Slashdot Mirror
McCain Supports Warrantless Domestic Surveillance
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "While there have been shifting reports about McCain's view on warrantless wiretapping, nothing could be clearer than the latest comment by McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, who said, 'We do not know what lies ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.' Article II, of course, is what Bush has argued gives the President virtually unlimited power during war, and McCain has already voted in favor of Telecom Immunity, though he sometimes mentions, to those asking for accountability, wanting to hold hearings about what the telecoms did."
Just for comparison, I'd like to see what Obama's views are on this issue. Anybody got a link?
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
So another run-of-the-mill power-hungry politician wants to have no constraints placed on his power when in office. Since when is this news?
Seriously, is anyone surprised when a Republican wants to erode civil liberties?
That's not Picasso, that's Kandinsky!
Becuse listening to the latest gossip about what Doreen said about Kevin at her sister in law's wedding is such a threat to "national security". Enough already, like Al Kaeda uses anything less than 2048 bit RSA anyway ... 7 years holed up in a cave in Afghanistan, and you useless bastards STILL cant find him :-(
First Post ?
different day
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
This is very conclusory. McCain says he is going to be consistent with the Constitution, so that means he supports warrantless surveillance? That's quite the logical leap. This statement is completely unclear. He may easily interpret Article II differently than Bush (and there are many indications that he does) and this statement shows nothing different from that.
Good old Slashdot political smearing.
the response from the republican party that reads something like:
"Supporting article II doesn't necessarily infer that we're willing to arbitrarily wire tap Joe Citizen.."
and then of course, 3 more months go by, and everyone who is not considered a privacy advocate or a nutjob completely forgets about that they made this statement, the hundreds of others like it from this administration, and the blatant Orwellian nature of the country that we're living in.
Nothing is going to get resolved without a legislative body, preferably congress, stepping in and saying "no, article II does not mean that, and by the way we're burning the patriot act."
Dear Democrats, please win.
Thanks,
-a guy who likes to talk about guns on the phone, but poses zero threat to national security.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
McCain, spying and executive power: A complete reversal in 6 months
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Parent is right you know. Extremism, on either side, must be avoided.
The second quote refers to http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html.
If you want to read it from his site, there's a pdf that explains: Revise the PATRIOT Act: Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the USA PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.
Strengthen Warrantless Wiretap Approval Process: Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administrationâ(TM)s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Paid for by Obama for America Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional Intelligence Committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law. And another that goes on to say: Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administrationâ(TM)s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law. I'd say (even from a few of his voting records) that he is against it for the most part. Or at the very least, revising it severely.
Doesn't really matter in a two party system though, does it? Take what you can get over the crap I read about in this article from McCain's campaign.
My work here is dung.
Probably not a whole lot happened to them but they haven't done much in the way of making the news for violence termed "terrorism" in a long time. This, I suspect, is because they "won" the war, at least for a while. So, well, now we call it just plain war when it is done by the extreme Christians (Fundamental Right Wing Republicans seem to fit the bill nicely) and we call what they do "terrorism."
Just for the record I don't support either side in this and the above is just my guess so take it as a grain of salt. I just don't see much extremism (from the view of the masses) from the Christians lately but I'd happily see the view that what is going on could be extreme Christan workings specifically the war in Iraq.
Oh - and if modded troll, well I don't mind. However, this is NOT "Informative." It may be interesting, it may even be insightful, but it surely isn't informative. (I keep getting odd moderations.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They were the best boogie-man ever. The Islamists may, eventually, someday, get nukes. The USSR had enough nukes to sterilize the planet. And a huge conventional army. And chemical and biological weapons galore. As far as keeping the populace pissing itself in fear and doing whatever the authorities tell them to, Islamists just don't hold a candle to our dear former enemies, the Soviets. Well, I suppose they'll have to do until the authorities can cook up something scarier.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hi guys. This seems like a good opportunity to talk a bit about this new distro we've been working on.
ParanoidLinux is a distribution with a focus on privacy. All network comms will be encrypted and run through TOR by default. IM programs, etc, will be configured for secure communications by default. You'll have to go out of your way *not* to have a secure conversation in ParanoidLinux.
This idea comes from Cory Doctorow's latest book "Little Brother" which describes a Linux distro similar to what we are building, with the same name.
It's a new concept, only a couple weeks old, so don't go looking for downloads... but we are looking for help! Come join us. We're looking for programmers, artists, security experts and unix gurus to help us bring this project together.
If the government takes this basic human right from you, be proactive. Take it back. See you there!
http://www.paranoidlinux.org
irc.freenode.net, #paranoidlinux
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Same old, same old FUD tactics we see from GOP since 2001. They *used to* work too! Or is some black op US gov't agency planning a "terrorist" attack to spur people to willingly give up rights? (Sadly, as history and current international events show, this is NOT an unheard of tactic to force masses to comply. Used by various gov't)
Sure, warrants surveillance makes people safer. It's a fact. Just look at Soviet Union with its domestic KGB wing. But then throwing people into Gulags for 20 years because the neighbor doesn't like you and reports you in as a spy - it is not the society that most people would like to live in.
So which will it be? "GITMO USA" or "Land of Opportunity and Hope"? Can't have both. The former gives people almost absolute security (unless the secret police doesn't like you), the latter does not. Let freedom die for sake of security or perhaps die due to lack of security in the name of freedom?
