Congress Tries To Strip Power From Anti-Wiretap Judge

palegray.net writes "Congress is attempting to strip US District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of his power following his ruling against the government regarding immunity for telecoms in the NSA wiretapping case. Walker was appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has attempted to enforce existing prohibitions against warrantless wiretapping. From the Wired article: 'Walker, the chief judge of the Northern District of California, affirmed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive legal method for conducting surveillance inside the United States against suspected spies and [terrorists]. The Bush Administration argues that Congress's vote to authorize military force against Al Qaeda and the president's inherent war time powers were exceptions to the exclusivity provision.' The article makes the observation that Congress seems to be having difficulties bringing itself to enforce the laws that it has previously passed regarding wiretapping, and seems more interesting in silencing opposing viewpoints." Update: 07/06 16:15 GMT by SS: As several readers have noted, the vote would only limit Judge Walker with respect to this particular case. His other responsibilities would be unaffected.

Comments

You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans should probably try to e-mail your senator or member of congress regarding this. Mr. Walker seems to be one of the good guys, I'd hate to see him go down.

Re:You Americans

[arth1]

You Americans should probably try to e-mail your senator or member of congress regarding this. Mr. Walker seems to be one of the good guys, I'd hate to see him go down.

Just because someone shows integrity doesn't mean he's one of the good guys.
Granted, it's rare to see integrity in bad guys, but luckily it happens.

Re:You Americans

[nurb432]

That is a good way to get put on the watched list as you will be seen as 'un-American'.

Dark times ahead for us there are.

Re:You Americans

[Duradin]

E-mail just gets dumped in the bit bucket. You have to send snail mail with real paper, generally the type that includes the line "pay to the order of" to buy the, err, get the attention of a congresscritter.

Re:You Americans

[jopsen]

That is a good way to get put on the watched list as you will be seen as 'un-American'.

I hope that's a joke... Otherwise you should take pride in being on such a list!

Re:You Americans

[terraformer]

Well you see, if you don't read the email then it does not exist so one needn't act...

Re:You Americans

[multisync]

you should take pride in being on such a list

Yeah, take pride the next time you need to fly and are told at the airport you can't cause you're on the watch list.

Re:You Americans

[nurb432]

Nope. Not a joke at all.

And i'm on a couple of lists already, so i don't need to compound the matter by complaining *in writing*.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the troll mods are out this morning.

Re:You Americans

[b4dc0d3r]

The reason there is no rioting in the streets is:
1) We mostly have decent jobs
2) Even if we don't, we have stuff we can do, like watch tv
3) When the economy is good, we feel unaffected, when it's bad we're just trying to get by
4) This won't affect our internet, tv, choice of cars, schools for the kids, mortgage or rent, and especially not our back yards.
5) the price of high-fructose-laden foods

It looks like more than one reason but it really isn't. Sadly, life is too good right now to be worried about things like our civil rights being eroded.

Re:You Americans

[Pichu0102]

Since when has trying to persuade politicians with anything other than giants piles of money done anything?

Re:You Americans

[Planesdragon]

You're on the watch list? Wow.

Oh, you're not? Ok, then. Stop saying you are.

Re:You Americans

[Hurricane78]

Well. Then I will be even more proud and stay out of Chin^H^H^H^Hthe USA instead of being forced to go there. (Because I'd only go there If someone would point a pistol to my head.)

But if anyone from the US wants to come here until it gets better, because he can't stand it,... then he's very welcome.

P.S.: Id' not recommend the EU, because they are imitating the US very much.

Re:You Americans

[Hurricane78]

Hmm... you know, I just read something about psychology, and this defense mechanism is one of the worst, leading to schizophrenia and living in an illusion. point 1-5 are starting to get drugs you use, as a replacement for the things you are missing deep inside of you.

The illusion is, that life is too good. In reality it isn't. But you would never allow yourself to accept this, because facing that reality (like: having allowed this cruelties to go on for such a losg time) is so painfully destroying your world, that you could not handle it.
Believe me. I know too good what I'm talking about, and after 10 years it still hurts sometimes, to face it myself.

Re:You Americans

[Stew Gots]

It looks like more than one reason but it really isn't.

What you list is very old knowledge dating at least as far back as the Romans and generally referred to as "bread and circuses". In essence, keep the populace fed and distracted and they won't rebel.

You miss one very big innovation against dissent in modern America though - the corporate culture. The world of employment - background checks, drug tests, internet searches of what potential (and actual) employees are doing, etc. - puts a whole extra layer of difficulty and fear between citizens and their government. In most states you can be fired for any reason at all and have no legal recourse. That not only chills but deep freezes a lot of free speech and expression. Without laws to curb the corporations democracy, or what is left of it, is ultimately screwed.

Re:You Americans

[WindBourne]

Dark times have been here for a long time.

Re:You Americans

[Buran]

So does snailmail. Congress conveniently set up a huge pit that eats snailmail sent to them and spits it out weeks later, by which time it is no longer relevant. They don't give a shit about their comstituents. They even have responded to messages I've sent them thanking me for my support -- when I'd written in AGAINST the issue at hand!

Re:You Americans

[dkleinsc]

Forget flying: it's only a matter of time before it becomes finding employment. At least, that's what happened in the 50's.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians only want money so they can buy advertising and get votes. What they really want is to get elected. If you can get enough people to complain that they start thinking this is going to make them lose, they'll change their tune.

Re:You Americans

[MindlessAutomata]

Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.

"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you. Getting fired or losing your girlfriend over what you say or think is just a fact of life, and you trying to change that requires an even greater degree of control over what they exert on you.

I like you how suddenly make the switch from "employment" to "fear between citizens and government".

You can be fired for no reason at all and have no recourse? Well, duh, you can quit hiring your maid for no reason at all, too; should she be able to take you to court over you firing her? Some people will fire you over terrible reasons--maybe they are racist, maybe they just don't like you. That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.

If you want control, the person you have to depend on, protect, and think for needs to be yourself primarily.

Re:You Americans

[dreamchaser]

You should probably try to RTFA and see that Congress is just going to pass the immunity law which will then take it out of the judge's hands unless the Supreme Court rules against it in the inevitable lawsuit. Yes, he does seem like one of the good guys, and thankfully they aren't doing anything to him. The law that they are going to pass, and trust me they WILL pass it thanks to the telco lobby, takes it out of his and any other judges' hands for the time being.

No specific action is being taken against Judge Walker. His name isn't in the bill, and Congress hasn't threatened to impeach him.

Re:You Americans

[Stew Gots]

Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.

Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.

"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you.

And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.

That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.

No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.

Re:You Americans

[cheater512]

But arent said senators and members of congress the bad guys?

Re:You Americans

[palegray.net]

I probably could have worded the title a bit better, but here's what it boils down to:

1. Congress passes laws protecting Americans from warrantless wiretaps.
2. The government (NSA) works with major telecoms to engage in illegal wiretapping.
3. The government tries to justify it by waving the "time of war" banner around.
4. A federal judge rules on the illegality of it, and is interested in hauling the telecoms into his court to explain themselves.
5. Congress then proceeds to strip this judge of his power in the case by removing his ability to influence the situation.

So there you go.

Re:You Americans

[Maxmin]

In most states you can be fired for any reason at all and have no legal recourse.

Assuming you meant "states" of the U.S., that is most definitely not true, though you would be a lot more accurate by restating that as "fired for any reason at all and have expensive legal recourse." You'll need a good and strong case to attract a labor lawyer willing to take on a very recently unemployed worker.

Then there's the matter of unions, which raise higher the requirements for being fired, bringing with it good and bad consequences for society.

...corporate culture. The world of employment...

AKA military culture:

• Ranks: mercs (consultants), enlisteds (regular employees), NCOs (supervisors and leads), and officers (management, directors on up, generally well-educated and/or connected.)
• Enemies - the competition
• Campaigns - new product releases, adverts
• Remuneration - for most, not as good as you'd like, so there's always envy
• Strategies and tactics
• Recruitment - HR, recruiters
• Consequences - courts-martial aka firing

Would corporate culture have evolved with all these parallels without the military as an obvious model? Who knows, maybe maybe not.

Re:You Americans

[MindlessAutomata]

Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.

Those are absolutely different scenarios than having a person agree to terms upon accepting a job. You aren't owed a job, nor are you owed their money. A fascinating concept.

And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.

Again, this "gimme" mentality is frightening: you are not owed the job, it is not something you are "entitled" to, they offer it to whom they want, when they want, much like you call up the plumber when you want and on your terms (and what they agree with).

I find it strange when you talk about business getting a stranglehold on government, when that's really a different issue and your solution is... more government? What do you think is going to happen?

No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.

It has nothing to do with Rambo; it has more to do with not accepting communist principles and the idea that that world is supposed to work exactly as I want it to all the time.

I'm not owed a job, or anything, from anyone; if worst case scenario they don't like who I am then that's business and I go elsewhere. The fact that the government and business are in bed or that someone can look up what you put on your own myspace profile for the world to see are really different issues altogether.

Maybe you should be more careful about your own reputation if it's so sullied you cannot find a job, or be a little smarter with what you say to people.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

What can readers do about it?

not much

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I have schizophrenia you insensitive clod.

Re:You Americans

[hedwards]

That's not true, in most states employment is done at will, unless there's a specific contract involved. A person can be fired for any reason except for one of a small number of banned reasons.

It's perfectly acceptable to fire somebody or not hire them because you don't like the color of their eyes, as long as it doesn't result in not hiring people of a protected class.

Even if it is a banned reason for firing, it's still prohibitively expensive in many cases and incredibly hard to prove.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

They can pass the law, but judges don't have to abide by it. Judges are not required to abide by laws which are in violation of the US constitution when it prevents them from examining the laws for possible conflicts with the US constitution. In fact there would be very little point to them having their own branch if they did have to.

Congress from time to time decides that the judicial branch doesn't have the right to check and balance the government.

I seem to recall not so long ago that SCOTUS decided that habeas corpus applies to detainees in gitmo, I'm curious as to how that case got that far if the courts weren't hearing those cases.

Yes, I know judicial activism, but really when you get a party so hell bent on dismantling all of the constitution which doesn't provide guns and a military, the judicial branch is going to have to step in for some protections.

Re:You Americans

[dreamchaser]

Unfortunately nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from granting immunity after the fact. The SCOTUS could invalidate the new FISA bill with regards the mechanics of the wiretapping, but they can't touch the immunity clause.

Re:You Americans

[dpilot]

Several years ago my son was applying at Wal Mart, and part of the application was an ethics test. He told me some of the questions, and it seemed to me to be more of a no-ethics test. I told him I was proud that he flunked.

Re:You Americans

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>things like our civil rights being eroded.

Bumper sticker: "I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway"

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh, you can quit hiring your maid for no reason at all, too; should she be able to take you to court over you firing her?

Boy, are you right-wing nutcases out of touch. (And, appropriately, I suspect you'll think I'm talking about laws existing to protect maids, which probably exist but aren't the point here.)

Re:You Americans

[mabhatter654]

damn activist judges that don't interpret the letter of the law as written by congress.... oh wait, he was appointed by Bush... and he IS saying the letter of the law as written was broken... what half of slashdot has said all along!!!

To reward this resolve for freedom, they're going to simply pass a law around it. What a slap in the face to the judicial system!

Re:You Americans

[Maxmin]

I think we agree in principle, it's just not that black and white. Employers do have to show cause (violation of company policy etc., easy to do) and cover ass (document it.) At least the states I've worked in (blue.) I've been on both sides of the table, in two states, and I definitely agree it's expensive and hard to fight. Ratio of resources, company vs. ex-employee.

Employers have it over employees, no doubt; the reason most allegedly incompetent employees keep their jobs is, firing them and hiring a replacement is a big hassle. Paperwork, stress, loss of employee-stored knowledge, etc. Employers would fire more often if it were easier to find replacements, and maintain morale in the rest of employees. Balancing act.

I've seen high and low-level employees, both competent and incompetent, terminated by employers; they know it can be done with relatively low risk because the fired employee almost never fights back.

We have today's corporate culture and Bush's corporation-friendly NLRB to thank for that, only too happy to bend over backward to please the companies they know they'll soon go back to work for.

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers.

I disagree. I have seen here on /. people advocate the view that it is justifiable to kill the owners of property in order to acquire it on the basis of "property is my birthright as a human being". It was expressed as part of a (communist) political view. Protected speech politically, but definitely grounds for instant dismissal from employment. Anyone who advocates in the political area the taking of my life or property ought have no expectation of any benefit from me, through employment or otherwise.

Re:You Americans

[Stew Gots]

You aren't owed a job, nor are you owed their money. A fascinating concept.

And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.

Again, this "gimme" mentality is frightening: you are not owed the job, it is not something you are "entitled" to, they offer it to whom they want, when they want, much like you call up the plumber when you want and on your terms (and what they agree with).

And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.

I find it strange when you talk about business getting a stranglehold on government, when that's really a different issue and your solution is... more government? What do you think is going to happen?

You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.

Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.

Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.

It has nothing to do with Rambo; it has more to do with not accepting communist principles and the idea that that world is supposed to work exactly as I want it to all the time.

By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.

Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.

Maybe you should be more careful about your own reputation if it's so sullied you cannot find a job, or be a little smarter with what you say to people.

And maybe it would behoove you to not see the world quite so simplistically. Activities as basic as making a charitable contribution can be looked up online in seconds. In the electronic age it is an almost effortless exercise to ruin someone's reputation and there are companies that can be hired to both destroy and attempt to resurrect someone. Think about that for awhile and see if you still feel as smug about the issue.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

not being able to get to your aunts house for thanksgiving seems like a small price to pay for your principals and your freedom.

I think the founders of your country laid down their lives for it but your worried that you can't get on a plane. The USA is doomed doomed doomed with this kind of attitude.

Re:You Americans

[Quixote]

Ah yes... the call to the Keyboard Brigade.

Listen up, people. EMAILING DOES NOTHING!. Let me repeat this fundamental truth, since all of you armchair revolutionaries don't seem to get it: EMAILING YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ACHIEVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

You want to make a difference? Make a phonecall. Write letters to the local newspapers (which may be too late for this). Best yet, show up to the representatives' office in person and speak to their aides. And finally, vote: vote with your money and vote with your ballot.

Re:You Americans

[sumdumass]

4 should read a federal judge rules on the legality of it and is interesting in hauling in the NSA the explain themselves. This case isn't about the telecoms but between the group and the government.

Re:You Americans

[Keen Anthony]

Our system is such that we will never be able to remove the influence of rich businessmen over the government. It existed during the time of the founding fathers, and it exists today. It will exist tomorrow.

Accepting that the government will never care about your opinion unless you are a wealthy corporation or a cable news darling of the week; you're really left with just the option of organizing a grass roots campaign to boycott corporations which attempt to influence government to an extent that it really harms the public.

For example, Verizon is pushing hard for telecom immunity. If Verizon customers were gutsy enough to suck up the early termination fee and drop Verizon for its anti-consumer behavior, Verizon would eventually back down. And once a major corporation loses its money, they lose their power.

The problem is, Americans bitch and moan about everything, and yet do nothing, because as previous responses have suggested, we are easily appeased with shiny objects. Consider the Wal*Mart effect on local economies. People will complain, and yet the same people will still shop at Wal*Mart because of the low prices.

