadi Joe from Pakistan can be in your city tomorrow looking to kill as many infidels as he can. It means Global Islam as preached by Wahabbist or Taliban nutcases in Riyadh or Islamabad influence the Muslim next door more than America's McDonalds does the Muslim in Pakistan. Muslims are killing Singaporeans, Thais, Filippinos, Russians, Spaniards (they want Spain "back"), Brits, Algerians, etc. Very little or none has to do with GWB. Muslims look at the global situation and know:
1. Westerners are soft, weak, unable to fight, and believe in nothing.
2. If Westerners are going to surrender, why not to them?
If you think this is going stop, somehow hard boys with AK-47s shooting kids in Beslan, or Darfur, or Ethiopia, or Thailand, are going to be "nice to you" if you bash GWB and America, you're an idiot. Already Europe has surrendered to Sharia, women in France, the Scandis, Germany, and Britain have to pose as Islamic to avoid rape.
Don't be a pussy. Don't act like the Royal Surrender Navy "He called me Mr. Bean and I cried myself to sleep all night." Stop acting like a feminized, neutered, PC-Multi-culti fool and make a rational choice:
*Try and min terrorist damage by giving Government more power OR
*Push this down to the individual level and have zero tolerance for Islam and Muslims.
There has been some mud-slinging about facing terrorism, so I'm going to see if you remember your history. Because it has been nearly ten years since these speeches.
You might notice the date there. August 20, 1998. For those of you not following the links, it was Clinton that said this.
Did the media report this? You betcha
Remember again, this was August 20, 1998. 1,118 days before 9/11 took place.
OK, so we have ABSOLUTE proof that Clinton tried to kill OBL. Not in some made-for-TV movie last year, but archived news reports from the day.
I'll let you catch your breath, because I feel like a frackin' Spartan and I'm going for the legs now.
What was the official response... not from shock jocks, not from hot-heads... but from Republican Senators?
I am so glad you asked.
Sen. Arlen Specter. (R-Pa.) "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."
Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) "There is a cloud over this presidency."
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), (who called on Clinton to resign after his speech) "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his
personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be
given to this issue to call for military action."
Whether or not the Commander In Chief could possibly have the time in his busy schedule in trying to kill a man that tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. A man responsible for the attack on the USS Cole. A man that turned US property in Africa to smouldering rubble and gristle.
So yeah, I want to talk about missing emails, and liberties with our Liberty, and why it was that, FOR ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN DAYS, all Republicans wanted to concentrate on was the oral sex they weren't getting.
Now I've got the legs, it's time to go for the throat. Google Groups is the archive of Usenet posts going back to 1981. If ONE PERSON, just ONE CONSERVATIVE, had posted just ONE LINK supporting Clinton in his valid attempt to shut down al Queda, someone somewhere surely would have posted it. The link above has narrowed down the search. Click on it, and you'll see it's for posts between August 20 1998 and September 10 2001. All posts including bin Laden, but not including -monica, -lewinsky, -cigar, -blowjob.
Well, you can see that someone was asking how safe an aircraft carrier was, in German, the night before. Nostradamus groups
Not only do you make the insane statement that "all middle easterners are all the same at their core [unlike us]".
.sig celebrates the asshole who assassinated Lincoln.
Your
You are the enemy. You are delusional, and a little dangerous.
Osama, is that you?
--
make install -not war
I always view my vote as my voice. I have one vote, I don't control the masses.. I cant influence the rest of the nation.. but I do have a voice and I need to use this one little voice I have to tell my government what I think the best idea is.
I believe that Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) would have been the best president our country has ever had. He has inspired me beyond that of even the legendary Harry Browne.
In the coming election I intend to vote for Ron Paul, and where as he is no Badnarik, his message is still very important on the REAL issues.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Mitt Romney is running for president, and he has a video over on YouTube asking, "What do you think is America's greatest challenge?" Toddle on over and tell him what you think (I'd venture to say that it will work best if you keep it diplomatic in tone).
... but absolute power rocks absolutely."
Does anyone recognize where that came from? I can't find a definitive source for it, but it definitely applies.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
no/text
Brain kills internet cells.
It wasn't the justification for action, it was one of many, and it was a perfectly valid justification. You can't launch a war against global terrorism and ignore the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism at the same time.
You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.
If you really believe that the war on terror requires the US to invade the worlds largest sponsors of terrorism, I assume you are lobbying your representatives for an immediate invasion of Iran, Syria, and IMHO, Saudi Arabia.
Life needs more saving throws.
That's ridiculous! Are you telling me that there were only two people running for office in 2004? I remember all sorts of people running.
Although I agree that the choice between Bush or Kerry was like a choice between castration or amputation, there were other candidates out there! I wish that my fellow Americans did not feel like their votes counted for so little that they really only have the choice between an idiot that the Republicans give us and a lunatic offered by the Democrats, a spineless party who sacrificed its constituents when it chose a sure loser against Bush so that it could win in 2008.
Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
I think they're boardering on the power to ignore the Constitution. They'll just simply ask for a law to ignore the Constitution and see if they can get it passed.
Worry about your own party's consistency before you worry about another party's consistency. Democrats have been all over the map on war and security issues, selling out for votes. They are no more superior than any other party. Parties can't simply claim superiority, they must demonstrate it. (I am not a Republican.)
As for the Clinton admin - the issues were significantly different at the time.
If you want to start quoting politicians, just look how Hilary's position on the troops has changed 3 times since 2005 when she claimed retreat from Iraq would be a miserable failure. Changing one's opinion over 10 years is a little different than changing it annually.
Regardless, I restate - if this passes, it will be Democrat controlled congress that approves it.