Slashdot Mirror
White House Derails Attempts to End Illegal Wiretapping
P. Rivacy writes "If you recall, last month we discussed Congress's attempts to outlaw the already illegal NSA wiretaps authorized by the President. The White House is now using delaying tactics to derail the passage of that bill. Their tactic is to stall on providing documents related to the President's warrantless wiretapping program, despite requests from the Senate Intelligence Committee that is currently reviewing the proposed legislation. '"Another critical priority for congressional oversight is government wiretapping of Americans, conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and, illegally, under the President's warrantless wiretapping program," Senator Russ Feingold said. "When the program was finally placed within the FISA process, an opportunity arose for the Administration and the Congress to move forward, under the law. Unfortunately, the Administration has yet to demonstrate a real interest in doing so."'"
If you outlaw illegal wiretaps, only outlaws will use legal wiretaps.
The makers of rules are never motivated to personally abide them. Rules are for you to follow.
Ergo, it is up to us to demand that rulemakers comply at least as well as the rest of us.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
This administration is going to be remembered as the one that tried to undo the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. The tactic of ignoring laws and judgments that do not fit the executive agenda has worked for 6 years now, with no sign of letting up until the next election (at best).
And yet we STILL haven't impeached him? WTF?
His approval ratings are so low that the Democrats could safely bring impeachment charges without any real damage if they stick to what are the more sober charges:
1) Violating the 4th amendment.
2) Failing to protect the border, which is a legal obligation under Article 4, Section IV of the US Constitution.
3) Lying to Congress about the intelligence that lead us into Iraq.
4) Lying to Congress about the true cost of his medicare expansion.
#2 would go over very well with a lot of the public because in most polls, about 70% of the population, cutting across ideology, firmly opposes Bush's amnesty plan.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, and should have been removed. He didn't just lie, he lied while under oath in a court of law, which is a **felony**. Bush did far worse. The case against him should be a lot easier.
And, if you actually take the time to look into the entire program, I think you'll find that these alleged wiretaps are NOT occuring on domestic phone calls between American citizens. They are happening between people residing in this country (not necessarily citizens) and another party typically in al Queda-linked countries.
Sturdy table, capable of holding impeachment, desperately needed.
Please send to Speaker Pelosi on behalf of the people of the United Stated.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I mean, think about it, all Nixon did was send some spooks into the Watergate Hotel to snoop on the Democratic Convention. Suddenly he was Satan incarnate, and the whole country was on him like a cheap suit.
Dubya and his cronies spy on EVERYBODY, brag about it, torture people to death, invade other countries for personal gain, "out" CIA agents, fire U.S. attorneys, get cozy with the commies in China, kidnap people (extraordinary rendition)...
And nothing! Not a whimper! And the Red States think he's a Good Ole' Boy!
Seriously, people -- WTF???
NO CARRIER
It's mind-boggling how difficult this seems to stop. It's already illegal for chrissakes, how do you put a ban on something that's already illegal?
Here's an idea. How about suing them and forcing them to stop? They've already demonstrated don't care about the law. They've broken FISA blatantly and repeatedly. And when they were caught they proved shameless enough to openly continue breaking the law. There is no reason to believe they will stop if we write more laws. Impeach them and sue them. Throw them out of office and in jail. It's the only way to restore the rule of law.
I am an Arab looking Indian dude who seldom ever calls home with my phone connection. I've installed Skype on my phone and call abroad with that because it's WAAAY cheaper... Now I wonder if they can/do tap into Skype... Fundamentally, this is akin to the DRM issue. Those that want to make calls and talk about anthrax will use modes of communication that aren't monitored and those who pay the penalty are Arab looking Indian dudes... *sigh*... Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
Too bad until somebody figures out that they've been spied upon and sues the government we can't get a court ruling either way. But I do look to the Judiciary for help here, because even in todays climate they have handed Bush several major wakeup calls regarding his conception of how the law works.
The most telling thing to answer the question though of "were these wiretaps illegal without any new law needing to be passed making them so?" is the Bush team's defense of the program. They have never argued that they are operating in compliance with FISA, that the program was operating within the written law. They have only argued that Bush, being the President, has the inherent authority to conduct such searches as he deems fit in the interest of national security.
Obviously Bush's administration has been pushing very hard to increase the power of the Executive, and this is part of that. But if there was an actual legal explanation for the program that made it clear that Bush was complying with the law, wouldn't it be better to avoid the scandal and ongoing conflict? He wouldn't have to abandon the stance that he can do whatever he wants. So when his best reply is "yes I ignored the law but I can do that because I'm president", that's pretty much all I need to hear.
I highly doubt that should it come to it that SCOTUS would agree with the President's views.
P.S. I'm sure someone will bring up the "other presidents did warantless taps!" talking point, but if you actually read what all these other presidents did from Carter on it was in compliance with the terms of FISA that allow warrantless tapping. Bush isn't even pretending that he is doing the same thing, which is why it's only conservative talk show hosts and not the White House PR who bring this up.
The enemies of Democracy are
The people most concerned are those who have something to hide. AKA Corrupt Politicians and those associated with them.
If laws weren't as shitty as they are now with tapping, cell triangulation would be a bit more efficient and quick when trying to find missing people.... Like the chick in Kansas they found by her cell phone a few days too late because of the gay-ass "warrant" process taking 2 days.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
And since NONE of the facts have been released, exactly HOW is it that YOU know who has and has not been tapped?
IF that was the case, THEN it would be EXACTLY the kind of situation that FISA was supposed to handle.
The White House is nothing, if not consistent. It will not give ground on issues it deems important. They are convinced that the only way to catch terrorists on American soil is to tap everyone's phones and read everyone's email. While it may be a laudable idea in theory, the practice is far from certain to net anything useful. This is the information age. The terrorists no doubt know what is being tapped or watched. They haven't exactly proven themselves to be stupid or they would never have been able to pull off 9-11. So while the White House is sure that they'll catch them red-handed, the terrorists are no doubt finding other avenues of communication that the government can't tap into.
Al Qaeda took advantage of our false sense of security, and this is just more of that, only with bells, whistles, and the cry of "See?!? There hasn't been a terrorist attack here lately!". We're no more secure now than we were then, just more aware. What we do with that awareness will count for more than all the tapped phone calls the NSA listens to.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Just remember the Unbreakable Rule can always be bent to ones needs.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
One is both illegal espionage on a POPULAR group and ALSO an attempt to disrupt the basic running of your own government.
The other is an is an illegal espionage on a totally unpopular group for the legal purpose of supporting the basic running of our country.
While popularity may not be a reasonable counterargument, the disruption vs. support is a good one.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Shh.. I'm trying to watch the latest series of 'America's Got Talent'..
There's a whole mess of congresscritters over on Capitol Hill that need to grow a pair! It's time to start checking and balancing, for cryin' out loud!
The White House is blocking attempts from Congress to change their current path? I'm completely surprised. I mean, what's next, the idea that next-gen consoles could go down in price at some future point?
A series of impeachments could speed up the process.
It could be started with the Attorney General who is supposed to be the first line of defence of the constitution against power hungry Vice-Presidents and Presidents.
And before anything else, the institution of Presidential veto should be temporarily revoked to any related cases.