You chose. November 2008.
We do not know what lies are ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists
There, that's closer to the truth.
So, by remaining continuously at war, the President has unlimited power?
Brilliant!
What defines a war? Does it have to be against another country? Can it be...
a war on terror?
a war on drugs?
a war on cancer?
a war on poverty?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
AT&T has given him lots of money just for this.
Candidate for head of executive branch in favor of giant executive power grab, shocking!
The Constitution doesn't let the president tap mail or wire internally; but if it's entering/leaving the country, he can. It's the edge dilemma: at the edge point, you can tap inside or outside. Outside, there's no rules, and you're tapping a foreign national with no constitutional rights.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You mean the ones who are not hung up on careers, properties and toys?
That's an absurd argument -- "McCain says he'll follow the Constitution." "You mean, the same Constitution that President Bush says gives him the right to abuse small farm animals? Why McCain must want to abuse small farm animals too!"
There isn't much question that tapping *international* calls is within the government's power. (At least I haven't heard any major Democrats argue with this). There just isn't enough information in this post to know if this is what McCain is talking about, or if it's domestic surveillance.
You should leave the political hack jobs to the professionals.
--
make install -not war
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON.
the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
Guess what, Russia still has enough nukes to sterilize the planet, chemical, biological and more recently space weapons and a huge conventional army. And it doesn't do what the US tells it to do anymore. A little bit of a propaganda campaign on TV and the populace will be just about as rabid about it as it was back then.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I don't understand how the original poster claims that 'nothing could be clearer'.
The title of the article is "McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too"
And the article includes this gem:
"The Globe's Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , "So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?" To which McCain answered, "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."
McCain's embrace of extrajudicial domestic wiretapping is effectively a bounce-back from Fish's comments, made at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Connecticut last month."
This is clearly written by someone who already doesn't like McCain. I'm a huge supporter of Obama, but the article is just pure anti-McCain propaganda, and not worth the read.
Article II exists, and no one can change it. I suppose what everything hinges on is your definition of 'wartime', hopefully McCain's isn't as broad as Bush's. If occupation = war then we're going to be at war forever under that definition.
In less than two weeks the Swedish government are going to vote for just this type of survelliance. If the propsed new law is implemented, they will connect new cables that will search through all data going over the border.
They can, in theory, read every e-mail going over the border.
Dear Senator McCain,
Please obtain a new copy of the Constitution, and continue reading it all the way through Amendment XXVII.
Thank you,
The American People
What does saying that a small third world country is 'as dangerous as cold war USSR' do to their status? Especially among their neighbors?
love is just extroverted narcissism
First Google hit on a search for obama and signing statements Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
And just look at some of the "war powers" that Congress is instructed by the Constitution to execute, in the section 8 of the Article I that defines Congress:
These "Article II powers" arguments making Bush a king are lies. Talking about them is bad enough, but protected as free speech. However, acting on them by actual officials, whether to make war despite Congress, or as an official campaign to prevent Congress from exercising its powers, is usurping Congress' rightful power by creating Executive powers that do not exist.
If the Congress passes a law or otherwise officially acts to, say, direct the US armed forces (and subcontractors to it) to put on their boots and march out of Iraq tomorrow (even if that's not quite a good idea), Congress has the power to do so. It is the president who does not have the power to stop them, and is legally obligated to follow Congress' instructions in that march.
--
make install -not war
>Two parties perhaps but I see no daylight between them.
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here:
'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'
'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'
'Hey, WAIT a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"
-- Bill Hicks
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
The real value of FISA warrants is more reactive than proactive. FISA judges show pretty broad discretion in what they will approve, but they do so with the understanding that the warrant creates a paper trail of justification and accountability. Without that paper trail, it's almost impossible to conduct a real investigation and hold people responsible for any abuses.
Personally, I consider the original FISA requirements to be reasonable in the context of an intelligence collection mission (not traditional law enforcement). However, what Bush did to FISA is an abuse of Executive power specifically because it removes not only the weaker proactive checks, but also the stronger retroactive balances of an investigative trail.
and I'll say it again:
The extent to which those who watch over us are unwilling to be watched by us is the precise extent to which we are not a free and just society.
This has nothing to do with war, or terrorism. It is simply a matter of accountability. The people have a right to know what our elected officials do in the name of ensuring our safety, regardless of whether they actually live up to that goal or not. That we are not able to do so is the true barometer of our freedom, despite whatever a centuries-old piece of paper might proclaim.
I must be completely illiterate but I can not find any passage in Article 2 that gives the President unlimited power in times of war. I see no justification of warrantless wiretapping. In fact, according the Article, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed and he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''. Of course, that is maybe where my logic fails. It only states that he should make the oath but not actually live up to it. Also, Article 2 didn't say faithfully execute the laws at all times, no exceptions. So, obviously, he can just pick and choose when to follow that as well. Then, again, maybe the phrase "best of my ability" is the basis of his argument. As we all know, Bush is incapable of making either ethical or competent decisions.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
It helps to put a very precise face on it.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
1. McCain will not be 4 more years of Bush. He is more liberal than Bush ever was.
2. Obama will be 4 more years of Jimmy Carter, and we all know how well that went...
Maybe Obama will go back to using surveillance for more important things like helping create jobs: ECHELONG.