Another example: Abercrombie & Fitch and a number of other trendy apparel companies are linked to the sexual exploitation of asian women who work as slave labor on the island of Saipan. I suspect that even if someone were able to get the media to cover this, teenager girls and boys will still buy A&F products.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, so its a case of oh no the commies are coming to get me..
Its amazing how deeply ingrained that fear is in some Americans, it really goes to show how well years of manipulation by a government can actually change a significant proportion of the populations mindset.

The cold war is over... there is no need to be scared of it anymore! haven't you heard, you should be worried about terrorism now.

The idea of an elected government is to protect and improve a society for everyone in it... unfortunately yours seems to have twisted that idea so that its only better for the people who run it and you are so scared of an imaginary ideological enemy that you not only accept it but outright welcome it.

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

So would you also be against anonymous speach since it could enable someone in your employment who holds such views to keep you in the dark while spreading their views? If you're not paying someone 168 hours a week then what possible right do you have to say what they can and can't do in their time provided it's legal.

Re:You Americans

[n3tcat]

6. Profit?

Re:You Americans

[L4t3r4lu5]

Who said that? Get out of my head!

Re:You Americans

[Jedi Alec]

You can be fired for no reason at all and have no recourse? Well, duh, you can quit hiring your maid for no reason at all, too; should she be able to take you to court over you firing her?

Ehmm, yes, that is pretty much the way it works in large parts of western europe and we like it that way, thank you very much. Then again, here in the Netherlands our contracts actually contain provisions to protect both parties, as opposed to just our corporate overlords.

We also have this really weird concept where any company that has more than x employees is obligated to have an employee council containing members voted on by their co-workers, and protected under very strict law, which the big boss is obligated to seek advice from and in some cases even explicit permission to do certain things. Sounds pretty awful, and I used to think it was until I actually ended up in one and realized just how much information never reaches the big boss unless you give Joe Blow from accounting the opportunity to ask some sharp questions, while making sure that he won't get fired for doing so.

Re:You Americans

[KDR_11k]

With the reasonable comes the unreasonable, while you'd want to restrict your employees from advocating killing you the next guy wants to prevent his employees from supporting the party he doesn't vote for.

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

So would you also be against anonymous speach since it could enable someone in your employment who holds such views to keep you in the dark while spreading their views?

Doesn't really work to put words in someone's mouth. The whole legal system is based on "if we find out", yet most people still believe in the necessity of things like "probable cause" even if they agree with the laws in place.

If you're not paying someone 168 hours a week then what possible right do you have to say what they can and can't do in their time provided it's legal.

I didn't say they couldn't say it, didn't say it shouldn't be protected speech politically, just that they should not expect any benefit from me, including continued employment. If they are advocating things that are contrary to my interests I don't see any reason I should be compelled to do business with them, whether as an employee, supplier, customer or in any other way. If I think the benefits of doing business with them outweigh the costs, then that should be my decision, not the governments.

Re:You Americans

[Dan541]

I'm not surprised,

Do or act againsed the goverments wishes and pay the price.

Where have we seen this before?

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

With the reasonable comes the unreasonable, while you'd want to restrict your employees from advocating killing you the next guy wants to prevent his employees from supporting the party he doesn't vote for.

1) We have secret ballots.

2) If your political convictions are not worth a job, on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?

It has always been understood that financial dependence compromises you. The basic nature of employment is subservience. Check out Lawrence Lessig's video "Corruption - The Alpha Version". About 20 minutes in he starts talking about independence. The solution in my view is not to attempt to change the nature of employment, which won't work. If you let an employer be your sole source of income, you are dependent on them, and you are going to feel that bite you at some time (unless you've become so used to it that you don't notice).

My advice: if you need a job right now, start contracting or something in your own time, or at least save enough for a time of unemployment and have your resume and contacts up to date. If you aren't prepared to walk out of that job, you are dependent and you'd better understand that. You can either accept that as a permanent state, or you can do something about it, but crying foul or trying to get laws to protect you job isn't the thing to do. I've worked in jobs where they can't fire someone they want to get rid of, and you'd be better off leaving.

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

In doing so, realize that this current Senate (the Senate is voting, not all of Congress) is composed of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents (who previously were members of the Democratic Party and vote with the Democratic Party). Unless you can consider a Democratic majority part of the "Bush Administration", it's not just El Presidente that is trying to increase the power of the gov't.

These people are in power. They want even more power. Don't pick and choose names, don't say it's the evil Republicans or the evil Democrats. It's evil politicians.

-M

(Captcha: overtake)

Re:You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

That these traitors haven't been lined up and shot, hell, that they have suffered zero consequences whatsoever, sets a sad example to the rest of the world and for our children and theirs. Is everyone in the supposed "free world" so broken-spirited?

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

Doesn't really work to put words in someone's mouth. The whole legal system is based on "if we find out", yet most people still believe in the necessity of things like "probable cause" even if they agree with the laws in place.

fair enough, I shouldn't have phrased it like that.

I didn't say they couldn't say it, didn't say it shouldn't be protected speech politically, just that they should not expect any benefit from me, including continued employment.

Which is fine as long as your company does not have any link/interest/etc with the government.
There are enough banana republics out there where a one or a handful of companies effectively are the government and the only employers at the same time.
Some might claim that America is a fair way down the road of companies having most of the government in their pockets as well.
When your company employs 10 people and doesn't own the local congressman it's no big problem for you to be able to fire your employees for holding political beliefs and operate a don't ask don't tell policy.
On the other hand things look different if you're a large company which is the only significant employer in a region, you've got the local representatives in your pocket and you datamine looking for employees who publicly complain about how your puppet congressman lies,steals and got caught in a truck stop bathroom with a sheep.
At this point you start to fuck with the democratic system and hurt everyones rights.
What if you punish employees for not campaigning for your puppet?

Oh they could just leave if you're such a crappy employer! But wait.... you're also the only work around, they can't leave if they also want to eat and live in a house.
Keep in mind. Some things don't scale well.

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

If your political convictions are not worth a job, on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?

if you're political convictions are not worth X on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to? Replace X with a fun range of things like "homelessness","your childrens wellbeing","your childrens education","starvation","a beating","your life" etc and you get a better idea of where that line leads.

It has always been understood that financial dependence compromises you.

and so it make sense to legislate to make sure people maintain their political freedom even if they need a job to survive.

The solution in my view is not to attempt to change the nature of employment, which won't work.

Sure it does, and since every employer has to deal with it it doesn't even give your competition an advantage unless they're overseas.

If you let an employer be your sole source of income, you are dependent on them, and you are going to feel that bite you at some time (unless you've become so used to it that you don't notice).

very true. so I might want to vote in measures which will protect me somehow.... Last time I checked the government was there to protect as many people as possible, not the handful who happen to have the most money.
sometimes these overlap, sometimes not.

My advice: if you need a job right now, start contracting or something in your own time, or at least save enough for a time of unemployment and have your resume and contacts up to date.

and if my employer(pretty much the only game in town) included a clause saying I couldn't do work in the same field for a different employer. A common clause nowdays. Then I cannot get any kind of parttime job.

If you aren't prepared to walk out of that job, you are dependent and you'd better understand that. You can either accept that as a permanent state, or you can do something about it,

Like getting my elected officials to make sure my employeer doesn't use the massive ammount of power he has to fuck with my rights?

but crying foul or trying to get laws to protect you job isn't the thing to do.

Companies lobby for enough laws aimed at fucking over my rights, why shouldn't I use my vote for to do the same to them?

Re:You Americans

[KDR_11k]

How many people really have the chance to create such backup plans? Where would a burger flipper work as a contractor? The low skill sectors have huge numbers of willing workers and not nearly enough work to fill all positions. Not everyone works in a field where they can choose their job so easily (and often those fields don't provide enough income to allow any serious saving either).

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

Also for your point 1 he said "supporting" not "voting for".
Where does the employeers right to tell an employee what to do end?
If I can fire someone for standing on a soapbox and supporting a party I don't like then can I fire someone for not standing on a soapbox in his "free time" and supporting the party I like?
Should I have the right to fire someone for not bringing me a photo of their ballot and a signed statement affirming that they voted for who I want them to?
After all they have the right to vote, the right to make their own record of their vote and the right to tell me who they voted for if they so choose.
I have the right to ask them who they voted for if I so wish.
They have the right to tell me and show the confirmation or refuse to tell me and not show the confirmation.
I have the right to fire them for any reason I want like not showing me the proof or if the proof shows the wrong box ticked.

Isn't freedom great :)

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

Don't bother, people who toe that line seem to always be high skill set people who think that low skill set people are just fools for not going to college or having a pile of money set aside at all times for emergencies and so shouldn't have any rights.

Re:You Americans

[AlamedaStone]

Just because someone shows integrity doesn't mean he's one of the good guys.

That is exactly what it means. An opponent is someone showing integrity and approaching the system from their own different position. The bad guys are the ones undermining the system entirely. You may be politically opposed to this judge (and I would guess that I am as well, if he was a Bush nominee), but he's still one of the good guys.

We can come together as a country and kick the criminals out, even if we aren't all of the same political bent. In fact, we basically must, if we hope to return the Republic to the people.

Re:You Americans

[Vancorps]

and what's even worse? Now you can't even get drunk on an airplane for fear of 20 years in federal prison if your actions someone arbitrarily considers a "disturbance." So they've done everything they can to make flying an unpleasant experience and now the government steps in and forces us to do it sober!

Re:You Americans

[digitrev]

Were they anything like the ones I received when I applied at Future Shop? Because I seem to remember being asked something along these lines.

Jon was closing the store, and was just about to finish when he realized that he didn't have any bus money. He takes $3.00 (bus fare in Ottawa) from his till to get home, and returns it the next morning. What do you think of what Jon did?

Now, you had to answer this question for the first time online, and they don't give you any gray area, just some black or white "fire him, reprimand him, let him go" kind of answers. In person, they seem to be fishing for you to say that what he did was wrong. Now, it wasn't the best thing (he should've tried to call for a ride, get a ride home with someone, borrow cash from someone, etc...), but if that's his only choice, he should be able to do it. Especially if he lives an hour+ walk from the store.

Re:You Americans

[MindlessAutomata]

And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.

Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone.

And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.

Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job the best. It matters not; it's their job to offer.

Additionally, it's nearly impossible to tell why you got fired most of the time; usually the reason is simple: they no longer need you, or you are incompetent at your job.

You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.

Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.

Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.

People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people". You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. You want it all, a nice car, an easy life, but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself, just like the rest of the country, or even the world, is. You want an easy answer and that's praying to the gods (in this case, the government) to save you. Of course, they won't... and in this case, can't, without putting people on an even smaller leash.

By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.

Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.

Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.

If the corporate foot is on your neck, you put it there. You are NOT a slave to your workplace, despite what you probably tell your friends ("I'm a damn wage slave! This is intolerable!") and they are not a slave to you and do not have to hire you on their terms, whether it's considered more "ethical" or not (and by this I mean hiring you because you are a Republican/Democrat/etc.. in some aspects, it's more than understandable, who wants to hire a petty Marxist that probably

Re:You Americans

[MindlessAutomata]

Ehmm, yes, that is pretty much the way it works in large parts of western europe and we like it that way, thank you very much.

Ahahahahahahaha! Oh Christ, that's rich!

Europe always makes me giggle, if I lived over there I'd be sure not to hire a maid--too risky. How ridiculous. Socialism really does have a strong grip over there, huh?

Re:You Americans

[dpilot]

That one's black and white compared to some of the questions he had. If I had to sum it up on one phrase, "My store, right or wrong!" There was even a question asking essentially that, from what I remember. It was about 5 years ago, after all.

Re:You Americans

[Qzukk]

If I can fire someone for standing on a soapbox and supporting a party I don't like then can I fire someone for not standing on a soapbox in his "free time" and supporting the party I like?

Sure, and then that person can stand on his soapbox and tell everyone that you're a shitty employer who forces people to profess their love for [insert party here] and spend X hours of uncompensated time a week spreading that love as a condition for employment.

Of course, I think half of the people posting in this thread about how employees shouldn't expect to be able to do whatever they want during their unpaid time would immediately start screaming for their lawyer as soon as one of their ex-employees started exercising that right once they're no longer paid at all.

Re:You Americans

[dutin]

I had the same thing happen to me. I kept the letter to frame it. But I never did get around to framing it.

Re:You Americans

[slapout]

Have you tried phoning them? I'm sure they won't answer, but you could leave a message stating your opinion on the issue. If a lot of people call about the same issue, they will hear about it.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

Re:You Americans

[Skjellifetti]

I had to take one of those one time. For each question, I asked myself "How would a homicidal ax murderer answer this question" and picked that choice. I didn't get the job.

fire him, reprimand him, let him go

You ax him, of course.

Re:You Americans

[Stew Gots]

Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone....Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job th

Again, I am not arguing that anyone is entitled to a job. You don't seem stupid so I have to assume you are just being deliberately obtuse in repeating this point in an effort to conceal a losing argument.

And, no, you don't have the right to "discriminate in any sense you see fit". It might be something you would like to do but if you have been discriminating on the very well know parameters of race, gender, etc., during the last 40 or so years you may have been breaking the law.

People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people"...

This is interesting but rather off-point. Boycotts and such do offer another avenue to redress matters but don't negate the need to protect political activity directly from corporate interference. It's an additional weapon but not a solution unto itself.

And I have to mention your classic "but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself" remark. Why is that conservative and pro-business types are always so quick to portray themselves as self-reliant individualists when it is the furthest thing from the truth? At the first sign of competition or any threat to their income streams they flood their lobbyists and trade organizations with cash and go whining to their congressmen for special dispensations. But should an ordinary citizen or consumer seek relief they are tarred as weak and aiming to enlarge the nanny state. It's rank hypocrisy. This isn't the 80s anymore and no one buys it.

Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.

SWOOSH! If you didn't understand my response to your inane remark the first time I doubt a second attempt will help.

If the corporate foot is on your neck...

I'm sorry but these are four paragraphs of nonsense and invalid assumptions about me and the world not worthy of a response. You are arguing with some little preconceived model in your head, not me.

Ironically being able to publicly see who you donate money to, above $200, is legislation passed by what I assume to be the party that more identifies with your political outlook, the Democrats. Assuming you agree with this, it shows you really do want it all, don't you? You want "openness" and then complain about people being able to scrutinize what you do!

Where is the inconsistency? The information can be publicly available. I am arguing that it shouldn't be accessed or screened by corporations as a basis employment. A corporation may discover I am black or female the moment I walk through the door. That doesn't give them the right to deny me a job on that basis.

And yes, I do want it all - or at least to strive for it. At no point in history has the country been perfect but it moves forward because there are people who push it - unlike all those "self-reliant" folks who are willing to accept "That's just the way it is."

Re:You Americans

[paulgrant]

Fuck'em. Thats right, I said it.

I fucking hate fascist nazi's.

Re:You Americans

[paulgrant]

Sue the corporations on court for discrimination - can u say class-action?

Re:You Americans

[paulgrant]

Start a business - you know, like Americans used to do?

Re:You Americans

[paulgrant]

One of my friends went to interview for a job, and the HR department went through this whole rigamorole asking him personality questions blah blah. I told'm the minute he told me the first question I would have told them to take the job and go fuck themselves. If it ain't related to my capacity to do the job, it ain't none of your business. i don't ask the CEO why he runs around wearing silk panties, so why the fuck should he be inquirin' if I'm after being friendly or not (and in case u haven't picked up on it, i go towards antagonistic when it comes with dealing with shitheads).

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

if you're political convictions are not worth X on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to? Replace X with a fun range of things like "homelessness","your childrens wellbeing","your childrens education","starvation","a beating","your life" etc and you get a better idea of where that line leads.