Presidents under impeachment process should not have the right to excercise this extraordinary personal power.
In addition to what the first to claim bullshit on your argument said, of course the wiretapping is illegal. The law (FISA) says they need a court order. They aren't getting them, they haven't been getting them for the entire existence of the program. Your argument is as absurd as murdering a man in broad daylight and claiming to the witnesses that you didn't murder him and didn't break the law because a court hasn't ruled that you did.
"In doing so, the Administration violated the National Security Act, which allows restricted notification to the "Gang of Eight" only in certain limited cases involving covert action." At least they used the right terms in the article:
gang1 (gng) pronunciation n.
A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit.
A group of adolescents who band together, especially a group of delinquents.
A pack of wolves or wild dogs.
One with a logical mind has to clearly wonder what this administration is really up to at this point. They've subverted laws across all boundaries (national and international) yet nothing is done. The second a prior idiot played with a cigar, they tried impeaching him. I don't know about you but a cigar is nothing in comparison to privacy invasion, AT&T wiretaps, warrantless searches and phone taps... Did this man never read the federalist papers let alone any paper outside of Hustler magazine.
Infiltrated dot Net
Except that Dubya is spying on all of US. ALL of us. Not just foreigners, and definitely not just arabs.
The NSA is equipped to filter and process ALL telephone communications. Don't fool yourself; they're listening.
Actually, they have been for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
So, you know... Your argument is like unto a cup of yummy kool ade!
NO CARRIER
how much longer can the united states continue like this? (and by 'this', i mean our level of comfortability.)
i think our comfortability will be our downfall. our way of life has and is definitely being eroded, but people don't see this for what it is, they consider it 'evolution' or change in regards to our way of life. sure. things change. but they are changing with a rapidity surpassing anything in documented history, and to shrug at this and say it will work out in the end is pure ignorance as there is no accurate method of predicting drastic changes like the ones we are currently undergoing.
to me, it is infinitely depressing that the biggest issues in america are being ignored and smokescreened. children are being brainwashed into the propaganda of the state. it, to me, is so disgustingly depressing that children are taught things about jackson, jefferson, and lincoln-- and yet, none of them know the biggest issue these men contended with. the international bankers. when you bring up the subject of the federal reserve and the fact that it isn't federal at all, and has no reserves, the ignorant masses look at you with that 'tinfoil hat' glare, but the facts are the facts. ben bernanke, when he was only a federal reserve rep gave a speech at milton freidman's 90th birthday(a nobel prize winning economist, and huge opponent of the FED), he said "regarding the great depression, you're right, we did it, we're very sorry.", yet, if you say to people 'the federal reserve caused the depression' they look at you like you are a fucking nutjob. jackson's tombstone says "i killed the bank", and he fucking did. it took them ~70 years to undo what he did and regain their controlling monopoly over printing our nations money and collecting interest on it (which is really where our deficit comes from. all this talk about balancing the budget is a fucking smokescreen, it wont change shit until we stop using THEIR 'federal reserve notes', because the federal reserve notes are what is causing our deficit.)
i am fully convinced things will not get better until people finally realize that they have been backed into a corner. thats when instinct kicks in. so, congratulations america, for anything to get better, 4/5ths of us have to die. the last 1/5th will then realize 'holy shit, i should probably do something besides read my new copies of maxim/fhm/stuff.'
Look at Nixon. He looked grim and serious.
:P
Look at Bush. He looks like the village idiot. His bumbling over words actually works out to be an endearing quality. (I can't stand what the man has done to this country, and even I fondly quote words such as 'Grecian' and 'strategery'.)
Like everything else in life, politics boils down to personality. Bush has a disarming personality. Nixon didn't.
It seems in the fervor of anti-terrorism, the Republicans and Bush are misusing their power in the name of justice. They are unable to see that it is they who are the actual terrorists. Only terrorists and tyrants will spy on the innocent, searching for a crime. It seems that Bush is determined to override what was set down 200 years ago, and revert us back to a dictatorship. I for one, do not welcome this change. I say that congress should go ahead and impeach Bush, and then the Senate should remove him in disgrace for attempting to disturb the peace by spying on the inncoent, and inaverdently acting like a terrorist.
As the Cypherpunk Tim May used to say, these people need killing . While I don't advocate such extreme measures myself, all these people do need to be replaced on November 10, 2008. If the ballot box is not effective (if the election is stolen again) there's always the ammo box.
For now, let's put the soap box to good use.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
"I mean, think about it, all Nixon did was send some spooks into the Watergate Hotel to snoop on the Democratic Convention. Suddenly he was Satan incarnate, and the whole country was on him like a cheap suit."
No, the whole country wasn't on him like a cheap suit until well after wrong-doing had been established. Until that point, most either didn't care or thought Nixon was innocent of the accusations. It did sound more than a wee bit like a tin-foil-hat conspiracy. It didn't help that Nixon's political enemies had been hounding him for years. Remember all the fuss over accepting a frickin dog as a gift? Nixon's downfall started years before his near-impeachment and most of it revolved around enemies he made while he was politically involved with McCarthy.
WRONG! I post on Kuro5hin too...
I s'pose you think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too
Check out http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/16/115444 /263
This is the testimony of James Comey, who was the acting AG while John Ashcroft was in the ICU after surgury. Al Gonzoles and Andrew Card sought to push a sick, bed ridden old man to agree to their illegal program (according to the AG, they guy who's job it was to determine that). It took the FBI (guys with guns) to ensure that the acting AG would NOT get pushed out of the way. Essentially, FBI direct Meuller ordered his men to protect the AG from the White House's representitives.
This is sh!t that's supposed to happen only in 3rd world dictatorships, not the US of A!
The White House went ahead with the illegal program anyway. And yes, according to the TOP guy hired to enforce the LAW of the USA, it was illegal!
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Does anyone read these summaries before posting them?
If the wiretaps are already illegal, then there's no need for further legislation. As for the White House tactics, well, that's life in the big city.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it. It's a story about Chimpy Bushitler Mc Halliburton. In that case, pitchforks, tumbrils, and guillotines. Immediately.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
The problem with impeachment is a lot of things. First and foremost we would have Mr. Dick Cheney as our president which is just as bad if not worse than curious george. It would take too long to impeach his dumbass. Impeachment is far too late at this point. Although, I would like to see the entire government just be wiped clean. All the members of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branch just be wiped clean and start from a whole new batch of people. Stop voting in these clowns. I would love to see Bush, Cheney, and his entire cabinent tried as War criminals for starting an unjust war. Either throw their ass in gitmo or hang them like they did Sadam. I love our constitution means jack shit now. Americans apparently have just settled for being trampled on and freedoms taken away. Nice to know our grandparents fought for nothing in World War 2. I have disowned America at this point until we go back on the right path (which may take 30+ years at the rate of which this president has fucked us)
SadGeekHermit....LEARN SOME GD HISTORY and quit with your politican agenda. President Nixon...took the hit because he as head of the party took responsibility something you Dems have NEVER DONE!!! SOCIAL SECURITY IS YOUR FAULT, MEDICARE YOUR FAULT, FOOD STAMPS and WELFARE ALL YOUR FAULTS!!! yet you will not take the rap for it...or admit its your fault. Nixon does the honorable thing and took the fall....something your boy Clinton couldnt, wouldnt do...just like a dem. Hell Clinton wouldnt even admit that a BJ is sex.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
I'm sorry, but it's just wrong to say that "of course the wiretapping is illegal". The legality of the issue is still being debated. In fact, according to the Wikipedia article, there have even been several circuit court rulings upholding the legality of the surveillance.