It is amazing to me that people go with their guts on the domestic wiretap stuff. First of all, from what I've been able to figure, there has been no domestic wiretaps without FISA. Any NSA wiretaps that lead to a domestic connection can be follow up with a FISA warrant. FISA was just worried about where the requests were coming from. Previously the FBI could not get a warrant from a NSA lead. After 9/11 this was allowed. See:
Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data: [...] "the government's failure to share information about its spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information."
That was deemed stupid and changed after 9/11. There are some hold outs though.
Remember that you can I can call a tapped number and law enforcement can listen to our call. The tap request only covers the tap target, but they can certainly listen in to anyone that calls that number. So when NSA is listening in to communications in the battlefield, that routes to a domestic number, that does not constitute "domestic wire tapping" since the tap is on the foreign source.
The other aspect of the "domestic" part is Call Detail Records. You do no own your call history, the phone company does. They can do whatever the heck they want with that information. Some states are making CDR's private, but traditionally, it is owned by the phone company. The FBI could use CDR's to see who has been talking to you and get a FISA warrant based on that information.
So, do I think things will change under Obama? Nope, not at all. Even under Clinton's "wall" of separation between the NSA and the FBI, there were still warrantless wiretaps.
England and America have directly been involved in dividing up Arab land and resources since they switched their militaries from steam-powered equipment to oil powered equipment. We've been militarily involved in Iraq since before WWI. We destroyed the democratic government of Iran becuase they dared to demand that they keep the profit from their own natural resources. We formed al Queda when we used them as cannon fodder to fuck around with the Russians. We supplied Israel with capital and military equipment to commit acts of genocide against the Palestinians (mostly because we didn't want Jewish refugees in America) and they allowed us to establish a military base without too much fuss. We helped the invade Lebanon, destroy the entire country, and the direct result was Hezbollah. We funded the army of Saddam Hussein knowing full well that it would be used to murder thousands of his own people. Our military has helped with the slow crush of the PLO, which resulted in Hamas.
So, after a hundred years of oppression and suffering, they strike one blow about a ten thousand times less deadly in the number of dead and about a hundred thousand times less damaging as a matter of culture and economy.
And then they won after they proved that the infidel doesn't have the moral fortitude to give everyone the right to a lawyer, no matter how heinous their crime. They proved that we have no moral superiority when it comes to torture and human rights.
America is not the same place it used to be. All there is to do now is sit back and watch what's left of the power structure squabble over the table scraps until we run out of resources and the next revolution occurs.
But don't pay any attention to this. Listen to the President. Go shopping, and he'll take care of the rest.
What a annoying choice to make. I wish oboma was not a supporter of genicide ( aka abortion) then the election would be an easy choice, but until the dems stop supporting abortion and buggery I guess me and most of the religious middle will keep voting against economic and personal self intrest in the hopes that one day the killing of millions will be abated.
... bad choices on either side.
I find it ironic that our first black president should he be elected will be with the support of the orginization that was founded primarily as a eugentics programs against Negro people (aka NOW).
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1294086/posts
Still it is a hard chioce to make, continue to let the country slide deeper and deeper into the bush/republic style anti-privacy police state or let it continue to slide into an amoral fascism where people are jailed for trying to stop babies form being killed and thier children from being taught that anal sex is a component of a healty alternative life style.
What can you say
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
So remember kids, if you want to promulgate partisan prejudice against others, all you have to do is agree to let McCain undermine liberty in the name of liberty. He says that lawless vendors of statism make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. Hey, McCain, how about telling us the truth for once? The fault, dear McCain, is not in your stars but in yourself. I believe in "live and let live". McCain, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his stratagems but endorsement of them. It's because of such pharisaical demands that I believe that if he truly believes that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
You know, you really are no Hunter S. Thompson. He actually managed to pack significant amounts of meaning into the paragraphs of his polysyllabic polemics.
I actually agree with what you're saying, but you gotta work on the presentation.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Article 2 does apply. If you are a foreign power or working for one, it falls under executive powers inherent in the Presidency.
If they find something that pertains to civil criminality, they shouldn't use it in a court of law. But if they find out that you are talking with al Qaeda, this seems fine.
They did far, far more in WWII. I think it is time for people to have a reality check on the ramifications of this. Not saying you need to be for it. But a lot of the fear seems exaggerated.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The president can declare martial law in a national crisis, without the need of Congressional approval, and under the martial law the Constitution is suspended.
"The New Age. The New Beginning."
Troll? Because its not something you want to hear?
If someone knows that a judge, outside his own chain of command, will see what he's doing, then he might think twice about abusing power.
Haha! Good point. Opening up comments to anon visitors.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Something like, perhaps, a lobbyist with a busload of cash? Or in McCain's case, the possibility to waltz into office if he can appease the right party factions. Face it, AC, this has nothing to do with McCain thinking his opinions were "wrong" so much as discovering that they might not get him elected. And that's a somewhat slimier state of affairs.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Citations, please?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
We need terrorism. Without it, we have no plausible reason to maintain a military presence near valuable US business interests in the middle east.