"That line" doesn't lead there at all. Nobody has the responsibility to give you a job, a home, attend to your children's well being, education or your food supply. The requirement not to beat you or kill you is already covered by laws against assault and murder. If someone is homeless, jobless etc they have no legal recourse against me. I didn't do anything to them to make them incapable of self employment, let them make their own arrangements.

Like getting my elected officials to make sure my employeer doesn't use the massive ammount of power he has to fuck with my rights?

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and continued employment with the employer of their choice (regardless of the employers wishes)?"

An employer who fires you is not doing anything to your rights, he is exercising his. Employment usually happens on the employer's property, paid for with the employer's money. What makes you think it is your right to enter his property and receive wages from his money unless it is by contract with him entered in to and continued willingly by both of you?

Companies lobby for enough laws aimed at fucking over my rights, why shouldn't I use my vote for to do the same to them?

Because then both you and your employer have lost your rights to the government.

As a disclaimer: I'm not an employer, just someone who has come to believe that the conditions of employment are not the problem, but the condition of being employed. I'd much rather lobby to have conditions more conducive to profitable self employment than to better conditions of employment. I am in general anti-employment, as a part of that I'm also anti corporations person-like rights. Any legal framework that entices people to give up their freedom for a paycheck is a net negative. I am of the opinion that wanting better employment is like wanting a cushion in your cage. The thing to be angry about is not that your cage isn't good enough, but that you are in a cage.

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

When your company employs 10 people and doesn't own the local congressman it's no big problem for you to be able to fire your employees for holding political beliefs and operate a don't ask don't tell policy. On the other hand things look different if you're a large company which is the only significant employer in a region,

The problems caused by the existence of large corporations with persons rights (but not responsibilities) won't be solved by regulating the behaviour of corporations, but their existence. Another reply I made in this thread gives a bit more of my view on this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605137&cid=24096783

Keep in mind. Some things don't scale well.

Indeed, corporations and governments being two of them. More regulation won't help while you have a docile subservient population who believe they need one for their sustenance and the other for protection against the first, establishing the power of both at the expense of that population.

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

And my point is that the law has to take into account that in an employment situation 1 party is automatically in a position to blackmail the other.
It would be nice if we all had the financial security to be able to be self employed but that just isn't the case.
all men are not created equal, some are born into poverty where the only real option if they want to eat is to get a job at walmart while others are born into money where they can get a good education, learn how to run a company etc and have the social and financial stability to take the chance of their little buisness falling apart.

Because then both you and your employer have lost your rights to the government.

situation 1: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for any in my favor net result: I'm fucked. situation 2: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for legislation in my favor as well. net result: Both have a harder time. situation 3: non existant since every large company will eventually push for laws which will help them at the expense of everyone else.

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

Indeed, corporations and governments being two of them.

Problem is: You can't really easily stop the first from growing without hurting someones rights.
"yes your medium company is much better than the others but we're going to force you to limit it's size."
And the second will tend to grow in times of emergency when people actually do need it and will then tend to want to maintain the same size.
Government is also good for some things. I quite like that the government pays for schools and (where I live) university education for everyone. (which btw does more to give people a chance to have a decent life than any ammount of food stamps)

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

Problem is: You can't really easily stop the first [corporations] from growing without hurting someones rights.

No limited liability (limitations on liability for your actions is not a right), no right to lobby government (individuals who are in corporations may, but only personal funding, any corporate funding resulting in mandatory disbanding and confiscation of assets for the company). Done.

Re:You Americans

[HungryHobo]

I like the way you think! :D
I've always wished that shareholders could be held liable for the companies actions. Own 33% of a company which kills 20 people through dumping something nasty or faulty heart valves? The company is taken to court and a sentence handed down. Now you have to serve a third of that sentence.
I predict a sudden upswing in ethical behaviour if companies were treated like this. but of course this will never happen.

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

situation 2: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for legislation in my favor as well. net result: Both have a harder time.

I presume you did a copy and paste and that "don't" is meant to be a "do".

So you can be content with the harder time you have as long as you can make someone else have a hard time too. Let me know how that system works out.

all men are not created equal, some are born into poverty where the only real option if they want to eat is to get a job at walmart while others are born into money where they can get a good education, learn how to run a company

I don't believe that people are in general incapable of running a business. All the skills and mindset can be learnt if you wish to seek the knowledge. I do believe that most people are effectively brainwashed to live dependant lives. It is difficult to overcome, but it is worth the effort to get out of the cage.

You believe that people are incapable and want the government to help them, increasing the size and power of the government at the expense of those people, all in the name of protecting their freedom and rights. I believe that they are capable of exercising their own freedom and rights. I find you view inherently insulting towards people and mine respectful, yet I know that most people will choose your view over mine. I don't understand why, and suspect that I don't want to either. I find it sad that people will sell themselves so cheaply.

Re:You Americans

[Nutria]

and what's even worse? Now you can't even get drunk on an airplane for fear of 20 years in federal prison if your actions someone arbitrarily considers a "disturbance." So they've done everything they can to make flying an unpleasant experience and now the government steps in and forces us to do it sober!

Exercising self-control in public is not too much to ask.

Re:You Americans

[dkleinsc]

For people who were blacklisted, that wasn't much of an option either. Even if we're assuming that they completely changed careers (from being academics, musicians, actors, screenwriters, that sort of thing) to being businessmen, blacklisting meant that any sort of economic transaction with you would put the organization you were dealing with at risk of being blacklisted. That included making loans, or buying from or selling to any business that was run by blacklisted people.

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

How many people really have the chance to create such backup plans? Where would a burger flipper work as a contractor? The low skill sectors have huge numbers of willing workers and not nearly enough work to fill all positions. Not everyone works in a field where they can choose their job so easily (and often those fields don't provide enough income to allow any serious saving either).

Everybody can work towards it. In my case, my circumstances during my teen years were not conducive to me finishing school. I haven't flipped burgers, but I started out as a seasonal fruit picker and farm labourer, which is at about the same level. I have over time also worked as an assistant office admin, in sales, truck driving, machinery operation, construction and in various manufacturing roles. Whatever it took, whatever I could get. For the operators licences that I have, I got them on my own time, they were not part of employer provided training. The point is that independence is something you obtain for yourself. You have to take it, it isn't really given to you.

I've had times when I've literally had to do things like punch a new hole in my belt due to losing weight from not having enough food. Only short term thankfully. I've had jobs with crappy wages and conditions, I've gone into business myself and had if fold and be back in employment again. It isn't easy. But if you let someone dictate the time you start work, the time you eat lunch, the time you finish work, the place you work and how much money you get paid, you're only kidding yourself if you think you're free. Adding protection against being fired is like requiring an additional lock on the inside of your cage.

The communists were right about one thing: you need to own the means of production. They were wrong about how to go about that and nearly everything else. For a burger flipper or similar level employee, here is what I would say as some steps towards independence:

1 - Read. It was illegal to teach slaves to read for a reason and that reason is that it is easier to become free if you are knowledgeable. If you can't afford books, use the library, the internet, buy second hand. Educate yourself in practical skills to provide things for yourself that you either can't get or have to pay someone else too much for now. Educate yourself in the liberal arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts as much as you can, especially "grammar, rhetoric and logic" ie: how to think and communicate ideas. (Howto: read classic literature, join toastmasters, for logic try starting with Lewis Carrol's "The Game of Logic", cheap on amazon, cheaper at the project gutenberg). Learn about negotiating, sales and marketing. Learn to understand the ways you are being manipulated so you can counteract that. Learn how to negotiate for a job, wage rise and to promote your own products/services when you are ready.

2 - Buy tools.

Step one makes you capable of production (among other things) step two gives you the means of production. You are at this stage beginning to operate as a capitalist ie: you are acquiring possessions that enable you to increase benefit to yourself. Go for it. I've been going down this path for several years. I haven't attained the full measure of freedom I'm aiming for yet, I'm employed at the moment, but I am at the stage where my employers power holds no fear for me. I'm there because it suits my purpose, not because I'm trapped. Just yesterday, after I posted in this thread, we were temporarily stood down because we've been producing faster than we've been selling. It's not because of politics but still some people are quite distressed. Me, I'll work anyway, get some of my accumulated holidays paid out and put the money into investment. A few years ago I would have suffered loss with the rest of them. Among the wage earners, there are two millionaires at our site that I know of. They both got that way by what they did outside, not by just saving wages. Sure becoming a millionaire isn't likely for most, but they could back themselves up with enough savings/earning capacity to not fear a boss, even if losing a job would be inconvenient.

Re:You Americans

[rohan972]

I didn't keep track of usernames in the thread, I've been replying to you as if you're different people. If you're interested, I've replied to the same post you did here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605137&cid=24110743

Re:You Americans

[paulgrant]

steal from every organization that isn't black-listed.

ptbob

[ptbob]

Sounds like a typical case of "These rules are for other people, not us". Mr Bush seems to like that thought process.

Re:ptbob

[v1]

Reminds me of Nixon, "I am not a crook!", yes I broke the law but the laws don't apply to The President.

The Bush Administration argues that Congress's vote to authorize military force against Al Qaeda and the president's inherent war time powers were exceptions to the exclusivity provision.

So maybe this is why the "war" keeps dragging on and on? As long as we have a war going, he thinks he can do anything he wants? (and is often the case)

We had a "war" going on with Nixon in the house too. I see a pattern developing.

Re:ptbob

[zappepcs]

If it continues, it may not stop until there is a war something like the one we called 'the war between the states' among other things. Where congress has failed I see some states taking issue with the Federal government and making bold steps like several stated declaring gun bans unconstitutional, 33? states refusing Real ID, and several other very bold statements. Several localities have issued warrants for the arrest of the president and vice president. These things are not just funny party stories. It really might take only one argument like the one surrounding this story to set of a chain of events that cannot be undone.

Re:ptbob

[thetoadwarrior]

That might make sense aside from the fact the war started with France (since it was their colony) and Kennedy took us in there long before Nixon was president.

Re:ptbob

[v1]

Nixon was in no hurry to get us out of the war though, that's the difference. He was taking advantage of the situation, prolonging it for his own benefit.

Re:ptbob

[Macrat]

So maybe this is why the "war" keeps dragging on and on? As long as we have a war going, he thinks he can do anything he wants? (and is often the case)

What do you think the "war" was created for in the first place?

Re:ptbob

[Acapulco]

"Mr. Bush" and "tought process" in the same sentence? Something's not ri...Wait a sec...lemme got back a bit...
"Mr. Bush" and "thought" in the same sentence? Are you feeling ok?

Re:ptbob

[rpillala]

To complete this pattern you should read A People's History of the United States. Here's a sample from page 238 at Google Books:

Under the deafening noise of the war, Congress was passing and Lincoln was signing into law a whole series of acts to give business interests what they wanted, and what the agrarian South had blocked before secession. The Republican platform of 1860 had been a clear appeal to businessmen. Now Congress in 1861 passed the Morrill Tariff. This made foreign goods more expensive, allowed American manufacturers to raise their prices, and forced American consumers to pay more.

Zinn continues on to describe a Homestead Act that allowed people with means to buy up land in the west for a low price (if you had means), and the government's gift of tens of millions of acres of public land to railroads.

Apparently giving business interests what they want is no longer enough, or the people in power need more power to deliver on the promise of all that lobbyist money. The quotation names the Republican party but I think it's well agreed these days that both major parties are equally likely to be owned by lobbies.

Re:ptbob

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a pattern developing.

Whats that? A pattern of rabid leftists resorting to hyperbole so support their backwards agendas? I see that too.

Re:ptbob

[Anonymous Coward]

We should have revolutions against our governments for the hell of it. Could be a lot of fun.

Re:ptbob

[Digital End]

The type of person capable of becomeing president is not the kind of person we want to be president

Re:ptbob

[Anonymous Coward]

We have one every two years, attacking a different part of the government each time. Unfortunately not enough of the right people are willing to participate.

And if your comment was aimed at armed revolution, ask yourself this: if this is what we get when there's no reason to fear standing up and standing for election, imagine what we'd get with a bunch who gain power through violent force?

Re:ptbob

[sumdumass]

I'm pretty sure Nixon was the one who got us out. Not in a hurry and doing it before he resigned? I'm not sure those belong together.

Actually, we left Vietnam prematurely. The north was ready to give up until the public sentiment shifted. It we would have pulled a bush and stayed the course despite calls for withdraw, we would have came out on top. Most Monday morning quarterbacks think that was the case. The north saw it was losing after the tet offensive failed. They lost all ground they took durring the surprise attack within 3 days of it.

Re:ptbob

[sydbarrett74]

I'm pretty sure Nixon was the one who got us out.

No. Gerald Ford was the one who got us out. Nixon resigned in August of 1974; we pulled out in 1975, on Ford's watch.

Re:ptbob

[sumdumass]

Perhaps it was both of them.

They may have come out under ford, but Nixon did a lot of work on making it happen.

Re:ptbob

[L4t3r4lu5]

[Insert 1984 "Unending war, scarcity, control of populace" etc. reference here]

Re:ptbob

[KDR_11k]

So what would the US have gained from winning Vietnam instead of losing?

Re:ptbob

[sumdumass]

So what would the US have gained from winning Vietnam instead of losing?

it is hard to say exactly, the entirety of our history would be different to some degree at least a free south. It could be possible that the USSR would have folded in it's experiment with communism a lot earlier and that North Korea would have been a lot less of a threat if China saw that their help didn't was as effective as they wished in Vietnam. It could also be that nothing different other then bragging rights or that the people voted to just just surrender to the communist at a later date.

One thing would be for certain, all the lives lost and American soldier maimed during the battles who weren't volunteering but drafted wouldn't have had several decades of protesters yelling it was all for nothing because they failed in their objective and lost the war. That is something that has bugged me for quite a while and it basically took a generation separated from the war, a generation who's dad or uncle was killed or in the wheel chair or missing an arm or leg because of the war, before the public sentiment and attitudes towards Vietnam vets started to turn around. Championing them as heroes might not have been appropriate but the treatment that these men who were conscripted into service, often against their will because of fear of penalties of dodging the draft or the reaction of the families that they would have needed to rely on- the treatment they received wasn't warranted by any means.

Re:ptbob

[Doc Ruby]

Who says?

I want a list.

When I see Rush Limbo at the top, I'll remember just what we're dealing with here.

Thank god Bush got us out of Iraq, though.

Re:ptbob

[sumdumass]

I'll tell you what, try opening a history book. It isn't that hard, and if you look around, you will find schools practically giving them away when they buy new ones.

Oh, and in case you were referring to how the Vietnam war was lost, take a look at this. Oh, and here is another source that seems to believe that the press lost the war for us. It's not quite Rush Limbaugh like you wanted, but personally, I don't know why you would only trust his word. I always assumed you were too smart to fall for propaganda like that. (and yes, I know what you meant)

Re:ptbob

[Doc Ruby]

Ha - who needs Limbo when we can learn "history" from you and your sources. Like AmericanThinker.com, your first offering, that features the lead story today as an expose of how Obama is really a Communist. Or VietQuoc.com, which is the Vietnamese National Party, which couldn't keep its own country with the US propping it up for generations, but has a pretty decent gig pretending that the US media lost the war.

Thanks for demonstrating just what a pack of lies you peddle.

Re:ptbob

[sumdumass]

Shoot the message, not the messenger. Generally, when you can't address the points and have to kill the messenger, it is because you can't refute the points. I would suggest either putting up or shutting up on your part.

have a nice day.