Say that to me in person and you'll be trying to pick up your teeth.
So... What you're really saying is that because:
Social Security is the Democrat's doing;
Medicare is the Democrat's doing;
Food stamps and welfare are the Democrat's doing;
(I.E. all of the most humanistic, compassionate programs our government has ever created were done by Democrats)
The Democratic party is the party that actually cares about people?
Yeah, you know? I think you're right. Thanks for the compliment.
NO CARRIER
Yes, I actually know folks who still think Bush is doing a "heck evah job"! You can't miss them. They drive the biggest SUVs or luxury cars with pristine "W '04" bumper stickers on them.
Are they your stereotypical Bible Thumper? No. At least the Bible Thumpers have some sort of peaceful philosophy behind them - really, they do! No, these folks are your business-executive-law-and-order type that needs America to assert her power. These folks want America to stay the Super Power for ever and ever. These folks equate greatness with military power.
Then there are the Security Moms. They also drive the biggest SUVs because "they're safer"! (Yeah, try to explain to them that driving it like a sports car while talking on their cell phones means death - which they all do.) They want their kids o be safe from the big bad turbaned boogy man. Bush is the guy to save them and their children! You have to think of the children!
The Bible thumpers got all the blame for Bush - which is true for his first term, but second, no way! It was the folks who I mentioned.
That's just my political analysis. But as always, my user name is my disclaimer.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Also, we may return the Congress to Democratic control. Err wait. We already did that. Ok, then we'll make sure that the next President is a Democrat.
Hopefully if enough people see how ignorant, deceitful, and bloodthirsty the batch of Republican candidates are this should be a pretty easy Presidential election, and one from which our nation will benefit greatly.
Just say no to fascism.
All the recent, hyped 'terrorist captures' have involved standard, traditional law-enforcement work and informants and so forth. Why haven't we had any high-profile captures due to the illegal wiretaps? I don't believe that this administration would refrain from leaking such things to improve their profile. So I have to conclude that they haven't actually produced any significant results at all...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
And what good will an impeachment do? You people need to start getting your facts straight. All that an impeachment does is specify the charges in the House of Representatives. That's it. It does nothing except put into the history books that George W. Bush was impeached. Big flipping deal.
At that point it goes onto the Senate for the actual "trial". News flash - indictment requires a two thrids majority. Right now, the Dems have a one seat (by party) majority totalling far short of the necessary 2/3 vote necessary. On top of that the Chief Justice of the USSC has to preside over the case. You know, the same Chief Justice who was nominated by the guy you people want to impeach?
What the hell good do you really think is going to happen by an impeachment? Cheney moves in, who as far as I can tell is hated even more. What then? Another impeachment? More time wasted? So, is this really to get Bush out or to get Pelosi in, the same Pelosi who wasted how much time at the start of this Congressional session with useless, symbolic resolutions that stated nothing more than what we already knew - Democrats hate Bush. Well, duh!
Bush and Cheney are out of here in 19 months anyway! What good is an impeachment going to do except to give the Bush haters a reason to say, "Yay! We got the lame duck!" Or are Slashdot and Digg really so blinded by Bush hatred that they are really willing to waste so much time on the fallacy that anyone has to be better than who we have now for someone who is out of here in less than two years?
For the record, I'm not a Bush lover by any chance. He betrayed the Republican party and I will never forgive him for that. But even I knew that the Clinton impeachment was a crock of sh*t. I knew it should never have happened; I knew it would go nowhere; I knew that it would do more harm than good; I knew that it was just a waste of time in order to make a useless, symbolic attack. It's a shame that some of you apparently haven't learned from history.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Re-read my post. I didn't say anything about WHEN they were "all over him like a cheap suit" I only said it was directly tied to Watergate, and that Bush has done so much worse (without any real consequences).
Your post reinforces mine, actually. It suggests that Nixon didn't even particularly DESERVE to be picked on. It makes the distance between Bush and Nixon even farther.
NO CARRIER
I know, what kind of a moron would use a word like Grecian?!
Say that to me in person and you'll be trying to pick up your teeth.
You know how to get someone to stop complaining about Bush? You ask them:
A. Did you vote? (2 out of 3 will answer no - usually followed by a hilarious excuse such as my car was broken or I live in a blue/red state so my vote doesn't matter - so you can stop there, that is enough.)
For the other 1 out of 3, ask them what they, personally, have done rather than complain amongst themselves.
Invariably, the answer boils down to 'Nothing'.
And if you want to make threats, post logged in. I'd be happy to arrange a meeting with you, but I suspect your threat is about as empty as the posts on Slashdot are.
Imagine that it was about stealing person A's car.
Would it be appropriate to ask if he had ever driven person B's car WITH HER PERMISSION? Yes/No
Ignoring the content of the bill, the constitution allows the President 10 days excluding Sundays to sign or veto the bill or else it becomes law by default... EXCEPT if Congress adjourns, in which case there wouldn't even be a discussion about overturning the veto since they're away.
So what's the big deal? Bush's got the constitutional authority (for real for a change) to drag his feet for that long. Is it that within these days they're still wiretapping? Let's choose our battles, here... they've been doing it for YEARS and another 10 days is just a drop in the bucket.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Off topic troll. But you mfers mod it 5. Not to mention you have no idea what you are taking about.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
While blasting the current administration as the enemy of privacy, it is useful to remember the attempts of the previous one — whom most illiberals want back — to saddle us with those two nice little thingies called Carnivore (currently known as "DCS1000"), and Clipper...
No government is a friend of privacy of its citizens. They think, their job is more important, and they are sure, they will not abuse the possibilities. And there is little reason to doubt their sincerety — they are just wrong, and we must defend ourselves, but we should not single anyone out — they all want our privacy, for it often makes their job easier.
This is not unlike a geek wanting to, for example, break out of their employer's firewall. The geek knows, they will not abuse the freedom nor expose the employer's network to viruses, etc., but the employer is justly concerned...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Haven't we ratified the Geneva conventions as well, and ignored that?
The US ratified the first four (through 1949) but not the last two protocols (1977).
They are a treaty. As such they are binding on the several states as long as the federal government considers them to be in force. But the fed (like any other government) abides by them or not as it finds convenient, and can declare them null and void at any time it finds convenient. (Meanwhile, treaties have no direct force within the country except through implementing legislation or executive orders. Such legislation is subject to the usual constitutional limits on congressional power. Congress' powers over the other two branches are severely limited. Executive orders are just the orders of a president to his underlings, automatically superseded by any later orders.)
Further, most of the Geneva Convention protections explicitly are not extended to terrorists and other paramilitary forces that don't themselves obey certain of their provisions - such as identifying themselves, wearing uniforms, not deliberately blowing up non-combatants (who aren't in the way of an attack on a "legitimate" military target), etc. The idea is to encourage everybody else to play by "the rules of civilized warfare".