The real reason all of these stupid decisions are being made is because we have no representation in government. Power is concentrated in the media, which is a for-profit enterprise, the military, which the biggest part of our for-profit economy, and the executive branch, where we have no voting authority over the cabinet that infests it, who also through strange coincidence go on to or come from large corporations who participate in huge government contracts.
Our involvement in the middle east has been a disaster for ONE HUNDRED fucking years. The only thing that's changed in the last twenty or thirty is that they are finally fighting back effectively. As the most powerful and morally hypocritical force in history, we're finding that we have no palate for our own medicine.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
I think the typical American "liberal" sees it this way, while the stereotypical American "liberal" is more extreme.
I would like to point out that the view that the Second Amendment applies only to "a well-regulated militia" is irrelevant because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, in concert or alone. The right to defend oneself against coercion with any means is neither enumerated nor disparaged, and it is reserved by the people.
Lack of a constitutional guarantee is not license to legislate away whatever powers and freedoms we choose, as noted explicitly and in plain language at the end of the Bill of Rights.
I'm starting to think that the commentators who call a McCain presidency a "3rd Term For Bush" are more accurate then people give them credit for. Sounds like more of the same.
Actually, considering that this almost guarantees that he does support warrantless wiretapping, saying something like "McCain adviser supports asking telecoms for assistance" would be akin to replacing "Man shoots 3 family members dead" with "Man pushes lever on small mechanical device in the privacy of his own home". Is it accurate? Absolutely. Just because you like the man doesn't mean that people who disagree with him are lying. At least be happy that he seems to be a good guy overall and he's not feeding us a line.
And yet you make no mention of how many Iraqis must feel every day, and the damage we cause on a scale a thousand times worse just in terms of body count to the Arab psyche?
Every time we destroy a secular Arab society, we end up with another terrorist group. And I'll tell you something, our children will not be dealing with terrorists from Saudi Arabia, but with the children of Iraqis and Palestinians for generations to come.
I was talking about the ones that make use a modern society. Oil will peak within the next 10 years. Natural gas has already peaked, and coal reserves aren't well proven.
As soon as it's clear that there isn't much left, the price will skyrocket. $4 gas will be a wet dream compared to what it will cost in 2040 (inflation notwithstanding.)
Human society will survive, but I'm not sure American society will. It's just like the global warming thing. Sure we'll survive, but how many and under what circumstances?
The idea of a soul entirely misses the point.
The mammillian life cycle begins when the gametes of the parents join.
That is the one and only tempral event that can be measured by wich an idividual is organism is established. Every other event is an events that happen to two genetically distict individual organism ( mother and child) one that is dependant on the other.
From the prepective of law there is a simple question that must be answered.
How important are individual rights.
Individual rights obviously must be bounded by the importance of the idividual and the right to privacy is an idividual right. The most fundimental individual right is the right to continue living.
The circumstances under which one can be deprived of thier legal right to continue living are thus a bounding factor to the importance of individual privacy rights.
So if a living person is only so important that they can be deprived of thier right to be alive because they are an inconvience or even significant threat to thier mother ( on which they are dependant.)
It follows logically that lesser freedoms like the right to privacy can be depensed of for the individual when they are a threat to the security of the state as a whole to which the individual is dependant.
So I really dislike both republicans and democrats equally but feel forced to favor laws which promote the bounding factor of human freedom first with the hope that eventually sanity will set in about the others.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
GWB: Now I'm shitting my pants!
Specific details help to build a strong mental image. That's why authors will go to great lengths to describe characters and scenes.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
England and America have directly been involved in dividing up Arab land
Sure, and why not? It's not like there was a flourishing democracy there, or an outpouring of mutual aid. In the first half of this century, ideas of fascism, Arab nationalism, and empires were widespread.
They proved that we have no moral superiority when it comes to torture and human rights.
They have merely proved that the US isn't perfect. That should come as no surprise if you look at US history. Look at how the US behaved relative to Mexico or the Phillipines. The US has always thrown its weight around and taken what it wanted. That's what American voters want their government to do. And why not?
America is not the same place it used to be.
No, it is actually a better place than it was a century ago or even half a century ago. There is less racism, less torture, less unjustified military intervention, less empire building.
Throughout its history, the US has primarily looked out for its own interests and improved lives for its own citizens. Occasionally it has tried to do a little bit for other nations when it was convenient to do so.
That may not be much, but it is still a whole lot more than you can say for most other nations.
The old reason we allowed ourselves to rule over the Middle East is because we believe those resources belong to the West, and not to the inhabitants of territory that "rightfully" belonged to the colonial powers. After WWII nearly destroyed Europe, they couldn't hold on to their subjugate territories, so we attempted to hold on for them. As many people began to realize that greed was our true motive, it became the containment of the Soviet Union. After that began to fail to seem reasonable, it became terrorism. As opposed to our outstanding foreign policy in Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc. We pretty much fucked the goat on middle east foreign policy, no argument there. We only care about justifying our Middle East policy anymore because of the resources we're trying to take from them. I'm sure we have some interesting plans for Venezuela in the near future, and when we start running of things like clean water and arable land, I'm sure we'll be suddenly interested again. I didn't miss the story about establishing AFRICOM late last year. Did you?