Re:ptbob

[Doc Ruby]

No, I asked you to send me your list. History doesn't have to come from just a few extremely partisan outfits - it's available to everyone. If you can't deliver a source with a reputation for truth, instead of obvious crazy liars, then those messengers demonstrate just what is the value of their message. Especially when that message is so obviously completely counter to the vast documentation to the contrary, it's obviously just a pack of lies.

Just because the message is more important than the messenger doesn't mean that you can reverse the logic to deliver a messenger who isn't credible, and expect their message to be believable. Of course, you rightwingers understand logic about as well as dogs understand "shake hands": it's a trick you've seen people do, so you go through the motions, but you're using your paws, not really shaking hands.

You rightwingers are so crazy that you don't even care that the sources you believe are obviously insane liars with vested interests in crazy lying. It's brains like that which lost the Vietnam War, are losing the Iraq War - and decided those wars would be good ideas to start in the first place. But since the true history of crazy, lying warmongers is so long, it's pretty clear that we're stuck with at least a few, very loud ones of you. So we've learned how to identify you and your same old lies, and just chain you up somewhere that you won't chew too much that's valuable.

Have a day.

Re:ptbob

[sumdumass]

The source I cited provided a quote from a book that isn't available on the internet (at least from which I can find). It has been used at other sites and isn't contested for accuracy.

When the general of the enemy says they used propaganda in the media and it was a victory for them, you can't contest the validity of the statement because of some affiliation the site has. You are shooting the messenger in order to ignore the message. That is a recipe to remain ignorant and you should be careful in doing so.

You rightwingers are so crazy that you don't even care that the sources you believe are obviously insane liars with vested interests in crazy lying. It's brains like that which lost the Vietnam War, are losing the Iraq War - and decided those wars would be good ideas to start in the first place. But since the true history of crazy, lying warmongers is so long, it's pretty clear that we're stuck with at least a few, very loud ones of you. So we've learned how to identify you and your same old lies, and just chain you up somewhere that you won't chew too much that's valuable.

At yet once again, you resort to ignoring the message and concentrate on the messenger. Go on, dispute the facts and show the world who you really are. Or just continue to fall into your own traps.

BTW, I didn't present a list because it isn't relevant. Surely you can't refute the accuracy of the statement but resort to accusations based on association so it is pointless to present anything else to you. If I did present a list and your posts until now were any indication of your actions, you would label me as a rightwinger as you already have done and then claim the list isn't valid because of it's association to me. I can understand how having to protect your world view from the constant attacks that facts and the truth present to it, but it doesn't make you more right.

False article summary

[jeiler]

In what I am given to understand is a grand, old Slashdot tradition, the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article. Neither Congress nor the Executive branch is attempting to "strip power" from this or any other judge. They are (foolishly, IMO) retroactively legalizing a series of illegal acts, and making moot a case or series of cases currently pending on said judge's schedule, but the judge's authority is not one whit affected by the proposed law.

Shame on Soulskill and Palegray for this false-faced spin-doctoring.

And yes, reading TFA and actually expecting the summary to at least remotely resemble the article is evidently proof that I'm new here.

Re:False article summary

[irtza]

I always thought the user number was a dead give away.

ok looking at my #, "always" is a bit longer than the time that I have held this view

Re:False article summary

[0xdeadbeef]

the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article

*ahem* The headline of TFA: "Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to Strip His Power"

Re:False article summary

[tsm_sf]

Don't interrupt the karma whoring process, please.

Re:False article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The article title is also misleading by calling the Judge "Anti Wiretap" when he interpretation of the the law was absolutely correct. Congress can change the law, but it doesn't change the fact that the laws that were on the books at the time were violated.

Re:False article summary

[Anik315]

The article title is also misleading by calling the Judge "Anti Wiretap" when he interpretation of the the law was absolutely correct. Congress can change the law, but it doesn't change the fact that the laws that were on the books at the time were violated.

Re:False article summary

[Martin Blank]

You can add on top of that an inability to separate people. Both articles linked clearly mention that Walker was appointed by the elder President Bush. It would probably be more enjoyable if the current president had appointed him -- I love to see that, no matter who is in the White House at the time. I guess it's that I trust the judicial branch more than the other two.

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

So, are you arguing that Soulskill and Palegray are too stupid to see that the article made no such assertion? Or that their attempt at an attention-grabbing headline is OK because "Wired did it first"?

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

Karma (to me) matters not one whit. Accuracy matters. Truthfulness matters even more.

Re:False article summary

[EllisDees]

Hmm. Could the judge rearrange his docket so that he takes action on this case on Monday, before this law is passed by congress? Would it matter? If he decides the case while he still has the power to do so, would the telecoms still get immunity?

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

No, probably not, and probably, respectively.

1. Judges cannot arbitrarily re-arrange court dates.

2. It wouldn't matter if the judge could re-arrange his schedule. The Telcos would ask for a continuance (based on the disruption of schedule), and if the judge refused to allow it, any decision handed down would immediately be slapped silly on procedural grounds.

3. Bush supports Telco immunity. If nothing else, he'd probably just pardon those convicted.

Re:False article summary

[multisync]

Shame on Soulskill and Palegray for this false-faced spin-doctoring

Someone else has already pointed out that the Slashdot headline was virtually identical to the one Wired put above the article. I'll add that a significant portion of the summary is a direct quote from the article (that's what those quotation marks signify).

The statement "The article makes the observation that Congress seems to be having difficulties bringing itself to enforce the laws that it has previously passed regarding wiretapping, and seems more interesting in silencing opposing viewpoints" is supported by this part of the article:

As Threat Level pointed out last night, the ruling is likely to have little real consequence other than embarrassing Congress for failing to have the courage to stand up to defend the laws it itself passed.

If you have issues with the Wired article, post a comment on Wired taking them to task. The Slashdot summary does a decent enough job of "summarizing" the article. Palegray.net and Soulskill have nothing to be "ashamed" of.

Re:False article summary

[nomadic]

1. Judges cannot arbitrarily re-arrange court dates.

Wow, speaking as a lawyer that is definitely news to me. Outside certain time restrictions imposed by the FRCP, a judge has incredibly wide discretion to manage his calendar. I've seen court decisions dragged out for months, while others were decided within a day or two.

Re:False article summary

[nomadic]

If you have issues with the Wired article, post a comment on Wired taking them to task. The Slashdot summary does a decent enough job of "summarizing" the article. Palegray.net and Soulskill have nothing to be "ashamed" of.

It wasn't a Wired "article," it was a Wired blog. And just because Wired does something dumb doesn't mean Slashdot does too. It's the difference between journalism and hey-let's-give-our-friends-cushy-jobs-that-require-almost-no-work.

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

...speaking as a lawyer....

Then, as a lawyer, you are aware of the importance of context. If you wish to object to my statements, then perhaps you should object to them in the context in which they are presented, rather than picking out the particular sound-bites that can be spun into arguable statements.

Picking out isolated phrases from an argument and stripping them from their context is a dishonest way to summarize an argument. But then again, I'm not a lawyer...accuracy and honesty are far more important than simply "winning the argument."

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

Someone else has already pointed out that the Slashdot headline was virtually identical to the one Wired put above the article.

And as I said to that someone else, whatever the article title (usually written by a copy editor, not by the journalist who wrote the article) says, the actual article itself (written by the journalist who did the research) says nothing of the sort.

Unless you also wish to take an unconscionable "They did it first" policy to inaccuracy and/or dishonesty in article summaries, I see no point to your statement.

nb: If someone with mod points chooses to take me to task for my brusque tone, I'm willing to take the bad karma. As I've said before in this discussion, accuracy and honesty are far more important than karma.

Re:False article summary

[pxlmusic]

and you can believe that right before he leaves office there will be a flurry of pardons

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

That's par for the course--even Washington pardoned people on his last day in office.

Re:False article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

"3. Bush supports Telco immunity. If nothing else, he'd probably just pardon those convicted."

He can't do that if he's successfully impeached first. Oh wait, our lame Congress holds the keys to that process too...

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

Bush is not going to be impeached. Even as much as I disapprove of many of his actions, I honestly do not know if they qualify under the "High crimes and misdemeanors" clause.

But then again, getting a blowjob and lying about it was enough to get Slick Willy impeached. One wonders if the law means anything when it stands between a politician and what that politician wants.

Re:False article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

user number can only provide a lower bound on newness.

I've been here a while, but why bother with an account?

Re:False article summary

[multisync]

It wasn't a Wired "article," it was a Wired blog.

I was using "article" in a generic sense. jeiler had complained that "In what I am given to understand is a grand, old Slashdot tradition, the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article."

Did you write a comment to him pointing out that it was a blog, not an article?

And just because Wired does something dumb doesn't mean Slashdot does too.

jeiler was complaining that the summary misrepresented the article, and when I point out that it does not, you respond by saying "if Wired jumped off a bridge does that mean Slashdot has to?" If we are talking about summaries doing an adequate job of telling the potential reader what the article - sorry, blog - is about, then yes.

It's the difference between journalism and hey-let's-give-our-friends-cushy-jobs-that-require-almost-no-work.

Where did you get the idea Slashdot is supposed to be journalism? It is a place where geeks post links to journalism on other sites and other geeks post comments on the linked articles, usually after no more than a quick glance at the summary. Other than user journals, which - like other news "articles" - can be posted as stories on Slashdot, I don't think anyone around these parts has attempted journalism since Jon Katz left.

Re:False article summary

[multisync]

whatever the article title (usually written by a copy editor, not by the journalist who wrote the article) says, the actual article itself (written by the journalist who did the research) says nothing of the sort

Not in so many words.

But it does say

Just days before the Senate will convene to give a final blessing to President Bush's secret, warrantless wiretapping program

the ruling is likely to have little real consequence other than embarrassing Congress for failing to have the courage to stand up to defend the laws it itself passed

Instead of holding hearings and sending subpoenas, Congress is set to largely legalize dragnet surveillance being set up inside American telecom infrastructure

They will also likely give retroactive amnesty to telecom companies that agreed to illegal and sweeping surveillance requests

So thanks to Congress's pending meddling with the courts in capitulation to the President ...

When the Senate votes Tuesday, they are voting to keep Judge Walker from examining whether the nation's largest telecoms massively violated federal privacy laws by helping the government spy on Americans

The planned July 8 vote is whether or not Americans can get justice for a violation of federal law, or whether some of the nation's largest companies -- and by extension, the nation's highest elected officials -- are above the law

The article is basically stating that the judge's ruling does not matter, because the Senate is going to disregard his ruling and "give a final blessing to President Bush's secret, warrantless wiretapping program." Again, disagree with the article if you like, but the Wired and Slashdot headlines -while not Pulitzer material by any stretch - were not "spin-doctoring." The headlines and the Slashdot summary told me pretty much exactly what I could expect from the article.

Also, A further clarification was made by Soulskill that the Senate's actions are only relevant to this particular case, which should have cleared up any confusion created by the headline.

nb: If someone with mod points chooses to take me to task for my brusque tone, I'm willing to take the bad karma.

+3 Insightful.

Whatever floats your boat.

Re:False article summary

[palegray.net]

I think you've either been trolling throughout this thread, or you're simply unwilling to admit to your initial overreaction, but I'll bite anyhow.

Reference my earlier comment regarding the article summary, read the article itself in its entirety, and come back if you've got something more intelligent to say.

Re:False article summary

[palegray.net]

I guess it should have read: "Anti Illegal Wiretap" instead... or you could have just taken that inference as a give considering the actual material presented in the article.

Re:False article summary

[Falconhell]

Yeh , me too. Slashdot mods being mainly biased towards gun nuts and Mac fanboys. I could not care less about karma. I read all posts, as I find too much group think and not enough genuine interesting opinions in the highly rated posts.

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

I think you've either been trolling throughout this thread

No, trolling would be accusing you of being a shill for Politician N because of your statement. (N, of course, can be replaced by Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Paul, RuPaul, or even Hitler if we want to tread into Godwin territory.) Well, that would at least be one example ... I'm sure we can both think of others.

Reference my earlier comment regarding the article summary....

I read the article summary. I read TFA before i made my first post in this thread. And I still--vehemently--disagree.

If the bill passes (which looks unavoidable at this point), that does not affect the judge's power one whit. It makes the upcoming case moot, which is a specific legal term.

If demanding accuracy (and honesty, if that is an issue) is a lack of having something intelligent to say, then may I say, from the bottom of my "unintelligent" heart, that you may keep your inaccurate and dishonest article summaries and sodomize yourself with them. Vigorously and repeatedly.

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

Oh, and just in case there is any doubt, yes--the last paragraph is trolling. HTH. HAND.

Re:False article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, now that impeachment proceeding served a valuable function. It kept congress and the President from getting anything done. Congress and Presidents are usually a lot more useful when they aren't doing things.

Re:False article summary

[palegray.net]

I have to say, I actually like your style :). I take no issue with your demand for honesty; in fact, I applaud it.

Here's my perspective on the whole bit:

(1) The article summary was, in fact, taken largely from the article (blog entry), as denoted by the portions in quotes.

(2) It would appear that Congress passing the bill in question (and I think we both agree that calling the legislation "questionable" is a rather large understatement of the tragic miscarriage of justice it represents) does, in fact, render the federal judge's rulings irrelevant, thus stripping the judiciary of the power to act as a proper interpreter of existing law [at the time the crimes were committed by the telcos] (catching my breath now). Hence, while the headline may appear somewhat sensational, I do not believe it is a misrepresentation of the nature of or gravity of the situation (Congress making and end-run around justice).

(3) While you're obviously capable of stating your position on the matter of journalistic integrity with great clarity, I respectfully disagree with your assertions on the matter [insert something about corn cobs and fecal exit portals here] ;). Thanks! (3)

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

It would appear that Congress passing the bill in question (and I think we both agree that calling the legislation "questionable" is a rather large understatement of the tragic miscarriage of justice it represents) does, in fact, render the federal judge's rulings irrelevant, thus stripping the judiciary of the power to act as a proper interpreter of existing law [at the time the crimes were committed by the telcos] (catching my breath now).

Dude, breathe! :D

Seriously, I can now see why it looks that way to you (and it puzzled me how someone could equate making a case moot with "stripping" a judge of power). It's ... well, now that I understand it, it's not so much that I disagree as I see it differently. But I can also dig (and completely respect) different points of view.

[insert something about corn cobs and fecal exit portals here]

Ouch. I grew up on a midwestern corn farm. Just ... ouch. :D

Re:False article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's amazing that I have not seen this come up. Even if the retroactive immunity is defeated and the telecoms are convicted, nothing stops Bush from pardoning them. If you think that doing so would be political suicide, remember that he doesn't have to worry about reelection, and that more controversial pardons have been issued before (Ford's pardoning of Nixon comes to mind).

Re:False article summary

[Tuoqui]

Not sure if he can pardon a civil case... Since there is no criminal conviction involved.

The thing is they figured they'd go into a civil court where AT&T is being sued, flash the 'Homeland Security' crap and the case would be dropped. But it wasnt... so now they need a law, but the constitution says you cant pass laws retroactively so I'm sure the retroactive immunity clause could be challenged in court too,

Re:False article summary

[OneLeggedNinja]

3. Bush supports Telco immunity. If nothing else, he'd probably just pardon those convicted.

Except he'll be out of the office by the time any of the cases are decided. So it's better (for his 'friends') to stop any cases from getting started in the first place.