Which is not to say that what the administration is doing is the right thing to do. Just that an appeal to the Geneva Conventions is not a particularly useful charge to make against a president and his administration. It's an attempt to seize moral high ground but has no force in law.
If you want to mount a binding legal attack on a sitting president it needs to be based on constitutional grounds.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Consider yourself an extreme hazard.
And yet, every Republican administration since these things were created has not tried to repeal them and in fact have continued to expand their scope.
Further, when Republicans had control of both the White House and Congress, not one bill was presented to dismantle any of the above programs.
You remind me of the jackasses who came in when former Governor Tom Ridge was elected. A big deal was made about cutting government yet all he did was expand it, spent more money and continued the cronyism of the political realm. In fact, when he was elected and the House and Senate were also Republican controlled, not once did they even try to get rid of unions for state employees.
Spare me your supposed indignation about government programs being the fault of Democrats. Until the Republican party starts doing what it claims to stand for, they are just as guilty as the Democrats.
And p.s, I'm a lifelong registered Repubican but these asshats do not in any way represent me.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I only offered my declaration to reinforce that my opinion was not politically motivated. The GOP is horribly broken. Listen to Pat Buchanan for serious insight on how much damage Bush has done to the party. He has all but insured a Democratic President in the next election.
;-)
Between the Iraqi debacle, amnesty for illegals, illegal spying, and a general push for bigger and more invasive government, it will be a long time before I can vote for another Repuiblican. I will have to waste my vote on a third party candidate.
Another important question:
What can we do about this?
What can the public do?
I see a lot of people shouting wolf, but nothing ever comes of it.
I think the public has lose control, or never had it.
There is so much wrong with your post that I can't find anything accurate in it at all. That it got marked insightful is amazing to me.
They are not spying on "everybody". Have you heard of anyone who has been spied on? Do you think the government could enforce secrecy perfectly on anything like "everybody"? But perhaps that's not persuasive. They could be monitoring "everybody" and not telling.
Why would they do that? What possible good would it do them, compared to the harm?
The FISA court is overseeing the spying program now. Feingold knows this, and is just trying to score cheap points.
Who have they "tortured to death"?
"Invade other countries for personal gain"? What, Haliburton? That's so stupid. They invaded Iraq because Iraq was run by a thug, a sociopath with expansionist tendencies. It looked to everyone that he was trying to resurrect his nuclear/biochem program. And he was training, and rewarding, terrorists. He isn't any more.
The only "outing" of a CIA agent was done by Joe Wilson, non-Bushie Dick Armitage, or both. All Scooter Libby did was get caught telling conflicting versions. If there had been more than that, Fitzgerald would still be digging.
The US Attorneys are low-level political appointees. If a cabinet secretary (a high-level political appointee) doesn't do what the President says, he gets fired. Per force, US Attorneys get fired for the same reasons.
Cozy with the Commies in China? How, by not starting a war with them?
"Extraordinary rendition" - Oh, you mean the terrorists. Good point. We should just let them blow up a city or two.
sigs, as if you care.
A clean sweep would likely remove a large portion of neutral-to-favorable attorneys in place; it accomplishes nothing to favor the President. It simply levels the playing field by removing all of the LAST President's cronies. That's why most Presidents do it. You're entirely right about the purge, however. You're simply wrong about "Their boss directed" means. You assume that the attorneys were fired for incompetence or insubordination; they were fired because they didn't support Bush enough.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
What you BELIEVE Bush "did wrong" is hype with no substance.
What we have is a lot of evidence of cover-ups and perjury. Unfortunately, the administration's efforts to cover up the underlying crimes has been rather effective. Thus the reason why people are getting charged with perjury instead of high crimes.
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had.
Bush has said, and is continuing to say many things that have been PROVEN false. He said things in the build up to the war that had already been proven false. He did NOT have the same intelligence everyone had, he had his own private intelligence group that fed him information that had been refuted by (almost) every other respectable intelligence agency working for the US at the time. Unfortunately, political pressure and motivation kept many of those people quiet. And those that didn't keep quite... well, we all know that story.
Clinton himself thought he had WMD.
And Reagan sold him Guns, what's your point? That we should base all of our foreign policy on what some oaf thought 4 years ago?
Further, he signed a bill AUTHORIZING regime change in Iraq while he was in office!
Hmm, I'd like to know which bill that was.
Long and short of it, Bush's policies and decisions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, eroded our civil liberties, politicized the justice department, substantially increased the power of the president, and brought serious harm to America's standing on the World's stage.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Please direct us to the court proceedings and rulings that deemed that his actions and directives were and are illegal. I'm very interested to read this as I have heard nothing of the kind. In fact, I'm pretty sure that no court has declared these wiretappings to be illegal in a court of law.
Look, people, as far as I'm concerned, I can't wait for Bush to get out of office either - and I'm a registered Republican. But this throwing around "illegal" just because you want it to be (not because it really is) is starting to reflect more on your desperation to get him out in any way possible than it reflects on the President's actions.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Theft doesn't register at all in civil court - it's a criminal matter. Hence why it merely added a layer of confusion to the discussion. Please refrain from making further car analogies on Slashdot.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
How many times can we blame the President in one slashdot listing?
Cause yeah it's all his fault. Always is. Republican or Democrat makes no difference. It's the President's fault.
Was it really that slow today that they had to put in a political flamewar topic? Was there nothing negative to spin about Microsoft and Apple today?
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
So make it a pattern of thefts.
Someone being charged with a pattern of car thefts is asked whether he ever drove someone else's car with her permission.
Would that be an appropriate question? Yes/No
Everyone has assumed these wiretaps are illegal. I guess every president since Carter should have been impeached (These have been going on at least since then). No court has deemed the wiretaps illegal. It is their job to decide whether they are or not. This is ridiculous... Bush has not even been charged with a crime... and everyone is ready to impeach. What about Clinton? He was charged with purgery for presenting a false document to a grand jury... that is a felony offense. I bet none of you think he should have been impeached. Why should George Bush, who hasn't been charged with a crime let alone convincted of one even be considered for impeachment. Don't get me wrong, I don't like a lot of Bush's politics... but he is not a criminal.
If the Brits were paying U.S. $240 million in weapons bribes, I wonder what the U.S. gunrunners were paying BushCo.
Patriotically,
kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
Bush broke the law, plain and simple. By violating the 4th amendment to the constitution, which he swore an oath to uphold, he broke the law. Breaking the law is by definition illegal. Pull your head out of the sand and wake up before you don't have a country to wake up to any more.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Blame the pundits. In todays society, people no longer form their own opinions, instead they've gotten lazy and just get their opinions from the pundits. Also people seem to gobble up logical fallacies. Dichotomy fallacy, your with us or your with the terrorist. Strawman is another one, some people want the terrorists to win. Quite sad.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
That is exactly the point, only you're too stupid to realize it. The NSA does not know who is talking to whom when a phone call is made. They can only determine where a call might have originated and where it is trying to connect.
ONE point of view is that they can do NOTHING to ascertain who is talking to whom because they MIGHT be breaking the LAW. ANOTHER point of view is that they should do EVERYTHING they can to ascertain who is talking to whom and know for CERTAIN whether listening violates the LAW.