And this is not funny.
diegoT
Thisd whole story is a troll. Hey look, a McCain piñata. Everyone take a swing! Meanwhile Obama make an overt threat against Iran, about a complete a flip-flop as you can have from his lovey-dovey approach from two weeks ago and you guys let it slide.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Why not divide up the middle east? Because it doesn't belong to us, and we lack the cultural understanding to effectively govern it. They have merely proved that the US isn't perfect. That should come as no surprise if you look at US history. Look at how the US behaved relative to Mexico or the Phillipines. The US has always thrown its weight around and taken what it wanted. That's what American voters want their government to do. And why not? Are you a hedonist or a Nazi? I can't really tell. No, it is actually a better place than it was a century ago or even half a century ago. There is less racism, less torture, less unjustified military intervention, less empire building. Less racism because of civil leaders and people like Martin Luther King who the FBI considered "the most dangerous Negro leader in America." I'm not sure if that was before or after they assassinated some of his colleagues.
The Japanese, Germans, and other prisoners of war were not tortured, as far as I'm aware, in WWI or WWII. Torture in the War on Terror is officially approved as long as you don't call it torture.
There's been no decline in military spending since WWII. We have hundreds of more military installations around the world, and we're building many permanent installations right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not left any significant amount of the bases we established nearly seventy years ago.
Every single improvement in American life since WWII has been the result of popular movement, and the government has been dragged with it kicking, screaming, and killing it's own citizenry in the process. Throughout its history, the US has primarily looked out for its own interests and improved lives for its own citizens. True until recently. The current government does not care about it's citizenry. That's why it's acceptable not to pay attention to polls or popular votes (presidential or involving medicinal marijuana). Occasionally it has tried to do a little bit for other nations when it was convenient to do so. Example? That may not be much, but it is still a whole lot more than you can say for most other nations. Except every other developed western nation since WWII (which I consider a definitive paradigm shift worldwide.) The whole of Europe have learned their lesson. For some reason we don't seem to get it.
Israel kills Palestinians with American weapons, and keeps their economy afloat with American funds. Over one hundred billion dollars thus far (close to 150 billion with interest, I believe.)
Palestine has received less than four or five billion in the same period if my guess is right, with the added bonus of our veto of any United Nations resolution in their favor.
I personally don't give a flying **** if the government asks. I only care if the companies actually give it to them.
Especially if doing so just happens to be in direct violation with their privacy policy therefore breaching a legally binding contract with their millions of customers. *cough* AT&T *cough*Except for the Jewish terrorists that blew up the King David Hotel in 1948 that was housing British soldiers? There were a hundred casualties, and officially of course, were renegades operating outside the "true" leadership of the Zionist movement. (Though I do believe Ben Gurion wasn't involved.)
Ask an Ariel Sharon style hawk if he would attack US interests if he believed it would save his homeland. I wouldn't be surprised by his response, but maybe you would.
A one-state solution could have worked in the 50s or 60s, but the Zionists have sown something they will never want to reap. Generations of repression, poverty, and victims genocide are coiled into a space that is a fifth of it's former size. And people are shocked that they fire homemade rockets at the civilians who piloted the tanks and bulldozers the previous day?
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
â" Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - Governing Magazine, July, 1998
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - Business Week, July 30, 2001
[Middle Eastern nations] were flourishing democracies with vast untapped resources threatening to break free of the bonds of colonial Europe.
Read something about the history of the Middle East before you spout such bullshit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East
The Middle East was a social and political dump before the Europeans got involved, and it still is. And given Arab aspirations for re-building their empire and imposing their religion on others, I don't even particularly care that the West imposed its rule on the region.
Except every other developed western nation since WWII (which I consider a definitive paradigm shift worldwide.) The whole of Europe have learned their lesson. For some reason we don't seem to get it.
First of all, the Europe you see today was largely constructed by the US; if it had been up to the French, British, and Russians, they would have repeated the mistakes of WWI and we'd have had WWIII by now.
Furthermore, you really have no clue about the attitudes or motivations behind European politics.
Are you a hedonist or a Nazi? I can't really tell.
Well, I can tell that you are an uneducated lout.
Al Queda would almost certainly not exist if we hadn't gathered the most extreme Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and then trained them in guerrilla style warfare to fight the Russians.
Al Queda would definitely not exist if we had no military presence in the middle east.
This is hindsight, of course. But looking at the cases of Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, I take my cue from Reagan who "redeployed" troops out of Lebanon after the terrorist attacks there. We don't understand Arab culture, and it's probable that we never will.
Instead of just saying it, that fact should be a part of an energy policy and foreign policy to keep us uninvolved as much as is possible.
I've read Article II several times. How does Article II apply to fighting terrorism and allowing domestic warrantless wiretaps?
My guess is...it DOESN'T, and referencing the Constitution just sounds official.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Hey, I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I'm thinking that Bush should just go all out and roust up a private little army, and go and arrest all the Democrats and liberal leaning supporters in sort of a knight of the long knives. You know, all the Republicans would have guns would, on some night, just go and break the back of the Democratic party and kill off the leaders. The worst part of Bush these days is that no one on the left even really fears attacking him. But, if he say had a pistol and shot Harry Reid and gunned down the Senate ala Al Capone's massacre, then, you know, you could give the guy his props. Yeah, diversity would go out the window, but we could be much more efficient with a mono culture.
This is my sig.