Re:False article summary

[irtza]

well, for one, I only saw your reply because I have an account and it showed 1 reply below my threshold on my user page. secondly, I found another "irtza" (didn't think it was possible) on the net while seeing what google/yahoo/dog pile knew about me. Once I saw that, I tried to grab my name on as many sites as possible.

Re:False article summary

[nomadic]

Then, as a lawyer, you are aware of the importance of context. If you wish to object to my statements, then perhaps you should object to them in the context in which they are presented, rather than picking out the particular sound-bites that can be spun into arguable statements.

Very well. You accuse me of taking a statement you made out of context; however the statement I cited is all you said on the matter. There was nothing else to take in context with.

The poster you were replying to asked if the judge could rearrange things to take action before congress passes the bill. You replied that a judge can't arbitrarily reschedule. I disagreed.

Federal judges have wide latitude regarding their calendars. A judge can:

a) issue a ruling on an issue that has been presented to him when he so chooses; this could be the day after a party files a response to the motion he's ruling on, or a year.

b) reschedule hearings on his own initiative.

c) in some cases issue sua sponte orders--in other words, rule on things that neither side has even asked for, including issuing an injunction.

In sum, you don't know what you're talking about, but thank you for the gratuitous insult aimed at my profession.

Re:False article summary

[nomadic]

so now they need a law, but the constitution says you cant pass laws retroactively so I'm sure the retroactive immunity clause could be challenged in court too,

Unfortunately, you can pass laws retroactively; you just can't pass laws that criminalize past behavior. Doing the reverse is perfectly legal.

War time?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, seriously... War time? Is this really how Americans view the situation right now?

Re:War time?

[ben(zen)]

I don't consider this "War time". To me, that would require unity at some level, and the actual support of a fair portion of the populace. Until we have that, it's not wartime here.

I thought...

[elixin77]

I thought we voted for our representatives/senators to vote for laws that improve the U.S. of A... not try and remove a federal judge from office just because he rules that something as unconstitutional...

Re:I thought...

[pisto_grih]

YOU must be new here!!

Re:I thought...

[thetoadwarrior]

He's probably an illegal. They have no concept of the law as the law has nothing to do with stealing jobs and making babies.

I've already called Homeland Security.

not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not trying to "strip power" from this judge specifically; the article's title is misleading. Almost sounds like they're trying to remove him from the bench.

Not that what they're doing isn't repulsive, cowardly, and short-sighted, of course. I'm not sure who I'm madder at, fascist republicans, cowardly democrats, or the fear-driven electorate who is so terrified of terrorists they don't care what the government does. Preaching to the converted I know, so let me throw in a gratuitous go-to-hell to the the "libertarian" contingent who have been so obsessed with their own money and possessions they'll vote for anyone who promises to legalize assault rifles and lower taxes. No, not all libertarians are like this, not even most, but I've met a sizeable chunk who are basically crypto-republicans.

He is the government

[debrain]

Congress is attempting to strip US District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of his power following his ruling against the government regarding immunity for telecoms in the NSA wiretapping case. Walker

It is misleading to say that he ruled against the government. He represents a branch of the government, an independent judiciary, and he made a decision contrary to that of other branches of government. He has lived up to his role (nigh duty) and provided the checks and balances that keep the government as a whole in check.

Re:He is the government

[fosterNutrition]

Exactly -- although what Congress and the President are attempting to do is blatantly wrong, this is actually a case of the system working more or less as intended: a power struggle between the branches is the reason for the existence of branches in the first place! By having them fight each other, none of them can really go berserk and do whatever they want.

Side note: I hate to play the pedant, but I believe your "nigh duty" should be "nay, duty." "Nigh" means approaching or drawing near, "nay" means no. All the best!

Re:He is the government

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not misleading to say that "he ruled against the government." The government was literally a party to the litigation, and they lost. He ruled against the government.

This is the only part of the article summary that's not misleading...

Re:He is the government

[v1]

He has lived up to his role (nigh duty) and provided the checks and balances that keep the government as a whole in check.

But at the same time works nonstop to modify/enhance/cripple the laws to grow his authority? This is how the system of checks and balances becomes broken, when one branch has excessive influence on another branch that is supposed to hold it in check. When the executive branch works to grant immunity and enact 'special circumstances' circumvention of laws, it becomes a laughable form of "limitation of powers".

Lets face it, the Executive Branch has made a puppet out of the Judicial Branch lately.

Re:He is the government

[KingTank]

The title of the case was "AL-HARAMAIN ISLAMIC FOUNDATION vs GEORGE BUSH, [et al]". So you are correct. Although, to be fair many cases involving the executive branch are titled "United States vs blank", so the press gets in the habit of describing the executive branch as "the government". And I believe it is a internationally widespread custom to describe the administration as "the government".

Re:He is the government

[scooter.higher]

And in continuing the discussion of the checks and balances of our government, I offer this:

"The article makes the observation that Congress seems to be having difficulties bringing itself to enforce the laws that it has previously passed..."

The Legislative branch does not enforce law, they write law. The Executive enforces law. The Judicial Interprets law.

Re:He is the government

[tmosley]

No, no , no. His rulings prove that he obviously hates America, and you are either with us or against us, so he's against us, and therefore he is an unlawful enemy combatant and so we're sending him to Gitmo.

Sounds farcical now, but I fear it will be truth (or at least truthy) soon enough.

Re:He is the government

[SpiceWare]

reminds me of how all the people upset with "Activist Judges" have conveniently forgotten that the judges are part of the checks and balances of the system..

Re:He is the government

[tmosley]

Who's the puppet branch here? The one that stood up to the President, or the one that acts in the interests of the president and it's policies consistently, just to avoid conflict?

Re:He is the government

[magus_melchior]

It's not misleading, as the US government is involved in the lawsuits as the Department of Justice (the Executive branch). It's therefore perfectly natural to say that the US government ruled against the US government.

Or, it's supposed to be; somehow the power-mongers in the White House and the cowards in Congress think that the US government ought to be a stand-alone unit. I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution had a whole pile of words to say about that irresponsible and appalling belief.

Re:He is the government

[GleeBot]

It is misleading to say that he ruled against the government. He represents a branch of the government, an independent judiciary, and he made a decision contrary to that of other branches of government.

It's a bit of an abuse of the term, but "government" in this context is usually taken to mean the executive, as represented by the Department of Justice in a court of law.

I suppose it derives from its usage in parliamentary systems, where what we could call an administration is called the government.

Republicans and Democrats....

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans and Democrats have done more to strip America of her civil liberties than terrorists ever could.

Re:Republicans and Democrats....

[Ortega-Starfire]

Correction. It isn't the republicans or democrats, it's the politicians in general.

Re:Republicans and Democrats....

[Jedi Alec]

Correction. It isn't the republicans or democrats, it's the politicians in general.

Correction. It's not the politicians, it's the people that elect them.

People wonder why I don't vote...

[Dog-Cow]

Who could I vote for that would actually be elected that has any sense of justice?

The president and most of Congress are traitors to our country. There is no longer a Rule of Law. Instead, we have a kangaroo legislature that rubber-stamps any and all attempts to create a police state.

How is Bush different than Saddam?

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[dreamchaser]

How is Bush different than Saddam?

He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders. He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country. He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents. He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

There is a much longer list. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan at all. I think he's made numerous blunders and our country is weaker for it. Rampant spending, ill advised military operations that are governed by the State Department more than the Pentagon (if you're going to fight a war, fight it to win). That list goes on and on as well, but to compare him to Saddam is disingenuous at best.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Sponge Bath]

How is Bush different than Saddam?

I was going to say facial hair, but apparently that is not true.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders." - Neither did Saddam, or any of his henchmen. That was just a bit of War propaganda.

"He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country." - Um.. Yes he does. Mace is a good example. Almost all the vicious weapons, chemical or mechanical, that are used for torture today were first developed in the US.

"He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents." As far as I know, you have me there. I don't think he allows parents into Guantanamo. But he does use torture, there and elsewhere on a regular basis. In fact, he probably does arrange for this to happen on some extraordinary renditions....

"He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January." We hope. He should have been thrown from office for many crimes via the normal process already, but has managed to suppress it so far. At the least he has broken the constitution.

When I started to write this I thought it would be hard to make any kind of comparison between Saddam and Bush, but it turns out that it's quite easy. Of course, a lot of things that were said about Saddam were wartime propaganda and lies - I have little trouble believing that if the two men had each taken up the other's role they would have behaved very similarly. And of course, Saddam has not actually taken over another non-threatening country and stolen all it's raw materials.....

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[LilGuy]

How is Bush different than Saddam?

He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders. He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country. He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents.

Not in his own country anyway. I'd wager that what Bush authorizes with his presidential findings is far far worse than anything Saddam ever did.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Dog-Cow]

Do you really believe Bush would have behaved differently than Saddam were he the absolute dictator in Iraq? You do realize that's exactly what he's been trying to become since he started the war under completely false pretenses, right?

It's not acts of any one sort that make someone completely evil. It's evil that causes one to act. Bush doesn't need to kill his own citizens at home to keep the people in line. Americans are so f***ing scared of their own shadows that Bush only has to invent bogeymen.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[copponex]

He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders.

Instead, he authorizes war and they're blown up, crushed, finished off by treatable diseases, or flee their homes to live in squalor in refugee camps. He only presided the capture of 80,000 suspected terrorists, and only 150 have officially died in custody.

He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country.

The same members of his current administration authorized the sale of those weapons knowing full well what they'd be used for.

He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents.

The lawyer (John Yoo) in charge of formally defining torture said that crushing a child's testicles or raping an infant shouldn't be illegal when trying to extract information from terrorists. They haven't, to public knowledge, done that yet, but they think they should be able to.

He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

Hopefully he won't start a war with Iran before he's finally removed from power, whether directly or through our client state, Israel.

That list goes on and on as well, but to compare him to Saddam is disingenuous at best.

No. Our government supported Saddam Hussein, with money and weapons, during the worst of his atrocities when his father was vice president. The same group of people oversaw the war in the gulf, and returned for round three to complete the destruction of Iraqi society in order to establish control over the resources of that area.

When virtually the same administration supports a tyrant and then accuses him of being a tyrant as an excuse to decimate an entire country, there's no reason not to make the comparison. Were it not for American support of Saddam in the 80s, the Shah from 1953 to 1979, and our continuing support of Saudi Arabia, there may have been freedom in the middle east long ago.

Saddam simply did our dirty work for us, namely, suppressing the Shia minority and keeping Iran in check and Saudi Arabia less worried about an uprising in their own state. Now we're employing the same tactics in Baghdad for the surge, where one hundred thousand mercenaries, including Sunnis no longer allied with al Qaeda, have been given free reign to "establish order."

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders. He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country. He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents.

How do you know, been to Gitmo recently to tell us?

He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

Hopefully. And it's the only solace we have in this insanity.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

How much longer will it be before our presidents do this? Right now, they sponsor what you could call acts of terrorism against citizens of third world countries, and at the same time they are working to take away all of our liberties. It's only a matter of time before their apparatus starts working on us.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

If you honestly believe that Bush and his thugs will leave come January, I respect your optimism. Mark my words, between now and then he'll find some stupid reason that HE MUST remain in office past the two-term limit.

It will be illegal as all hell, but it will happen. His reign of terror is far from over.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[magus_melchior]

... ill advised military operations that are governed by the State Department more than the Pentagon ...

Frontline has a great show called "Bush's War" that details the events leading up to the Iraq war up to a year or two before the "troop surge". It's very clear that the war was planned from the very beginning of Bush's presidency, and forced upon us by a series of brilliant media manipulation events that Karl Rove would be proud of. Among the really stupid things Bush and Cheney did were:

• Completely ignored Powell and the CIA initially (the two Executive organizations that told them that an Iraq invasion would be a really bad idea, and forcing it on the USA would be worse)
• Had Rumsfeld make up his own intelligence team (insert joke about "military intelligence")
• Ignored CIA intelligence regarding Iraq and instead listened to Wolfowitz's exiled Iraqi buddy (who was provably a liar)
• Compromised the CIA director politically and coerced him into producing a very bad report
• Left "Smaller is better-- I like Rambo" Rumsfeld in charge of a massive occupation effort, then let Rice assume power after Rumsfeld's strategy failed spectacularly (which is what you're referring to)

I'm sure neo-cons will shrug and say, "So he sucked at his job. At least he didn't slaughter his own people." I tend to think that sending your people off to an unnecessary war based on lies is equivalent to slaughtering the people you've sworn to protect.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[jeiler]

Bull. Fucking. Shit. No wonder you posted as an AC--you're spouting shit to the point where AHole is more apropos.

Bush will be out next January. He may honestly believe that he helped America, or he may realize that he's fucked a lot of things up. But he will go to his grand retirement, content to speak at the occasional big-ticket event, and do his best to spin his actions into a positive legacy.

Crapulous remarks like those from AC above (no doubt inspired by metal toxins from the tin foil he's wrapped his head in) can be ignored like the lying bullshit that they are.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[symbolic]

Are you forgetting about what we've done over in Iraq? Irony has never seen the light of day so clearly.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

That is what the Constitution calls for.

This administration is claiming that the Commander in Chief's inherent wartime authority allows him to override the Constitution.

In 2004, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge asked DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, how to postpone a national election. Soaries, mirabile dictu, told him to get authority from Congress. Over in Congress, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee responded "...we're preparing for all of these contingencies now".

I hope that was just a trial balloon, but my relative who watches Fox now thinks that if the "wrong people" win the election we'll end up in a Stalinist state. If you believe that Senator Obama is the Manchurian Candidate, aren't you obliged to stop him from taking power?

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders."

Google "waterboarding", "legal torture".

" He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country."

Google "fluoride", "chemtrails", "GMO foods".

" He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents. "

The U.S. military has many cases of this going on in Iraq. Also part of "legal torture".

"He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January."

When he will be replaced by another hand picked candidate such as Barack/Hillary or John McCain. Someone who holds the same views and will wield the same dictatorial power.

Unless Ron Paul or Bob Barr gets in, America is going further down the tubes and right into the North American Union.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Keen Anthony]

Actually, Hussein did take over another non-threatening country. He took over Kuwait in 1990, annexing it a few days after the initial invasion. To be fair, Iraq accused Kuwait of slant drilling oil as a form of economic warfare, but not longer after the UN stepped in, Iraq claimed that Kuwait was naturally a part of Iraq, but had been carved away by the British as a result of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913.

There's never been proof that Hussein sent people to the shredders; however, his sons were known to be very vicious and they *may* have done acts like this.

Use of chemical weapons against US citizens by police is sadly a long-standing tradition in this country which predates Bush. If we're going to credit him with that, we should also credit every president before him going back to at least the '60s.

I do agree with you about the President leaving in January. He broke the law on many occasions and shouldn't be allowed to serve out his presidency without answering to the people. Sadly the Democrats in their infinite selfishness feel it's better for their own political ambitions to let Bush continue to be a social and political pariah.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Keen Anthony]

It's an interesting hypothetical. As you said, there's a mechanism in place here in America to keep us in line. Not so for certain old-world countries like Iraq. I think Bush would push people around, even pull their pants down in public, but I don't believe he would go on a massive killing spree.

Bush strikes me as being the classic bully. He happily asserts himself onto people who are weaker than him, but he craves positive attention too. He wants to be liked a lot. Also, he's not particularly reflective or introspective. He can be reined in easily by anyone who can show him up physically and intellectually. Hussein was a highly introspective person. He was a brutish thug, but he wasn't stupid. Bush in Iraq would depend as much on his puppet masters as he would here. He would depend on a cult of personality as well. I don't see Bush running around doing the things Hussein allegedly did, but I can see his flunkies actually coming pretty close, if not crossing the line.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents."