Since the first choice means unfettered communication for anyone inside the border (terrorists, spies, drug lords, etc), I think it is reasonable for the POTUS to tell the COTUS to suck it until SCOTUS says stop.
There appears to be a lot of people who think they have unlimited rights, including the right to line the rest of us up for slaughter. That includes the NYT set that doesn't seem to care if someone breaks the law by releasing details of a classified program, while musing about whether or not it is illegal. Doesn't really matter after they have spilled everything in black and white. Treason, arrogance or stupidity? Hard to tell. If I was Bush, I think I might have pushed for a firing squad. It's not like his approval rating could get any worse.
The Attorney General can overide the necessity for a FISA court approval.... it's in the law. You don't like it... ask your senator to change that part of the law Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information." USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
Harro, Mr. Monkey! How are yooo?!?
Did you take trash can in yet, Mr. Monkey? Mr. Jones gets real mad when you leave trash can on street.
Are you still stealing Mr. Jones' wifi? That's not very nice. Mom will ground you again.
Ok! Very Good!
Bye!
You will invariably find that the people who set up the threats will tell you they're in Alaska or something, and you have to come up to meet them in order to shut them up.
I've actually given my address out on efnet#california on numerous occasions and never had a visit, even from people who live in the same state I do.
It's best to just ignore those who would pretend that they are not the little bitches.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Do not compare what this president is doing to other president. Look at the actions He is doing. Doing anything else is a waste of time and folly.
/mpit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-peech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
The fact that other presidents may have done something wrong doesn't excuse this one.
"He was charged with purgery for presenting a false document to a grand jury... that is a felony offense. I bet none of you think he should have been impeached."
He was impeached, and he should have been.
"Why should George Bush, who hasn't been charged with a crime let alone convincted of one even be considered for impeachment"
do you know what impeachment means? your post doesn't seem to reflect that if you do. Impeachment does not mean removal from office.
Just in case:
impeach
-verb (used with object)
1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2. Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives.
5. to call to account.
So an impeachment would be the finding of misconduct, or not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
talking about important issues... "Does climatic change really exists?"
?
Call your U.S. Senator and demand the arrest, military commissions trial, conviction, and
sentencing of the world's most dangerous crime syndicate.
Thanks for your support of freedom and democracy.
Seditously,
Kilgore Trout
It is not the federal government's job to run humanistic compassionate programs. As it is not a power given to the federal government in the Constitution, thus it is left to the states. The federal government pretty consistently makes a big mess and wastes a lot of money every time it gets involved in something it is not supposed to. Like Social Security.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
I try so hard not to think that violent revolution is not the answer. I try not to think that a bomb would express my opinion in a way that cannot be ignored like all the other methods are. But sometimes I think that I am wrong.
Parent starts out saying something everyone can agree with:
Were GWB's recess appointments any less questionable than Clinton's?
Then takes a left turn into fairytale land:
Was the firing of certain federal prosecutes by bush any less questionable than Clinton firing *all* of them?
You are sorely mistaken as to why matters are different in this case. I copied this nice summary: "During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House -- the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel -- who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department "be independent from" the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases."
struggle between branches
The current administration is not struggling. They _have_ vastly expanded the executive offices powers. Nixon tried and failed. They got it right this time.
heck we have the speaker of the house trying to make herself the face of American foreign policy
This comment suggest you believe in an executive branch with infinite powers. I respectfully disagree.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
No, no, no and no. No one is objecting to spying on people who are known to be affiliated with Al Qaeda.
The difference is between spying on your political opponents and spying on everyone in the the entire country. If anything, there should be more outrage about what the Bush administration is doing.
Spying on Al Qaeda is not illegal.
The USA would continue running even if there was one 9/11 every single day. But you are on to something here.
Even though the actions of the Bush administration (spying on the whole country) are worse than the actions of the Nixon administration (spying on the Democrats), it's easier for the Bush administration to justify their actions as being "for the greater good". Nixon's actions were clearly about personal gain whereas Bush can claim (without proof - since it's all secret) that his actions are for the benefit of the entire USA.
Personally, I don't trust the Bush administration at all. I'm too old and cynical to think that people will refrain from doing bad things in the absence of oversight and consequences. I have a very strong suspicion that results of the spying are being misused. I suspect that people who hold views that the Bush administration disagrees with are being identified using this program and that these people are then targeted for various forms of harassment with the intent of silencing them.
On the other hand, a lot of people do trust the Bush administration and a lot of people would like to see other people that they disagree with silenced - so that does explain why so many people just don't care about what the Bush administration is doing.
What can we do about this?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
If "we" were 50%, we could change it. Hell, if we were 25% and we all voted, we could change it. But we are a tiny minority under the tyranny of the masses. We have three options: 1) deal with it, 2) leave, or 3) invent a weapon that would allow you to single handedly defeat the US military.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Right, so literally not a single person has done anything other than vote to express their displeasure with Bush?
I know that is not true.
A blog about stuff.
I mean, think about it, all Nixon did was send some spooks into the Watergate Hotel to snoop on the Democratic Convention. Suddenly he was Satan incarnate, and the whole country was on him like a cheap suit.
Dubya and his cronies spy on EVERYBODY, brag about it, torture people to death, invade other countries for personal gain, "out" CIA agents, fire U.S. attorneys, get cozy with the commies in China, kidnap people (extraordinary rendition)...
I blame that fucker Ford.
He sent the message loud and clear that the president is above the law.
Since then, we've had Reagan dealing coke, running death squad training camps and training and funding terrorists. Lo and behold, no punishment for massive acts of treason by his administration.
Why would you be surprised that the Bush administration made up of many of the same criminals from Nixon and Reagan's administrations continued their crimes on an even grander scale when they proved that they would never be held accountable for anything?
So, basically, the Republicans have driven the basic expectations of the American people about their government so far down that most of them don't even care to notice. Impeachment was taken off of the table by the Republicans making a mockery of the entire system with their blow job witch hunt on Clinton.
Not that the Democrats are good, decent, or anything of the sort, but when it comes to lack of integrity, as a whole the Republicans are untouchable.
It was stayed, and may be overturned.
e rs/index.html
http://www.sixthcircuitblog.com/separation_of_pow
Nothing has been decided on their legality, claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
I agree. However, I feel uncomfortable with the fact that most people who try to reason about the destruction of the ideals and reputation of their country use normal logic, when the logic of mental illness is sometimes more powerful.
Once someone begins killing for money they find themselves unable to stop, and their killing becomes bolder and bolder.
If you love the U.S., you will help her in her time of need. My help is a summary of some of the most important points of Bush administration corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.
Cause of death: Blunt force trauma and asphyxiation.
I'd like to say you're welcome, but it brings me no pleasure to inform you of these unpleasant facts.
The fact that more people don't know about this, that more people think the worst thing that happened at abu Ghraib was some dude had panties put over his head, is just saddening. Even the initial Taguba report listed much worse, including beatings with table legs and rape with broomsticks. I mean seriously, haven't you seen this picture? Do you think that man ended up on his back packed in ice because of having panties put on his head?!