1. In the last 2 years, McCain voted for the the Administration position 100% of the time. He talks up "maverick", but he supports Bush every time it matters.
2. I'm sure Republicans will declare Obama the same as Carter just because he's the least popular Democrat they can remember. But in saying "we all know" how well that went, you ignore that Carter was so long ago a large fraction of voters weren't even born yet. As far as boogeymen, you've got an unpopular Democratic president hazily remembered even by the older of us up against a Republican sitting in the Whitehouse. Who is right now the least popular President ever. We all know how Carter went? Yeah, and he was much more popular than Bush.
Sorry, but in the "He'll be just like..." sweepstakes, the Republicans are fracked. Hard. Which looks to me to be the theme of this election in general.
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
"Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)"
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
In 1953 Iran dared to nationalize their natural resource, and tried to throw the Anglo-Persian oil company out. The US/UK response was to lead a coup and install a brutal dictator, restoring Anglo-Persian Oil to Anglo-Iranian Oil and eventually British Petroleum (now known as BP).
That's one direct example of us taking oil away from a country.
Iraq is pretty much the same deal. The new, and of course, completely independent Iraqi government has decided to allow foreign companies (hint hint) exploit their resources and pay them a very small fee of 12 or 13 percent. Recently, Venezuela demanded and received 50 or 60 percent.
America isn't the only country that stands to gain, but our companies stand to gain the most. Consider more than 100,000,000,000 (yes, that's one hundred billion) barrels of oil at $130 just to start. It's not a game of small stakes.
Even if you assume that all the candidates are lying, it is still useful to see who they are trying to pander to.
Are they trying to pander to some particular interest group, some noisy part of their
parties political base, or are trying to pander to more general concerns?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wow, talk about ignorance.
McCain's adviser says something and it is attributed to McCain.
And you compare it to that? That is the best you can do?
Here let me fix that for you: would be akin to replacing "Man's friend shoots 3 family members dead" with "Man shoots family of 3".
That is what the headline and, by virtue of your defense of the headline, you are doing.
If you are too stupid to see that, you are letting your political bias get in the way and you should probable kill yourself.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Wow, I'd blame the summary but it's the article that screwed this up. There's nothing earth-shatteringly significant about a reference to Article II; it's the section defining the power of the executive branch. So basically Holtz-Eakin said almost nothing in many words (and specified "foreign threats", not domestic, besides), and Wired invented the rest from whole cloth.
I can see /. is full of young whipper-snappers, too young to remember the 60 and 70s.
... [rummaging] ... I may need again if McCain gets elected.
In the 60s and the early 70s, the police, FBI and other agencies pretty much did anything they wanted to obtain evidence. Wire-tap warrant, pfft, I think that might have been an invention of the 80s, or maybe late 70s, after Watergate. Don't even get me started on the 50s. I can't speak to the 50s directly, but in the 60s, The Law had a free run mostly.
[digging] Now where'd my Cap'n Crunch Whistle go
This is just all part of McCain's (and the now fallen Republican party's) disrespect for the Constitution. Some of the campaign finance stuff he proposed was very chilling--bloggers would have had to jump through hoops as if they were lobbying orgs, or they wouldn't be able to post political stuff. That struck at the very heart of the 1st ammendment. Then there's the flag burning issue. I swear, if McCain gets in, I'll burn a flag that very day. That he would be in favor of warrantless wiretaps is no surprise.
I hope Obama et. al. will take up the cause of the Constitution, and use it in their campaign ads. OTOH, a campaigning style that purports to educate people might not be well received. Obama is already being painted as an "intellectual elitist", which sounds GOOD to me; but unfortunately it doesn't sound good to the electorate at large. Just do the right thing this time, guys, and don't figure out how to lose like you did the last two times.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
When citizens make it hard for Big Brother to see what's going on, it called "Obstruction Of Justice".
When Big Brother makes it hard for citizens to see what's going on, it's called "Privacy".
Ever notice how pissy and elitist congress gets when citizens what to snoop throught their business to see what they have their hands in? Yet, they have no problem going through our business, especially when there are far, FAR fewer of us actual working folk doing shady things.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Because it's irrelevant, and as such, clearly attempting to make a heated argument as it to why it is such a lazy, stupid thing to say?
Correction: McCain Supports Warrantless Surveillance of calls between the United States and overseas involving suspected terrorists. Question: Could somebody provide the names of actual people who have proof (not claims) that their rights have been violated by this policy? Also, I don't hear much in the media about any people that have had their rights personally violated by this policy at all. One would expect MSNBC to salivate at the prospects and showcase them on their lineup every night if this was the case.
The reason there's no democracy in Iran is because we destroyed it in it's infancy in 1953 because they tried to nationalize their oil and take profits away from British and American companies.
The reason there's no democracy in Iraq is because we propped up Saddam Hussein. He was our new ally against the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah was in power because the Shah we was the leader of a repressive government.
It's a familiar pattern. The arrival of American intervention has often signaled the end of democracy for Arab nations, not the beginning.
Your irrational fear of Islamic military rule is so improbable it's ridiculous. It's only possible if we continue to subject millions of people based on their religious and ethnic identities to violence and repression.
I am responsible for American actions as an American citizen right now, not a hundred years ago. The misdeeds of long forgotten empires appeal only to people grasping at straws to justify their immorality.