Yes he does. John Yoo said specifically that one of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques approved by the White House involved sexually assaulting children with pliers in order to get their parent to talk.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Nader
http://www.votenader.org/

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Bloodoflethe]

By Shia minority, you mean majority, right?

Geeze!

[Anonymous Coward]

The vote for or against amnesty not about whether telecoms participate in the future. In the future, they are supposed to get court orders -- that's the promise of the bill.

But, if they have no legal incentive to do that (i.e. they'll get sued if they don't get a court order), what's the point in going through he legal hoops and expense to get such an order?

Congress: For the Corporation, by the Corporation.

Goddamn them! Goddamn them all to hell!

Lets be clear on content

[freedom_india]

Lee Iacocca in his autobiography stated that people are more interested in reading headlines rather than content or Opinion.
Before any of you slashdotters start venting foam from your mouths, let us be clear on content:
1. The Congress is NOT trying to strip THIS judge from power to do anything.
2. The Congress/Senate votes on July 8th to provide immunity to Telecoms who allegedly violated law.
3. If such immunity is provided, then, and only then will this judge lose his power to apply the law to Telecoms on spying.
If the vote stalls, (any senator can bring in a "Hold") the judge can proceed on existing laws and there is absolutely NOTHING the Congress or president can do to stop him, short of impeaching him (which will invite the wrath of even Scalia and probably result in arrest of President).
The title is wrong, misleading and similar to what FOX news or Karl Rove would have done.
Shame on you s'dotters, i thought you were more intelligent and accurate than FOX News.

Re:Lets be clear on content

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the constitution a bit more. The president cant initiate impeachment hearings, that is congress. Further once impeached they then have to seek removal of office (they are separate things, removal requires impeachment first).

So the president would not be arrested if congress did try to impeach this particular judge (which so far no one is even talking about aside from you, and even if they were it would take a majority in congress to do it).

Re:Lets be clear on content

[Anonymous Coward]

The title is wrong, misleading and similar to what FOX news or Karl Rove would have done.

Hey, buddy, thanks for taking the heat off me!

Your friend,

Dan Rather

Re:Lets be clear on content

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he can rule the laws are themselves Unconstitutional. Whether it will stand is another matter.

Re:Lets be clear on content

[extrasolar]

I think most of us expect blatant inaccuracies from the "Your Rights Online" section, news from black helicopter spotters. The truth is I think most of the people here have a fetish for these kinds of anti-government stories. The people here feed on each other's paranoia.

Congress to strip power from Congress

[SpaceLifeForm]

You have to be brain-dead and corrupt to legalize fascism Senator Bond. Maybe that is because you are an alcoholic, but that is no excuse to give in to the the fear-mongering of the bush administration.

You sir, and other corrupt senators, have no clue how much damage you will be causing. No clue.

Typical Hate Mongering

[jessedorland]

I don't really care if they are going to kill ppl who disowner women, and children. There should be laws against such filth. I am more worried about the child-molester who would be free in four years just to add more victim to his list. Our western system is lot to be desire. Beside this hate mongering is done to justify killing & raping of Iranian like its being done in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Re:Typical Hate Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be laws against killing and raping of the English language, like its being done in your post.

Re:Typical Hate Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

It had me going, too, until I realized that GP is an americanized twat-o-tron.

This brand of violent stupidity doesn't actually exist.

Right? Right?

Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[DaedalusHKX]

"Meesa propose to giva' Senator Palpatine immediately emergency powaz!"

Somehow, I did not fail to see the sarcasm in the new Star Wars movies. Of course, the "death" of the Old Republic, happened when the North conquered the South, in a war of aggression (not sure why they call it a civil war, since it was two federations fighting each other, one to conquer and subjugate, the other to maintain the right of its member states to be independent, and the "nation of freedom" was stillborn even in 1791, for the most part because those who created its "founding document" did it with intentional flaws built in. Why, one asks? Well obviously, men who want government, want it only because it benefits them, they love power... but the power is all the more addictive when given up willingly by the dupes who think they need someone else to do their thinking for them. These people were no different. And they WERE the government, and they were fairly certain their progeny would continue to run the show (as they have).

The average plebe, regardless of where, is still just a mindless drone who hates money, hates thinking and most above all, hates getting out of his mental box (or hers, ladies I haven't forgotten about your ability to be equal to men in the endeavor of willful ignorance.) Actually judging by my observations of the "average Joe", I would wager that perhaps people DO need someone else to do some of their thinking for them, since obviously the vast majorities are unwilling to think past the divisive slogans and political campaigns.

The majority of stupid people in this country see no problem with the "us vs them" mentality because they are thinking "americans vs arabs" or "democrats vs republicans"... they don't realize its "parasites versus producers". As it has always been. Too many producers are too busy blaming other producers for their problems, while calling for more parasites, to realize that the parasites aren't necessary. As to which is which I leave it as an exercise to each reader to decide who are the producers and who are the parasites.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[tsm_sf]

Put down The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and pick up Stand on Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up. These books deal with the same frustration at willful ignorance, but won't leave you dehumanized and full of hate towards your fellow man like Rand tends to. Just keep in mind that it's impossible to tell a "mindless drone" from someone with two kids, two mortgages, and two jobs.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[FiloEleven]

The majority of stupid people in this country see no problem with the "us vs them" mentality

Well now, I've got my dose of irony for the day!

If you show a little respect for people and realize that they are living, breathing, thinking individuals who have something to contribute to humanity, you will have a much better chance of convincing them that some of their actions or beliefs may be misguided.

The meme of the unwashed masses is as much "us vs them" as any you listed.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[GNT]

Those are radically different books. Unification of the thoughts across all 4 books gives a great view of human nature.

Don't criticize Rand too harshly tho. It was the first time that any writer truly set about showing the conditions that were both universal AND essential to having the Prime Movers in society that enhance our well-being.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't sound THAT much like an Ayn Rand reader... I mostly just like how he fell into his own little "us vs. them" with his so called "Average Joe".

Granted I do believe there are huge fundamental flaws in the American political system right now, the biggest of which is that there are only two viable options to vote for (both of whom are essentially the same). Though a lot of other places aren't much better, there are 3 in Canada, I think, and then there are a lot of places where it doesn't matter who you vote for, the same guy's gonna win anyways.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Sj0]

I disagree.

Anyone who would vote for Bush Jr. twice is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports perpetual budget defecits we're going to leave to our grandkids to pay back is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports tax cuts and rebate cheques while we're 500 billion overdrawn every year is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports war against relatively innocent nations, first on the basis of dishonest 9/11 rhetoric, then on dishonest WMD rhetoric, then on dishonest "He's a very bad man. Aren't you glad he's dead?" rhetoric, is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports demolishing our freedoms in order to attack terrorists who supposedly hate us for our freedom is wilfully ignorant.

These wilfully ignorant people, they are supporting policies which are having a massive negative impact on the entire world and her people. Tens of thousands, maybe millions of people are dead because of the actions brought about by their wilful ignorance. More Americans are dead because of these ignorant policies than were killed on 9/11.

These people are my enemies.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[DaedalusHKX]

Interesting. I never said it was me versus average Joe. Average Joe is the guy who still votes, expecting to take my profits (actually a part of ALL my "income" regardless of whether it is profit or breaking even) and Average Joe gets what he deserves. So do I, in fact. That's the fun part, I've already secured my money and I'm waiting for the economy to tank. See, I will do fine when the economy tanks further thanks to the help of your loving central planners. But then again, they're doing what the average Joe wants. They're further fucking with a naturally self repairing system... and the system continues to fail further because, well, that's what happens when you're "fixing" an economy that isn't broken... merely trying to recover from governmental/institutional stupidity.

I don't get it, you're still missing the point. Its parasites versus producers. And none of your three parties to vote for is a producer. All they produce is their own consumption of your resources. If you work for money, then you are a lifeblood provider for the parasites. They give you a choice to vote or not vote, but make it sound like the choice is between all of them.

Suppose you walk into a store that sells poison. You are asked what you would like to consume today. They offer Cyanide, Arsenic, Mercury and a lovely high grade version of Sodium Fluoride (as in, enough to actually kill you outright.)
You don't realize that the choice is "consume their product or not", you instead think the choice is between the toxins offered. I can see where it can be tough to understand.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[DaedalusHKX]

Hmm, I respect individuals.

However, when I hear "someone should do something about this" or "they should pass a law to..." or "why aren't they helping us" crap, I find it hard to respect people whose opinions are derived from the various propaganda establishments.

Or "tell me, what should I do?"

Everytime I hear that question, I know for a fact it is ONLY asked as a "shut the fuck up or say something that I can disagree with."

In a world of only individuals, I fail to respect the collectives. The only thing I have for collectives is distaste. I have respect for individuals. I know a few. They were hard to find in this morass we call 'society'. Very much worth it, as friends, however.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Starvingboy]

Meh, sometimes you have to tear it all down and start again to get rid of the rot and corruption. Perhaps some people just like to see how wrong thing can get before it all breaks loose, and have hedged things that way.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[colinrichardday]

Somehow, I did not fail to see the sarcasm in the new Star Wars movies. Of course, the "death" of the Old Republic, happened when the North conquered the South, in a war of aggression (not sure why they call it a civil war, since it was two federations fighting each other, one to conquer and subjugate, the other to maintain the right of its member states to be independent,

Oh where do I begin? Most people would consider the seizure of a nation's arsenals to be an act of war, which would make the Confederacy, not the Union, the aggressors. As for the "independence" of its member states, what about the independence of some million slaves in the Confederacy. The Union had some slave states, but did not make slavery the basis of its nationhood.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[mishehu]

My main question is this - since 9/11, there have been no actual attacks on American soil that are at all worth mentioning. How long are we going to run around like chicken with our heads cut off boc boc'ing about the sky falling from terrorists? I've lived in areas of the world that ARE plagued by REAL terrorist attacks, and I always felt freer in those regions that I had lived in than in the USA. Ironic isn't it?

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Keen Anthony]

Yes, yes, so you've read John Keracher. Without relying on Keracher's circular reasoning and marketing jibe, what exactly is the way to eliminate the parasites?

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[salesgeek]

These people are my enemies.
Based on your criteria for enemies, you have very few people left to be your friend. That's really sad.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Experiment 626]

Anyone who mods lame "Anyone who disagrees with my political views is wilfully (sic) ignorant" troll posts up to "+5, Insightful" could also be described as willfully ignorant.

Then there's the suggestion that keeping taxes high during an economic slowdown will somehow fix things. Trying to tax your way to prosperity sounds pretty willfully ignorant.

And then there's your comment on what appears to be Afghanistan. I'm assuming from the way you pluralized "nations" this is who you mean besides Iraq, correct me if I'm wrong. Calling Afghanistan under the Taliban a "relatively innocent nation", with whom the U.S. only went to war "on the basis of dishonest 9/11 rhetoric"? Sounds like you really have a knack for this willful ignorance thing.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[FiloEleven]

Anyone who would vote for Bush Jr. twice is wilfully ignorant.

Certainly some of them are. I think that the media is to blame for the majority of ignorance. TV still has the Mantle of Authority, especially for older generations of Americans. The only way to find out any individual's reasons for supporting Bush is to attempt to engage them in rational debate.

Anyone who supports perpetual budget defecits we're going to leave to our grandkids to pay back is wilfully ignorant.

Or overly optimistic that those in charge know what they're doing. Or simply unaware of the problem because again, it's not really discussed in the media (save perhaps the "liberal media," which you'll have a hard time convincing many conservatives to heed). I've omitted your next point because my response is essentially the same. You should also keep in mind that you are not likely to find many people who hold all of these views simultaneously (according to my experience, anyway).

Anyone who supports war against relatively innocent nations, first on the basis of dishonest 9/11 rhetoric, then on dishonest WMD rhetoric, then on dishonest "He's a very bad man. Aren't you glad he's dead?" rhetoric, is wilfully ignorant.

Agreed. Though the media certainly helped the Bushies at the beginning by pushing the 9/11 and WMD nonsense, people should be aware by now that they were repeatedly lied to. In my experience many people are aware, but they continue to support the war because they feel that we cannot pull out now and be responsible for the likely collapse of Iraq - they do not want this blemish on America's record. I disagree (because our record was tarnished as soon as we went in), but I can see where they are coming from. "We made the mess, we need to clean it up."

Anyone who supports demolishing our freedoms in order to attack terrorists who supposedly hate us for our freedom is wilfully ignorant.

Agreed, for the subset of individuals who are aware that our rights are being trampled and still stand behind the trampling. I am perhaps less optimistic than you in my estimate of the percentage of folks who are aware of their rights and why they are important.

These wilfully ignorant people, they are supporting policies which are having a massive negative impact on the entire world and her people. Tens of thousands, maybe millions of people are dead because of the actions brought about by their wilful ignorance. More Americans are dead because of these ignorant policies than were killed on 9/11.

These people are my enemies.

I must adamantly (yet respectfully!) disagree with you here.

First of all, the people certainly gave the Bush Administration its power through their vote, but you cannot hold the people responsible for the actions of their elected officials. It's not like the populace voted to invade Iraq - that was a hijacking of power by the Bushies.

Second, following from the first, your enemies are those in power who have perpetrated these acts, and those in power who enabled them to do so, and those in power who do nothing about them. The people just want to live their lives and be left alone. This is why all the heinous rights-trampling and soverignty-invading has been done under the guise of national security: if the people feel threatened, they will clamor for something to be done. The nasty debt-inducing financial practices can also be partially explained by this: lower taxes have an immediate benefit to the individual, which is what he cares about most. This is perfectly acceptable though certainly not optimal, as our representative democracy is supposed to let the individual remain (relatively) unconcerned with such high matters of state. The problem is that instead of responsible patriots being elected, we have partisan hacks and frauds gaming the system (again, through the media) to grab more power and use it to help themselves r

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[ultranova]

Of course, the "death" of the Old Republic, happened when the North conquered the South, in a war of aggression (not sure why they call it a civil war, since it was two federations fighting each other, one to conquer and subjugate, the other to maintain the right of its member states to be independent, and the "nation of freedom" was stillborn even in 1791, for the most part because those who created its "founding document" did it with intentional flaws built in.

Offhand I can't think of anything that would evoke my sympathy less than a nation of slave-owners losing their independency in a war they started.

Well obviously, men who want government, want it only because it benefits them, they love power...

I want government because I want protection from predations of those more powerful than me, and financial safety nets to keep me from starving to death in the case of accidents, illness or unemployment. It has nothing to do with laughing maniacally and crying out "Power! Unlimited power!!!"; it's simply a matter of increasing my chances of survival.

The average plebe, regardless of where, is still just a mindless drone who hates money, hates thinking and most above all, hates getting out of his mental box (or hers, ladies I haven't forgotten about your ability to be equal to men in the endeavor of willful ignorance.) Actually judging by my observations of the "average Joe", I would wager that perhaps people DO need someone else to do some of their thinking for them, since obviously the vast majorities are unwilling to think past the divisive slogans and political campaigns.

Such as calling "Joe Average" "plebe", a "mindless drone" who opposes your views due to "wilful ignorance" and needs "someone" (you?) to think for him ? Do you mean that kind of slogans and campaigns ?

The majority of stupid people in this country see no problem with the "us vs them" mentality because they are thinking "americans vs arabs" or "democrats vs republicans"... they don't realize its "parasites versus producers".