The enemies of Democracy are
You are correct in that it is not completely true. However, it is true enough, that if you pick someone off the street and ask them the above questions, the vast, vast majority will give those answers or some small variation. Of course the voting might be more like 2 in 5 or even 1 in 2, instead of 1 in 3. And please note, in doing something, I don't mean simply "expressing displeasure". You can find plenty of that right here. By doing something about it, I mean more than:
Putting a "witty" bumper sticker on the back of your car
Going to a protest rally - this does not make you an activist
Posting on blogs - repeatedly posting talking points is pointless
Signing an online petition - or a real one for that matter
Whining in person with your friends
Donating $5 to the Democratic party or some other similar donation
These are all empty gestures.
I've actually given my address out on efnet#california on numerous occasions and never had a visit, even from people who live in the same state I do.
;-)
Sure, but how long did it take you to get off of the NAMBLA mailing list
Yes, she did give the tyrant state credibility. A law-maker is not supposed to make (or pretend to make) State-visits. If it was not such an incredibly hot-potato ("Repuke-nazis prosecuting the Democratic leader — to the barricades, comrades!"), she would've been justly prosecuted under the Logan Act of 1799:
And let me pre-empt any attempts to weasel out of this felony charge by disputing the Act's "legislative intent". The act is named after a certain pacifist Dr. Logan (a legislator), who — in 1798 — tried to relay to France, that, essentially, the road to peace lay through Paris.
What Pelosi did has been a felony for over two centuries...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What then do you deem worthy as "real" action?
A blog about stuff.
been posted elsewhere in the discussion, but here ya go:0 60817.html
DETROIT -- In an American Civil Liberties Union case, a federal court today ruled that the Bush administration's program to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without warrants is unconstitutional and must be stopped. This is the first ruling by a federal court to strike down the controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26489prs20
you dumbfuck, when the fox has already entered the henhouse and killed all the chickens, do you think a newly hatched chick can do anything about it? American people have NO POWER to alter anything that is going on in politics. Elections are rigged, and monied plutocrats are in full control. With the media in control by said plutocrats, we are getting a very propogandized version of world events, filtered through a fascist multinational corporatist viewpoint. So not only do we not have power to change anything, we have very few avenues to find out what is really going on. We have a long road to go to fix things, but IT STARTS WITH FULL PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.
yes i did vote
yes i have written my congress rep
yes i have protested
yes i do boycott all oil companies except citgo
yes, yes, yes
Bush, Cheney and their entire cabinet should just be tied to a tree and shot
with spitwads.
Uh oh: Bullshit.
The wiretaps are not 'illegal'. But heck just say whatever the fuck you want, not like honesty ever mattered to any of you Bush haters anyway.
I never said I had the answer, I just said I know what the answer isn't.
Isn't this sort of thing why we have a second amendment?
The president is breaking the law and acting against the people. Congress should have removed him already. The US army should have taken control of the Whitehouse to protect the constitution.
Why are the gun advocates not using their guns for the reasons so many of them claim they have them?
From Pelosi's page:
Pelosi's trip was know ahead of time. No one in the administration is considering invoking the Logan Act. Republicans had done the same thing previously.
Just out of curiosity, you must be some sort of lawyer, or an expert on constitutional law, yes? I mean, you wouldn't just repeat something like a parrot without looking into it or thinking about it, right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Define unreasonable. Please. Because apparently it hasn't been defined in relation to the current tempest-in-a-teacup surrounding this. As of today, it's not been settled, because there still isn't a court case about it.
Now, if you want to go and assert that it's illegal because YOU think so, then understand you're actually subverting the Constitution and the Rule of Law as set down by the founding fathers...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Jesus Christ but I'm so fucking sick of all this. Nobody can go a single fucking day of reading Slashdot or any of the other blogs or sites like Digg without parsing through all this goddamn retarded BUSH BASHING drivel. You people who post this: What is your problem? Why are you so angry? YOU NEED TO get a fucking life. Your articles are like a miserable disease! Your hostility and anger just SPOILS this otherwise pleasant website. All you've done EVERY FUCKING DAY for 7 years is post this crap and wait for your like-minded trolls to agree with you to your satisfaction, then you POST ANOTHER ONE of these farticles and start all over! GET OVER IT! GET THE FUCK OVER IT! Stop it! Leave!
A party guilty of a crime is delaying the collection of evidence against them.
What else is new? Sack of rice fell over in China?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Well, that's rather convenient.
A blog about stuff.
The question was irrelevant because Clinton wasn't being investigated for sexual harrassment. The Whitewater investigation to determine what the Clinton's involvement was in an illegal land deal. What does a blowjob have to do with real estate?! Kenneth Starr was grasping for straws when he brought up Lewinski. BTW it was a criminal case, there were 40 criminal convictions related to the Whitewater Development Corporation.
So you're saying that the mentality and culture they used to produce the countries they want to leave won't benefit their new country? That it will produce the same effect here as it did in their country? Preposterous!
.... ah, forgit it.
Just because Islam produces third world countries up until now
Buy a rifle, learn to use it. It will likely be the militia that ends up dealing with this issue.
It is not the federal government's job to run humanistic compassionate programs.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Sorry, but if you read to the end of the story, you find out that the objections were raised and the program was changed. At the end, the AG and all his cronies all signed off on the program. The acting AG seems a bit mousy to me.
I get more depressed every year. I dream of moving to a sensible, civilized country like Canada, but can't yet.
NO CARRIER
It is convenient - when you need to shut someone's whinehole in person. This, of course, doesn't work online, what with all the wikipedia pseudo-intellectuals and the hive minds in which they live.
Good points; I hadn't thought about Ford until I read your post.
I think our government itself needs to be redesigned. We'd probably be a lot better off with a parlimentary system like Canada's. At least then, all representatives would be local people who are known to us. Currently, the U.S. system amounts to a bunch of rich assholes I'll never meet and who don't care about me, making decisions that won't affect them in any way, with no possibility of consequences for their mammoth failures.
Sigh...
NO CARRIER
Uranium, aluminum tubes, WMDs. All lies. All known to be lies at the time the lies were uttered
I've merely been an observer up to this point, but I have to ask: Can you say with certainty that President Bush knew at the time that what he was saying was inaccurate? There's a difference between being wrong, and lying. Lying requires intent.
What specific evidence do you have that the President intentionally lied about these matters? Can you show how you know that on X date when Y statement was made, that the President knew what he was saying was untrue, and he said it for the purpose of deceiving the public?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
So basically, you're good at rhetoric and not at content.
Hope that works out well for you.
The fact that all of your allegations are moonbat koolaid has something to do with it.
Try again..
If the Congress is attempting to pass legislation related to the wiretapping program and the White House is delaying by withholding documents related to the program, why can't the Senate committee then simply state that they are erring on the side of liberty, passing the legislation and explicitly outlawing the program until the documents are provided?
Are you a constitutional law expert? Seriously, what is your law background? Where did you go to school, who was your favorite professor? I mean, even I know that NO ONE has been prosecuted under that act, it's constitutionality has never been decided, and it never applied to CONGRESS for fuck's sake!
I never mentioned impeachment, why bring it up? Oh yes, your standard, "Well THEY did it, so it must be okay!" Arguing with you is like arguing with a god damn two year old.