What does all of their suffering have in common? They are nowhere near valuable resources, or if they are, they're too close to the Russian Federation or China.
If it was a legitimate military target, why was there such furor over that attack? Why did it cause Ben Gurion to eliminate Moshe Sneh and others from participating in the new government?
The Irgun and most Zionists that followed killed Arabs and Brits who stood in the way of their belief that they had a right to immigrate into Palestine, gain a majority, and declare a Jewish state. That seems to be fine with you.
Palestinians kill Israelis who stand in the way of their belief that they have a right to have military and civil control over the places where they have lived for hundreds of years. This seems to be a problem for you.
Use the fucking Google. I'm not expressing any idea that isn't accepted by the vast majority of modern historians. It's even on Wikipedia for chrissake. Here are some keywords:
Islamic Revolution
Anglo-Persian/Anglo-Iranian/British Petroleum
Here's a link to TIME's coverage of the new oil policy that directly benefits American and British oil companies:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1576593,00.html
There's more information out there that you can shake a stick at, it's all easily available, and it's not very hard to understand the pattern.
It couldn't be that democracy is a superior idea that become popular through it's own merit? Or are all good ideas only spread by the tip of a bayonet?
Most democracies arrive at the will of their own people instead of the military intervention of the U.S. Next time, try linking to a vast set of animated American flags. It will really change my mind.
Britain did divide up the empire without regard to tribal and religious lines to make those areas easier to subjugate. Who says Israel should be completely destroyed and all Jews killed (genocide). There are nutcases on both sides. The Israeli army has killed many thousands of Palestinian civilians, and demolished their homes as they continue to illegally build more communities on occupied territory. Palestinians have more bark, and Israelis have more bullets, helicopter gunships, jet fighters, and tanks. Who lobs rockets into civilian cities in Israel killing women and children? Who sends suicide bombers to kill innocent woman and children on school buses and markets? Who does the same thing with far superior military equipment? Who has given up land, moved it own people out of legitimate cities all to accommodate the enemy in the hope for peace. Israel, you imbecile Israel is taking land right now as we speak, building a wall that will cut off Palestine from the arable land and water resources, against the declarations of the UN. These facts are not disputed by anyone in the Israeli government. Please tell me what U.S. Military bases are in Israel today? Every Israeli military base is available for use by the US military. So, I'd say the entire country. Is this your feeble attempt to justify the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. If so, go to hell, in my humble opinion we should have nuked Iraq, Syria, and any other country that attacks us So, once they have nuclear weapons, it's alright for Iran to retaliate to our attack with a nuclear strike?
Also, Iraq and Syria have never attacked the United States. Ever. Islamic dog... And then you quote Norm Chomsky a noted Communist, what gall coming from a fascist Oh, shit. Just say earlier in your rambling and meaningless post that you're insane. It will help me avoid wasting time on discussing facts and history with someone who's unable to deal with such entities.
And for the record, it's Daniel Pearl, who was murdered by cruel and vile people. Your solution is to kill anyone who looks or seems to agree with the murderers. The correct solution is to bring justice to the people who actually committed the crime, and not kill their neighbors instead.
That accompanies my feelings of nostalgia for an idyllic America past when our president's lies were only about consensual blow-jobs, cum-stained dresses, and exotically aromatic tobacco products.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is a heavily Western centric encyclopedia that's barely seven years old.
Societies tend to skip over their own sins, either due to a lack of self-awareness or a genuine desire to cover up their own atrocities. You're unlikely to find a Roman document questioning their treatment of subjugate populations, and mainstream American culture is no different.
Instead of elevating Ashcroft, you should instead be further denigrating the Bush Administration. If Ashcroft had not weaseled immensely when testifying before the 911 Commission, I might have been willing to cut him some slack, but he refused to accept responsibility for his recent acts, and instead heaped disparagement and blame upon "Gorelick's Wall", which he himself had added another brick onto after becoming AG.
If with honour you valiantly defended The Constitution's virtue from Reno's wanton advances upon it;
Why did you turn into a splay-legged slattern, when General JohnBoy, and Dubya came a sniffing round freedom's backdoor,
whistling the theme song from the movie "Deliverance"?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
It is NOT within the traditional role of the AG to fire U.S. Attorneys, simply because they chose to not pursue frivolous, politically motivated charges, which was a part of the agenda of a vengeful administration.
Yes, U.S. attorneys are chosen based on partisan decisions, but they are supposed to be largely independent after appointment, and not taken to task by a venal AG, whose motivation was electoral gains, because they refused to file charges without substantiating evidence.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Whatever else one may think of surveillance and wiretapping (and believe me, it is not something I love), outsourcing it to private businesses does not sound like a good idea to me. The police are, at least in principle, trained in law enforcement and they are required to know about civil right. If the police are caught abusing their power it is in itself a punishable offence - at least in principle; if private persons do the same, they are not held responsible in the same way.
Accountability is one of the most important checks and stops in a modern society.
... assuming, of course, that that is what the people in power actually want -- and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise.
[ dons tinfoil hat ]
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I can't see how anyone's modding has censored you as I was able to see all of your posts.
Notice your first post is at 1, basically visible to everyone. This second post, full of all caps insults directed towards no one in particular is at -1.