Of course. These other stupid people, they are wrong; only a select view to whom you belong to know what the fight is really about.

Too many producers are too busy blaming other producers for their problems, while calling for more parasites, to realize that the parasites aren't necessary.

Sure they are. Who would you feel superior to if not for them ?

As to which is which I leave it as an exercise to each reader to decide who are the producers and who are the parasites.

Allowing us all identify with the $GOOD_GUYS and our opponents with $BAD_GUYS. It's the same shit once again; I wonder if you were trying to be sarcastic, or if you truly don't realize how ironic it is to berate "us vs. them" mentality and then immediately describe your version of it.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Sj0]

Why, exactly, is it the role of your kids and grandkids to finance an economic turnaround?

The Republicans have shown through their actions that they're opposed to a budget surplus. They consider it 'over taxation'. This means they're opposed to paying back the debt, because they'll never net enough money to pay back any debt. Despite this, they're not opposed to running massive defecits, year after year.

This will leave trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and grandkids to pay back. I'm simply arguing that if we're going to spend money, we should pay that money into the system first, rather than just pull more and more money out of the line of credit, year after year, and ignore that it will have to be paid back someday, and we're not going to be the ones paying it back.

The fact that you refuse to even consider that your kids and grandkids are paying for your economic prosperity with THEIR yet unearned dollars is wilfully ignorant, and I consider you the enemy of myself, my children, and grandchildren, far more dangerous than Al Queda could ever hope to be.

If I pluralized nations, it was a mistake on my part. It won't be a mistake for long, if the warmongers decide to rush into Iran based on the same obviously false information.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Sj0]

It's impossible to blame the media, in my view, because most of this is common sense, and because the truth is there, plain to see, almost entirely in the mainstream media.

Everyone has a household budget. Everyone. Common sense dictates that if you take out a loan, you'll have to pay it back. The same doesn't stop applying to governments just becuase they're big and we're small. In fact, the same ideas apply MORE, because unlike a person, whose debt dies with them, a nation will transfer its debts to future generations. This is just common sense. You don't have to read Keyes to understand that. You've got to be wilfully ignorant to ignore it.

I knew, through the mainstream media, within hours of the PATRIOT act being passed, and the negative ramifications the act had. I've seen, again through the mainstream media, the blatant abuses. I know, again through the mainstream media, that no terrorists have been affected by the PATRIOT act. Blame the media if you want, but the information is there. It's this cult of wilful ignorance that keeps the people from seeing what's going on.

We're in Iraq now, but there was a time when we weren't. All you had to do was look at the facts presented in the days leading up to the war, and it was obvious something was fishy. Why was the "coalition of the willing" only composed of America, the United Kingdom, and a smattering of 'never were' powers like poland? Because everyone else was paying attention and realised the information just wasn't there. Again, you can't blame the media, becuase the information was already there to see and digest.

The people supported the war, right until it stopped feeling good to do so. Poll numbers show this. The Congress acted upon these numbers and almost unanimously supported invading Iraq. Afterwards, the people who got us into the war were re-elected for another term. Bush got another 4 years. I can absolutely blame the American people for their wilful ignorance in this regard.

All the people, the voters, the congress, the senate, the president, are to blame. If the voters, the congress, and the senate simply looked at the information and thought for half a second, we wouldn't be in a situation where a third of the federal government is run with our children's dollars. We wouldn't be in a war we can't win but are loathe to lose. We wouldn't be losing our freedoms to protect against people who supposedly hate our freedoms.

Excuses are for kids. Anyone who insists on being part of this cult of ignorance is my enemy, and the enemy of my kids, and of my grandkids.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[FiloEleven]

Fair enough.

Let me say that my intent was not to make excuses for those you call wilfully ignorant. My intent was to get people to treat other people like people, even when there is a huge disagreement, and my method was to give reasons (which I believe are valid) other than wilful ignorance for those people to think the way they do in order to make them a little less like the cardboard cutouts generally portrayed here on Slashdot. I see that I've generally failed to convince you, but that's okay.

It's clear to me that you hate what's going on and want to see things change as much as I do. You seem to have given up on a decent chunk of the population whereas I have not, but your fervor leads me to believe that you either have or are developing your own method of changing things. As long as that method includes more than complaining on the Internet (which we all do, myself enthusiastically included), I find no fault with you.

Best of luck.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Sj0]

I think my method works better than you'd think. When people start to hear about Bush and that, they immediately put up their "liberal shield", and get ready to attack my inevitable call for more social programs.

That said, I've posed the same question, with the same rhetoric, in less intelligent forums, and instead of considering my points, I got back a bunch of generic hate for Democrats. That's why I can't be nearly as optimistic as you.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[DaedalusHKX]

Allowing us all identify with the $GOOD_GUYS and our opponents with $BAD_GUYS. It's the same shit once again; I wonder if you were trying to be sarcastic, or if you truly don't realize how ironic it is to berate "us vs. them" mentality and then immediately describe your version of it.

Amusing. You spent a whole page of quoting and "refuting" my thoughts with those implanted in your head by others (lovely idea actually) and then you FINALLY get it, there, at the end.

Not that I'm being mean, but who pays for your "financial" safety net? And since your beloved government pays for it out of what they take from you (albeit at a much higher value than they give back, due to their own imposed monetary inflation) but that'd be like explaining to the FDR fanatics as to why that man robbed their children and their children's children of a future. Today's insolvent government spending sprees are directly due to his "elastic currency" utopia... read utopia as in "not here, not now, not ever" kind of utopia.

Like I said, it isn't an "us versus them". Its us with us and them versus them. Get it straight. See, the upside is suckers like you who want someone else to "keep you safe" will always pay the ultimate price for that folly. Why? Simple. You want someone else to live your life for you, preferably all the hard parts. Which is fine, since you, by your vote to confiscate from others what you feel is rightfully yours (obviously, how dare other people not conform and give you part of what they make?) are performing an act of aggression against those people. Know what the fun part is? You dig your own grave, because while digging theirs you miss the part where you will end up just as fleeced as they. Done slowly over time, it is nearly imperceptible. Quite brilliant... IMHO.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Killjoy_NL]

This is simply because the terrorists got exactly what they wanted.

Bush & co responding like they did is their wish come true. I vaguely remember Bush saying something like "We will not change our way of life, because then the terrorists will have won" or something among those lines.

Well, they won, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, that Habeus Corpus thingy, wiretapping, etc are the best examples of what has changed.

The biggest problem I have with this, is that my country (the Netherlands) is slowly falling into the same trap that the US did in regards to using the same excuses to curtail our rights to freedom and privacy.
At this moment I'm thinking of becoming a political activist to protect the rights we have now.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[ultranova]

Amusing. You spent a whole page of quoting and "refuting" my thoughts with those implanted in your head by others (lovely idea actually) and then you FINALLY get it, there, at the end.

I notice you failed to refute any of those refutations, though.

Not that I'm being mean, but who pays for your "financial" safety net?

I do, at the moment. That's why it is called a "safety net" rather than a "lift". And why are you putting "financial" in quotes; do you imply that it is an inappropriate word for unemployment benefits and such ? If so, why ?

And since your beloved government pays for it out of what they take from you (albeit at a much higher value than they give back, due to their own imposed monetary inflation) but that'd be like explaining to the FDR fanatics as to why that man robbed their children and their children's children of a future.

Your sentence is incoherent in a way that suggests that you left something out from the middle. Perhaps you might repost it in its entirety ?

Today's insolvent government spending sprees are directly due to his "elastic currency" utopia... read utopia as in "not here, not now, not ever" kind of utopia.

If this utopia is "not here, not now, not ever", then how can anything be due to it ?

Like I said, it isn't an "us versus them". Its us with us and them versus them. Get it straight.

Doing that while trying to follow your logic is quite difficult, especially it seems to be relying mostly on vague rethoric.

See, the upside is suckers like you who want someone else to "keep you safe" will always pay the ultimate price for that folly.

Ah, namecalling. That certainly wins any argument, especially when combined with FUD.

You want someone else to live your life for you, preferably all the hard parts.

No, I want someone to cover by back when things get rough.

Which is fine, since you, by your vote to confiscate from others what you feel is rightfully yours (obviously, how dare other people not conform and give you part of what they make?) are performing an act of aggression against those people.

The cost of living in a society - any society - is that you are sometimes required to contribute to common good, even if that has a personal cost to yourself. In no group are you allowed to simply reap the benefits and never help the group; the expected contributions might not be official, but failure to meet the groups standards can and eventually will result to being forcibly removed from the group.

Society as a whole is one such group. The taxes you complain about the expected form of contribution, and the failure to pay them will ultimately result in you being imprisoned, which is a way to remove people from the society without burdening other societies with them.

The very Internet you used to post to Slashdot was developed with tax money. You use it, thus indicating that you have no moral problem with benefiting from the society and its resources contributed by others; but when it comes time to return the favour, you complain that requiring it is "aggression". That is quite hypocritical of you.

Besides, aren't these people also committing a similar act of aggression against me, by claiming ownership of some natural resources (such as land) and thus denying me from using them ?

You dig your own grave, because while digging theirs you miss the part where you will end up just as fleeced as they.

I'm not digging anyone's grave, I'm trying to stay out of mine. Is this truly so difficult to understand ?

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[DaedalusHKX]

Regarding paying for the internet, no buddy, I more than returned the favor. In fact, I am sick of "returning the favor". Regarding the natural resources being "denied" to you. Were you there first? Did you make those resources usable yourself? Well? Do you even know how, or are you simply going to copycat whoever came up with the idea and not give them an ounce of credit? Note, I'm not backing up corporations here, since they do not exist, they're paper in a lawyer's drawer. Only the people who use those papers exist. You do business with them, not with corporations. Corporations are the fiction by which you've let yourself be cheated by people who are afraid to be responsible for their actions. Individuals do as they please, groups exist only to enslave themselves to a stronger will.

The problem with those utopias I mentioned is that eventually the time comes to pay the piper... mostly because all of this is borrowed from the next generation (that next generation being ours.) We'll pay a heavier price than just monetary. Well, some of "us", not all. Some don't care about the group, as the group didn't care about "us".

You'll get it in time. If you ever look.

So, what are we going to do about it?

[SuperBanana]

The subject says it all. For years, we've seen stories like this. Things aren't getting better. What can readers do about it? What are you going to do about it?

Re:So, what are we going to do about it?

[magus_melchior]

Well, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right to carry arms, and reaffirmed that the citizens can be the militia (as opposed to the minor standing army called the National Guard). Doubtless if there is no other viable option, someone will lead an armed revolt.

Re:So, what are we going to do about it?

[garcia]

The subject says it all. For years, we've seen stories like this. Things aren't getting better. What can readers do about it? What are you going to do about it?

What can you do other that start rioting and get thrown in jail for eternity for being a terrorist? It's not like Obama is any fucking better now that he's changed sides on the telecom immunity deal because, well, his advisers probably told him, "dude, we need the money."

We're fucked for another 24 years at least.

Nothing new

[ArchieBunker]

You can't even call the people who run site "editors". They are barely at the janitor level. It would take what, all of 5 minutes to read the submission and clean up the summary.

Re:Nothing new

[palegray.net]

You obviously didn't read the submission yourself. Reference my earlier post regarding the article summary.

Original Design.....

[CyriXCrawler]

The original intent had Congress creating laws, the President executing laws and the Judiciary interpreting the laws.

Each part has it's place and there is a method of oversight for each part.

Congress should not be executing or reinterpreting laws. The Judiciary should not be executing or creating laws. And the Executive should not be creating or interpreting laws.

If congress is reinterpreting a law they passed, it should be rewritten to remove the alternate interpretation.

A sitting judge should not have fiat over methods of the execution of laws. This would be close to setting up a monarchy in the court system.

This is a case of a law that has a few different interpretations. And congress is reevaluating the law.

Slashdot: Yellow Journalism for Nerds

[gambolt]

Come on guys, do you think you could get just a little bit more sensationalistic with this?

you know

[nomadic]

If he were smart the Judge would somehow trick Congress into standing outside of the purported power-stripping machine in his Fortress of Solitude, then when it started Congress would lose their power.

Slashdot could really use some editors or something to verify the headlines and story submissions actually match reality.

Re:you know

[Dog-Cow]

Slashdot exists to make money, which in a way makes it completely hypocritical. I would wager that if the editors do any checking, it's to make sure the headlines are as sensational as possible.

Except in Abu Graib

[Anonymous Coward]

or gitmo, or when you rendition people to other regimes that WILL torture...

Why are the Democrats doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who is bitterly disappointed with the seemingly spineless Democrats.

I have read Obama's explanation of his stance where he basically tells us to suck it up. Why are they really doing this? It seems to me that some folks broke the law and could/should go to jail. It also seems to me that the Democrats are bending over backward to make sure this doesn't happen. Are they as corrupt as the Republicans?

If Bill Clinton can be subjected to a witch hunt and impeached for what he did with a cigar (and which imho should never have been the subject of the aforementioned kangaroo court) surely Bush should be prosecuted to the max for lying to the public and congress so he could start a war. Wiretapping Americans was also illegal and should be prosecuted.

Re:Why are the Democrats doing this?

[demachina]

"Bush should be prosecuted to the max for lying to the public"

Well you can't impeach Bush unless you impeach Cheney at the same time. If you were to successfully impeach and convict just Bush, Cheney would just take over, and no one wants that since Cheney is worse than Bush. Cheney and his right hand man Addington have been more responsible for shoving through most of the spying and torture initiatives of the Bush administration than anyone including Bush.

The other obvious problem is you would never get a conviction through the Senate, its takes a 2/3rds vote and no Republican would support it without substantially more malfeasance on the part of the Bush administration than has occurred. Nixon lost the support of his own party which is why he resigned before he faced impeachment since he might well have been convicted. I don't think Bush has done anything that would make his party want to suffer the humiliation of convicting him. Most of the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats seem to be in favor of giving the President sweeping new spying powers because they are still running scared from 9/11, and most of the Democrats seem to want to spy on everyone as much as the Republicans.

The impeachment of Clinton was an elaborate political show trail designed to damage the Democrats, and it worked quite well since it helped elect Bush in 2000. The Republican's didn't have any chance of convicting Clinton either. They just wanted to inflict as much damage as they could, and for that it did work quite well, since they did gain complete control of the government in its wake.

The Democrats are in some ways to be commended for not inflicting another pointless and crippling impeachment process on the nation, because they wouldn't succeed and it would just do more damage to the country and not accomplish anything. Its unfortunate we can't punish Bush and Cheney for their law breaking, at least while they are in office, but the 2/3rds vote required in the Senate makes the bar to high to achieve. Its hard to commend the Democrats for much but at least they aren't as petty as the Republicans were in using impeachment as a political weapon.

Unfortunately for the Republican's their corruption, incompetence and petty malevolence appears to have so soured America on the Republican brand they could well be pushed out of power again for a long, long time which is a form of punishment in and of itself. Not sure that is good because the Democrats can't be trusted with a stranglehold on power either.

Didn't Adolf Hitler do stuff like this be for take

[Joe The Dragon]

Didn't Adolf Hitler do stuff like this be for taking take full power and control?

Re:The final votes...

[BPPG]

Why should people know what the intelligence community is doing? You shouldn't as you haven't got the need to know.

At least until a group of officers come to your door.

If I were an American being wiretapped, even if I couldn't get any warning, I'd at least want the intelligence forces to need a warrant for it first. Just because they work for the government doesn't mean they're incapable of mistakes or malice.