You are just spreading FUD. You don't give a rat's ass about the truth, you just care about opinion and how to sway it. You aren't any kind of expert on the constitution, just admit it. I've known enough real lawyers here to know you either aren't one, or you aren't any good. Drop the act.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That was marvellously done. Bravo!
NO CARRIER
Good questions. I'll do my best:
What can we do about this?
Nothing. It's way too far gone for anyone to stop it now. The government is composed entirely of extremely wealthy people who do NOT care about us. Look how much it "costs" to run for president in 2008: it's like a hundred million bucks. That's ridiculous.
What can the public do?
Again, nothing. Nobody cares about the public anymore. Rich people only care about other rich people and that's a fact.
About the only thing ANY of us can do is move to a country with a parlimentary democracy, like Canada. When every M.P. is someone from your own town, and you know him, AND he doesn't want to be harshly judged in the town where he lives, at least then you have some hope of him caring about the same things as you.
Sadly, I'm stuck here for at least a few years. Sigh...
NO CARRIER
Every day that this continues (and I am not just talking about the warrantless wiretapping, I am not just talking about the Bush admin, because even if the presidency changes it's not like we're going to have some altruistic person there who is going to just give us our rights back - it's just going to be another de facto dictator (assuming we even get that far, because when you look at things like NSPD51 it's pretty clear that Bush and those behind him expect another catalyzing event and martial law).
Every day that this continues further cements the former United States of America as a banana republic which is descending further into fascism.
Every day that the congress does nothing allows this; and I consider things like this attempt to pass this legislation pretty lame, these congresspeople should be outraged, they should be sounding serious alarm bells - if the mainstream media ignores them (which is, unfortunately quite likely because it's apparent that they have abdicated/are compromised and would rather talk about Paris Hilton than things like NSPD51) they should be out in front of the capital yelling about how the executive branch has declared itself supreme ruler of all and checks and balances are dead.
Every day that people sit back and think another election is going to change anything just allows this to continue - even if the elections weren't complete shams at the presidential level - the choices you have, the restrictions (both financial and otherwise) on getting on the ballot - it's ridiculous.
Every day we pretend that this is the America that has the "Bill of Rights" and believes in the Constitution (and all of the other stuff we teach children in school) and is still "free" we prevent anything real being done about it.
People will say "how is America not free, when is the last time the govt stopped you from doing something you wanted to do" - and I'll say that it's already happened, I am living in fear of what's coming, as are a lot of people. I have seen someone I love go into the psych ward for months in a depressive psychosis brought on by the constant news about this kind of stuff, worrying that her political views have her on a subversives list subject to a black bag job at any moment, but aside from that I would also say that it's not right now that I am worried about - it's in the short term future when the gloves come off and the illusion of democracy isn't needed anymore, because that's when you're going to have jackbooted thugs in the street.
Currently, the U.S. system amounts to a bunch of rich assholes I'll never meet and who don't care about me, making decisions that won't affect them in any way, with no possibility of consequences for their mammoth failures.
;-)
Ahhh, but even such collosal disasters have some positives.
That statement, for example, is one of the best, most accurate descriptions of our system that I've heard
Islam, you mean the religion that preserved the knowledge of the Greeks while the Christians in Europe killed each other? It wasn't until the Mongol attacks and the rise of Saudi Arabia's Wahabi sect that Islam turned into what it is now. And it wasn't until the rise of petroleum(the Black Devil, as I like to call it, as it's the closest thing on this Earth to Satan, as it corrupts anything it touches) that the diplomatic tension started. And just so you know, the fault of Communism wasn't the concept of workers owning the means of production(that concept works just fine when it comes about peacefully) but of armed revolution, a concept which only produced even vaguely successful results once, and even that can be attributed to the fact that the Patriots fought mostly foreign soldiers in the American "Revolution" and that afterwards even the Loyalists were allowed to stay.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"Please direct us to the court proceedings and rulings that deemed that his actions and directives were and are illegal."
0 60817.html
"This program" has been FOUND ILLEGAL IN COURT OF LAW. This finding may ultimately not stand, and its order to stop the program (but no its finding) has been temporary stayed, or it may be overturned and suppressed on national security or state secrets grounds, but as of now "this program" has been found to be illegal in court of law.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26489prs20
What other programs are out there other than "this program"? Well, we're having a hard time finding out. It certainly appears that AT&T at the direction of the NSA has engaged in the wholesale interception of the internet and telephone communications of ordinary Americans without a warrant. Of course it will probably be 50 years before we know for sure, if ever, because we can not have a fair hearing before the courts because the administration invokes the state secrets privilege.
Given that it seems the administration will continue to use this strategy of delay and suppression at every attempt to uncover and expose their misdeeds, our only recourse IS the Congress. The administration effectively holds the Judicial branch in check.
That means contempt of congress and impeachment.
The fact that you give your executive branch the authority to fire your prosecutors (judicial branch) is laughable.
The US system of government has failed so many times to uphold its stated goals that it has become literally a laughing stock.
The universal application of the law is one of the fundamental requirements of a free society.
I think that this is obvious and that anyone who stops to think about it will agree.
This is hardly a revolutionary or subversive idea and yet the US has moved further and further from this ideal each year for as long as I have been following the situation.
The fact that each new administration fires all the prosecutors is an explicit admission that the judicial branch has failed in its mission. (to uphold the law)
Frankly, the fact that you elect some of your judges by popular vote puts the lie to the whole affair. A judge's job is to interpret the law, not to advance an agenda. An imaginary ideal judge would produce nearly deterministic judgments.
Logic and reason are the right tools for judicial deliberation. There is NO ROOM FOR IDEOLOGY in the application of the law. There is therefore no reason for elections unless you are incapable of business-like hiring practices.
Honestly, there is nothing I would like more than for the americans to get their act together and restore the rule of law to that great nation.
Sadly I fear it is much more likely that they will continue their downward spiral from enlightenment to lawlessness and superstition. Economic collapse and violent revolution lie further down this road. For your god's sake wake up! pay attention! and demand an independent judicial branch!
Right, so long as it's technically illegal way can say we tried and just let it go. Bad things happen, just accept them and stop trying so goddamn much. I've heard pretty bad cases of apathy, but you take the cake.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
This guy is wiretapping the entire country, already found guilty in Federal court of dozens if not thousands of felony violations of the FISA. Nixon had tapped only a few, and he was staring straight at impeachment.
What the hell does it take to impeach a criminal tyrant as awful as Bush, anyway?
--
make install -not war
Presidents do not make law.
Read the US constitution. It is called separation of powers. Just as the president cannot subpoena secret documents from congress, congress cannot force the president to give them up.
The congress also cannot take powers given to the president without a constitutional amendment.
The "Commander in Chief" also gains extra powers when we are at war.
Congress cannot take these powers from the president.
Former presidents have signed bills while stating that the bill did not reduce their power.
Is voting for Ron Paul.
Let's face it, everybody else, except perhaps Gravel, is just going to do more of the same.
First things first, from your bio
"I have a doctorate in literature and have wrote several plays."
With grammar like that, you are obviously one of the wikipedia pseudo-intellectuals. The only thing you are is a troll.
As for your views, well, let's just say any idiot can poke holes. It takes someone with a brain to actually think of something constructive.