Oh well now I'm off topic, and probably deserve a downmod myself.
There are loonies to be placated in any political faction, but the current Republican party has ones I just can't abide by. I don't really want to hang out with the Vegans, NOW, and 9/11 Truthers, but I'll pick them over the Christian Dominionists any day of the week.
The problem is that anybody with the wrong skin color is in danger of being a suspected terrorist. That's how it works in airports, at any rate. Heck, you don't even need to be brown to apply these days.
Question: Could somebody provide the names of actual people who have proof (not claims) that their rights have been violated by this policy?
Wiretapping is considered covert surveillance. The only surefire way to know if you've had your rights violated that I can think of would be if somebody were to break into a federal office, (or a corporate one, if the work is being contracted out), and thumb through some files. In other words, no. Of course not. But it's a moot point, because the president himself admitted that it was going on.
One would expect MSNBC to salivate at the prospects and showcase them on their lineup every night if this was the case.
One would expect this only if one also happened to be a naive television viewer. MSNBC is a corporate entity owned by an arms manufacturer which donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign and thus is obviously not salivating at the prospect of attacking the government. Surely you've been following the Mcclellan story and all its offshoot items of note; other people standing up to comment on media complicity. --But that's just the latest indicator of reality as it stands; if you want to learn more, spend some time reviewing such easily available sources as the various Bill Moyers interviews on the subject conducted over the years.
The greater point here, I think, is that some people are intent on maintaining blind faith in the government when it is far from justified.
-FL
I am not really here right now.
A lot of people apply the label "Christian" to themselves. That does not mean they really deserve to wear it, though.
Disclaimer: this applies to people in general; I am not judging certain specific people here.
I am not really here right now.
From what I understand in order to do data sifting that gives you any useful information you need to have enough 'normal' background data in order to find something 'ab-normal'. That's why I think that they have everyone's phone information instead of just the information from warrants. Then when you have interest in someone specific you can use their patterns to find other persons of interest. Even though most of these other persons of interest will probably be false positives.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
There is a progression in effect with these evil-doers; these holdovers from the Nixon years, (half of them are the same people, for goodness sake.)
Here's an example of that progression. This disturbing article is current; it's happening right now
This new program starts in D.C. next week. . .
Now, here's an article from 2002, New York. The original link is dead, but the Internet Archive had it on file. . . Notice the difference in intensity? The new version of this program doesn't include guys mowing your lawn. What will be the next step in the process?
MI5 style organization, run by the Executive, oversite by Legislature, warrants issued by in-Org Judges, clear rules on collection, disclosure, and retention - I think that is a Constitutionally Compatible solution that even Jefferson would have not liked, but gone for. I think partisan in-fighting will keep us from getting here, and as long as that happens, the President will do what he has to do to protect the country, or we can all pay the price for not doing so.
/LabMonkey09
Oh right, your idiot ass CAN'T refute me, so you hide behind mod points you disgusting piece of trash.
Why would anyone want to talk to you? You're obviously a zealot, juvenile and angry. What point would there be in saying anything to anyone like that? It's not that no one has anything to say to you, it's that it would be stupid to say anything to someone like you. As you've already shown, any attempts to do so is met with bile and faux superiority.
Blah. Didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I don't want this post to be anonymous, so here you go...
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
"Article II, of course, is what Bush has argued gives the President virtually unlimited power during war" There is a problem with that thinking. We're not at war and haven't been for decades. It's pathetic that our leaders don't know dick about our Constitution. Congress alone has the authority to declare war. No declaration, no war, no war powers. Before some tard trots out the oxymoronic term "undeclared war": If a man and woman live together, fuck, share income and responsibilities, are they married? Not unless they are *married*. They are either married, or they are not. They married if and only if they went through the procedure to become married. Calling them married does not make them married. A couple is married if they are married. A couple could be married and live a thousand miles apart, never fuck and never speak to each other. Is a bar fight a war? It has all the symptoms of a war, but it is not a war because it ISN'T. We're not at war because Congress hasn't said we are. With that fact in mind, we should be able to tell BushCo that unless he gets a declaration of war he doesn't get war powers.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
GREAT REFERENCE!
I am a contributing member of the American Civil Liberties Union. But they never gave me a card, so I cannot say I am a card carrying member.
I was leaning toward Obama this past year, but this info really make McCain look like a Fascist.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Conservatives have informed me on multiple occasions that liberty and greater privacy are leftist goals. I'm sure tjstork would be happy to discuss this with you.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"It follows logically that lesser freedoms like the right to privacy can be depensed of for the individual when they are a threat to the security of the state as a whole to which the individual is dependant."
I disagree because the U.S. constitution proceeds from the position that all rights are held by the people and they grant some to the state. Thus it is the individual to whom the state is dependent.
Thus, if the state becomes a threat to the rights (and thus the security) of the individual we may collectively abolish that power of the state.
--Kirt
YOU seemed compelled to, so that's an exceedingly moronic statement.
And yet YOU did say something to me.
I agree, you are stupid.
When you want to look for something you'll find it and if you look hard enough you'll find anything negative or positive and even from your prospective. Keep in mind two factors, everytime you use your ATM card for cash a picture is being taken and if its not you, how sweet it is.