If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, well, I'd have a dollar.
Now you'll have to excuse me. Your mother and I have some unfinished business to tend to. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
That's real nice. Someone wants to be a journalist.
Every day, I see a post on slashdot from some pseudo-intellectual spouting off talking points heard on MTV. You never had any rights, and pretending like you once did is just a bunch of stupid posturing. Besides, if you really want to change things, whining about it here won't get it done.
Every day, more and more people listen to this drivel and actually believe it. People like you. People like, well, not people like me, but you get the idea.
Stop. It. Now.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
oh... right.
Thanks! I wonder if I should .sig it... ? :)
NO CARRIER
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237723&th
I've been wondering if Slashdot has completely gone bonkers. For about as long as I can remember I've read nothing but vague references to horrendous lies the Bush administration has spouted about 9-11, and the call for impeachment. Every single one of these posts gets modded up in spite of an underwhelming pool of evidence and citations. The replies to those posts asking for such never do. Looks like we're turning into Digg where you mod up if you agree and down if you don't. Fortunately we don't exactly have a "-1, Wrong" option so the discerning eye can quickly see through the smoke. However, the dissidents pushing their agenda get around by modding the insightful replies (such as yours have been) "Overrated" or "Flamebait", of which they are neither. A simple request for citations and links backing up a poster's comments should never be modded flamebait. Just go look at the moderation on any not-necessarily-pro-right-comment-but-simply-ques
Disgusting, really. Methinks there is a severely unhealthy, illogical political bias on Slashdot. Similar problem like Wikipedia's (in relation to political discussion), just different implementation. Nearly everyone has an agenda, and they'll do anything in their power to promote it and, in this case, bash the Bush administration using completely fallacious, erronious, and most importantly, _empty_ claims. *Sigh*.
..that's why American's have no privacy. They pass bills that limit their freedoms. Land of the free? Pah... come to Africa. All freedom, all the time (don't mind the crime)
Byzantium preserved quite a few Greek sources as well. And Muslims killed each other at the same time they were preserving some Greek writings--read up on the Sunni-Shiite split, and the persecution new faiths like the Druze went through.
No, Muhammed led a number of attacks, and encouraged his followers to do the same. Islam spread over the Byzantine Empire and east into India in a very, very bloody fashion.
As opposed to, what, how Christianity spread? Remember the good ol' Crusades? Hey, they didn't even care WHO they robbed! Christians, Jews, whoever!
Here's food for thought:
A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs.
The base, though, is made up of people.
People, on the whole, are pretty god damn stupid.
And stupid people cause a lot of really stupid problems.
Islam itself is perfectly fine. Want proof? Last I checked, most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East. They live in the West Pacific. You know, Indonesia and such. Maybe not the most stable region in the world, but we're not exactly getting the same problems.
Let's face it. In any religion, if you look hard enough and interpret loosely enough, you can justify pretty much anything. And assholes can and do. This is true then, it's true now, and it'll be true tomorrow. As long as there's religion, there will be people willing to spread it peacefully with books, and people who spread it at the point of a gun.
You're completely right on both counts. However, in Indonesia, which is where the majority of Muslims actually live, things aren't nearly as bad as they are in the Arab nations because they don't live in theocracies. Mounds of evidence show that no one particular religion is the problem but instead the entanglement of church and state(even nations that theoretically have a state church, like England and such, keep it firmly separated from politics and the actual operation of the state) and the latter issue is something you unfortunately cannot fix easily. (In fact, we killed the only secular rule in Iraq and had it replaced with fundie rule)
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
If you believe that, I suggest you read the Koran.
I think you should go back and reread what Muhammed did and said. Muhammed did, in fact, lead a number of armed offensives against the clans of Mecca - but he was not a warmonger, and in fact was a famous diplomat; decidedly *not* going to war when others would have. Much of the spread of Islam in a 'bloody' fashion had to do with the nature of politics at the time; not with Islam itself.
[Ego]out
"The court has made a ruling. As the case now stands, it is currently ILLEGAL."
The court has granted an injunction.
"A preliminary injunction, or an interlocutory injunction, is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial."
In this case the activity being restrained is MAKING THE TAPS ILLEGAL.
Look at it THIS way, you're wrong.
"You obviously do not understand."
No, I understand perfectly. YOU clearly have no idea about how the law works whatsoever.
The taps are not illegal. The inunction prevents that from becoming the law until the appeal settled.
>> 'Bush Lied! Haliburton! Karl Rove is evil!'
>> 'Bush Lied! END THE WAR! Karl Rove is evil!"
>> 'Bush is a liar! War is ILLEGAL! Dick Cheney is evil!! Haliburton!"
Pffft. You people are sick. Get over it! You people haven't got a freaking clue; you just repeat the same pop culture MTV-left-wing-BLOG-New York Times/CNN/John Stewart TV garbage you've had repeated OVER and OVER and OVER to you for seven long miserable years. GET REAL! Get your own fucking point of view! GET A FUCKING LIFE. This is fucking Slashdotl --- people come here for zany tech/science culture news not your PATHETIC Bush-bashing troll CRAP. Nobody wants it! Why don't you fucking get it? Your garbage is just the same useless, ANGRY, hate-the-world drivel people already get EVERYWHERE ELSE. People come here to ESCAPE that crap! Understand? Jesus Christ!
The media attack machine has been surviving off weenies like you since their very first Bush-bashing propaganda coup. And here we are years later and you effete, weak, angry people still swallow it all up and then ask for more. You catch a BUSH BASH FLASH, then you all scurry to your favorite websites to repeat the dispatch like a bunch of MISERABLE ZOMBIES. Meanwhile the rest of the world is sick of it. NOBODY gives A SHIT what MADE UP NONSENSE of-the-day bothers you people! The majority of people are happy, level-headed folks who voted one way or the other, lost or won, but now TRUST THEIR NEIGHBORS in their majority opinion. THAT'S DEMOCRACY! Understand?? DEMOCRACY has served this country well for 220 years --- and you peole can't fucking stand that.
This gentleman's post is informative and well written. There is NOTHING inflammatory about it; for it to have been marked by slash-dot-sanctioned moderators or admins as 'flamebait' is absurd.
/etc/hosts to point all of slashdot.org to 129.6.13.32 (time.gov) and kill this decaying old site for GOOD. I've had it.
These people should be expelled from slashdot for spamming it will off-topic political flamebait:
The poster of the original article "Zonk"
The admin that admitted the original poster "Zonk"
The invitees that trolled it afterwards and modded down any dissenters should just get a life.
People are SICK of politics on this website. Personally, if I see another one of these articles I'm going edit my
Slashdot has been going downhill for years. All these inflammatory partisan Bush-bashing posts are unbearable. I've had enough.
I do:
http://tinyurl.com/3brbm8
I really don't care. I'm doing alright while Bush is president. If a few thousand soldiers, mercenaries and contractors suck down an IED in Iraq, I don't give a shit. Not my problem...especially since the military is like 88% pro-bush even now in 2007! They want this fight so bad it seems, especially when every time I see a man in uniform on TV he is praising 'accomplishments' and bashing those who think this war was a sinful idea as 'hating the troops'.
Not much respect for the military, nor the chicken-hawks these days...
Blar.