Except they are in violation of their oath

[Sfing_ter]

Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

To date the only one I am aware of that is following his oath is Ron Paul. BTW - they not only say this they sign a document to the effect. The vile contempt for the American people is what irks me most. Talk about ELITISM, these guys run amok in a town so far separated from their constituency they lose touch with reality.They begin believing the hype that they are more than just regular people.Fuck that. With our technology, there is no reason for these fat team-killing fucktards to BE in Washington, they should be home in their states meeting with the people they represent instead of going on junkets, diddling pages, hiring hookers, and paying other people to do their research.

I'm not bitter. Not at all.

Re:Except they are in violation of their oath

[salesgeek]

I'm not bitter. Not at all.
Stop being bitter and run for office and fix the problem. I'm getting sick of the choice of voting for dumb or dumber, awful or terrible, sad or pathetic, sick or ill, etc... It's our (meaning all Americans) fault things are as they are.

Re:The final votes...

[Gravatron]

So it's okay for the intelligence community to break the law, knowing that the breaking of said laws can result in your torture, imprisonment, and possibly even your illegal execution?
I like to live in a nation that protects it's citizen's from that sort of thing.

Congress enforces laws?

[Foolicious]

Huh?

Re:Congress enforces laws?

[joocemann]

I remembered this cool term called "Checks and Balances", but then I was quickly reminded we have none when we're all in debt.

Re:The final votes...

[cryptodan]

Would you rather live in a nation that doesn't track suspected terrorist movements or communications to their friends inside and outside the boarders of the USA? I know I would want to live in a nation where tracking of such people was condoned.

It's more complicated than that

[jmichaelg]

Bush is trying to diminish FISA's control over his actions for good reasons.

FISA was established when the nation was not at war. The idea was that the CIA wouldn't engage in domestic surveillance because the FBI is supposed to do that. If the FBI wanted information the CIA had, it had to go to the FISA court to get it. That barricade made sense when it was established but had the side effect of hobbling legitimate inquiries. To wit, after the Cole bombing, the FBI had solid information that Al Qaeda was behind it and they had good information that Al Qaeda was established here in the states. They asked the CIA what the CIA knew and the CIA refused to divulge that they knew two Al-Qaeda operatives were in San Diego. The CIA had tracked them while following a meeting in Malaysia. The CIA didn't divulge that information to the FBI until late in the summer of 2001. The CIA justified its failure to pass the information on, despite being asked point blank in several meetings, to "The Wall", a reference to the barrier established by the FISA court.

After 9/11 when the 9/11 commission looked at why we missed several signals that could have thwarted 9/11, the FISA court played a dominant role. We're at war and Bush is trying to win it. He views FISA as an impediment to that goal and like presidents before him, i.e. Roosevelt and Lincoln, is pushing the boundaries of the Constitution.

Whether Bush is right or wrong comes down to a lot more than 'rules are for other people, not us.'

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

We're at war and Bush is trying to win it.

Yeah, right. How has he tried to do that, exactly?

By pulling most of the troops out of Afghanistan before you found Bin Laden, so that he can launch another offensive against a country that was not a threat?

By ignoring the advice of his advisors?

Bush has shown that he wants nothing more than to prolong the war, because when the US is at war, he has way more power.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether Bush is right or wrong comes down to a lot more than 'rules are for other people, not us.'

um. no it doesn't. that is the very heart of why he is wrong. and this is about wiretapping without warrants, not sharing information with other agencies. there's nothing to share without properly collected info.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[smack.addict]

Name one concrete barrier to real intelligence represented by FISA.

The only reason to fear FISA is because you fear that your surveillance is without merit.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

We're at war and Bush is trying to win it.

When did Congress declare that war? We are not "At War", we are in a NATO action in one area, and a UN action in another, but we are not at war.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[DWIM]

Bush is trying to diminish FISA's control over his actions for good reasons.[...]

After 9/11 when the 9/11 commission looked at why we missed several signals that could have thwarted 9/11, the FISA court played a dominant role. We're at war and Bush is trying to win it.[...]

This war powers reasoning irritates the hell out of me. I don't deny that it may be necessary to expand the President's powers when we are at war, but I do think we should first require that our country actually formally DECLARE WAR on the other country before this can be invoked. And by "declare war" I mean our Congress pass a resolution stating explicitly that we "Declare War" on the enemy country.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[DarthBobo]

>> FISA was established when the nation was not at war.

What exactly would you consider a war? We were still in the throes of the "Cold War" against a billion plus Communists armed with nuclear weapons. We had just pulled out of Vietnam, and it was the warrantless surveillance of people opposed to that war that sparked the Chuch Investigations and then FISA. So whether you consider Mr. Bush's war to be an figurative, ideological struggle, or whether you consider is to be a literal, physical struggle, FISA was a reaction to exactly the same excesses.

Besides which, FISA doesn't cover information sharing between agencies. Thats an entirely different problem. FISA simply establishes a mechanism for authorizing domestic spying.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had not heard from enough people that their professional warnings and opinions were ignored or they were told to interpret the data differently, I MIGHT believe you.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[jvillain]

As FISA has only every denied one wire tap and there is no requirement to apply to FISA before you start wire tapping it is hard to make the case that FISA is an impediment to any thing. In fact it is a completly toothless watch dog.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Planesdragon]

This war powers reasoning irritates the hell out of me. I don't deny that it may be necessary to expand the President's powers when we are at war, but I do think we should first require that our country actually formally DECLARE WAR on the other country before this can be invoked. And by "declare war" I mean our Congress pass a resolution stating explicitly that we "Declare War" on the enemy country.

Sorry, there's no such foolish regulation in the Constitution. Any act of Congress authorizing use of military force is a declaration of war. If you're so inclined, you can go find the full text of the bills that authorized action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And if we're going to put a formal declaration in the Constitution, for the love of God, add in a "undeclare" war clause, without need of the President's consent, as well.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Mista2]

Yup, the USA will stop at nothing to make sure they are the only country with Nukes, even though they are the only country in the world to have used them in anger. It would not suprise me that "War" was waged just to take peoples mind of problems at home, secure oil to keep USA's engine running and the current party in power.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[jmichaelg]

One barrier? How about that Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar were in the United States? The FBI had specifically asked the CIA if any Al Qaeda members were in the United States and the CIA refused to answer. The CIA didn't divulge that information to the FBI until 9/12?

FISA serves to compartmentalize information. That's fine if you're worried about the government spying on its own citizens. Not so fine when it keeps the government from putting together information that's crucial to defense of its citizens.

We both have fears, just different ones.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[DWIM]

Sorry, there's no such foolish regulation in the Constitution. Any act of Congress authorizing use of military force is a declaration of war. If you're so inclined, you can go find the full text of the bills that authorized action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And if we're going to put a formal declaration in the Constitution, for the love of God, add in a "undeclare" war clause, without need of the President's consent, as well.

Read my comments again. I never said there was such a regulation in the Constitution. In fact, I added the 2nd sentence where I clarified what I meant by "declare war" because I already know it is not defined and not required in the Constitution.

As it stands now, it is possible for any sitting President to claim that whenever we have our military engaged in any situation that may require shooting we could be said to be "at war" and, therefore, he is not constrained by normal laws in this country.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[myCopyWrong]

Your example, if true, only points out the futility of super secret search without a warrant. Do you think the CIA and FBI will magically start sharing information if they are both allowed to operate like the Gestapo? Given more power, there will be more not less secrets. New laws and offices don't solve problems when people are violating laws and offices to start with.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

We're at war and Bush is trying to win it.

We are NOT at fucking war, damn it! The bullshit resolution Congress passed is NOT a declaration of war, and was simply a means for them to delegate the authority to the executive branch that they're too afraid to exert themselves for political reasons.

"Because it makes our job too hard" is not reason enough for the executive branch to subvert the court system, particularly when the highest law of the land says the courts exist as a check on its power. I'm a lot more afraid of our own government than the "terrists". At least Al Qaida isn't trying to do an unrestrained power grab and telling me it's for my own good.

If you're more concerned about your personal safety than keeping the government in check, "may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen".

Re:It's more complicated than that

[mabhatter654]

we're not at any more "war" now than we were when FISA was established. We were at perpetual war during WW2, Korea, Southeast Asia, eastern bloc... we did't stop being "at War" until into 1980 and they passed FISA because they were tired of the CIA pulling just this crap.

We are not at war with Iraq and Afghanistan any more than Vietnam was "War" and there's no reason for war powers to continue period. One attack is not "invasion" by any stretch. We conquered both countries vaguely responsible for the attack and won. Occupation is not war, it's over once the government is conquered... at least by normal definitions of war.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[mabhatter654]

That's not a bug, it's a feature. That's the "chinese wall" FISA established. The CIA and NSA can break any rules they feel need to, spy on anybody... except they are illegal agencies if they spy in US citizens and it's illegal to use their results in domestic law enforcement. They can't even admit they take those actions or domestic law enforcement would have to lock them up! That allowed them to get whatever foreign agents may be here but normal citizens would not be looking over their shoulders. The CIA can't tell the FBI anything, or the FBI would start using them for illegally spying on regular people and just pass the info under the table.

The FBI already learned their lesson after J. Edger's secret spying on politicians nearly got them shut down... They learned the hard way to run a clean ship and not touch CIA info.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[mabhatter654]

Exactly, the ONLY reason to not file FISA papers is if you would need to spy on so many people you can't justify it and don't want to keep any records because you KNOW it's wrong!!!

Re:It's more complicated than that

[sumdumass]

That's a tired old saying. You must not be paying attention.

The Supreme court already ruled on that and determined or should I say confirmed that we are at war. It was in the Hamdi v rumsfield case I believe. Congress doesn't have to say "we declare war" in order to take us to war. Make no mistake, we are at war and not in an action.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[HungryHobo]

Why do people speak like being killed by terrorists is so very likely?
I mean death by lightening is only slightly less likely and you and your family are much much much more likely to be killed by some random drunk who can't drive straight.
Yes terrorists exist and they are a danger, a small danger.
Money should be invested in defending the population from terrorist attacks just like money should be invested in lightening rods. But if you could save more lives and keep more people safe by investing that same money in safer cars or better hospital facitities then you're throwing money and lives away.
Imagine that after 9/11 if 90% of the money which was spent on anti-terrorist measures had instead been spent on a mix of other ways to keep the population safe and happy.
even if there had been ten times as many deaths due to terrorism since 9/11 in the US how many lives could have been saved?

Imagine a company which invests millions in an anti-slip floor surface to prevent falls but neglects to spend anything on (cheap)hard hats even if the latter would save ten times more lives.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

/sigh. I see you only drank some Kool-Aid.

Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned action performed by NATO forces.
Iraq is an illegal occupation following an illegal war performed by a "coalition of the willing".

Re:It's more complicated than that

[pavon]

What does CIA and FBI not sharing info have anything to do with FISA warrants?

Re:It's more complicated than that

[IdeaMan]

It could be argued that they were not used out of anger but out of compassion, to prevent the deaths of millions of Japanese citizens and soldiers and American soldiers.
Using them got the Japanese to sign a peace agreement months earlier.

I thought

[Newer Guy]

I thought that the legislative and jusice (court) branches were separate and distinct. So much for the separation of powers!

Worst Headline Ever

[zoikes]

really... I don't think I've ever seen a more misleading headline.

Really, really lame, guys.

Headline Wrong, Update Wrong

[dcollins]

This is definitely the most inaccurate headline I've ever seen at Slashdot. The trying-to-save-face Update is also droolingly inaccurate. Others have tried to say it, but I'll reiterate it in different words here:

THE WIRED ARTICLE IS USING THE PHRASE "STRIP HIS POWER" SOLELY AS A METAPHOR.

Congress is not voting on Judge Vaughn Walker in any way, shape, or form. His name doesn't appear in any bill, law, or motion in front of Congress. He just *happens* to be the judge that the warrantless wiretapping suits are in front of in the Northern District of California.

Yes, on Tuesday Congress plans to vote on the intercom wiretapping immunity bill (and it stinks like rotten fish), like they've been planning for some time. And yes, that would mean that the judge then couldn't rule in favor of this lawsuit. But they're not targetting any particular individual, and this is just the exact same story we've been reading about for months now regarding an intercom-immunity bill.

Congress is NOT stripping Judge Walker of any power whatsoever. Congress IS passing a new crappy law that coincidentally affects one of the cases in front of Judge Walker.

Re:The final votes...

[cryptodan]

I guess slashdotters are limiting my right to free speech and voicing my opinion way to go slashdotters for modding my opinion and voice down as trolling. Maybe you all should go to China and help their government limit rights as well.

The Next American Civil War will be much bloodier

[KozmoKramer]

The Next American Civil War is going to be much bloodier than the first one was.

Re:The final votes...

[enjoyoutdoors]

That was the argument in the Soviet Union for the secrecy and special powers without accounting that the KGB had. Folks that argue that this level of secrecy and extraordinary power should be allowed fail to understand history and the nature of repressing societies, and need to undertstand why it is necessary to freedom to limit such secrecy and government powers from being abused against the citizenry. Thankfully we are an open Republic... or are we anymore?

Re:The final votes...

[GaryOlson]

Your comment may have been modded down; but can still be read -- so your right to free speech has not been negated. If your comment had been completely deleted, then the China comment might have merit.

The right to free speech does not implicitly require the obligation by others to listen. Apparently the mods would like to see more useful content in your statements.

Re:Didn't Adolf Hitler do stuff like this be for t

[moxley]

Yes. There is a well understood technique for turning a democracy into a fascist state. You could think of it as a checklist. We in America are going right down the list, textbook style.

Re:Didn't Adolf Hitler do stuff like this be for t

[moxley]

Yes. There are well understood techniques for transitioning a democracy or an open/free society into a closed fascist state. You could write them down on a paper and make a checklist, and we in America are going right down the list checking those things off as if those who are behind this are reading from a fascist playbook.

Someone who knows the Truth!

[DeadCatX2]

I was going to write that exact comment.

Thank you for writing it. Not enough people know that, for instance, we knowingly and intentionally provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used to kill Iranians, which chemical weapons Saddam then used against the Kurds.

Funny enough, we had him hanged for using the chemical weapons we gave him.

Aren't you proud to be an American?

Re:Someone who knows the Truth!

[D.McGuiggin]

I was going to write that exact comment.

Then that's two people I can safely ignore.

Saying 100 is equal to 7 doesn't make 100 equal to 7. Pretending that Bush = Saddam doesn't make it so.

Not enough people know that, for instance, we knowingly and intentionally provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used to kill Iranians, which chemical weapons Saddam then used against the Kurds.

And? Every time some tool with this argument pipes up, I always think "so fucking what?" Despite what you people think, making a weapon available doesn't require its use. Saddam is responsible for USING the weapons, if he hadn't, they'd be sitting in a fucking ammo dump somewhere. People like you seem to think providing a sovereign state with weapons is equivalent to using them ourselves.

But as I've already shown you, 100 does not equal 7.

Funny enough, we had him hanged for using chemical weapons

THAT is the part that matters, please explain why you think it makes one difference where they came from?

Aren't you proud to be an American?

Yes very. But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive. You don't appear to be that smart.

Re:Someone who knows the Truth!

[DeadCatX2]

But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive.

And we're smart enough to realize that if you sell someone a knife knowing full well that they're going to skin a child alive, you are responsible in part for that attack.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you would be upset if anyone provided Iran with nuclear technology (that doesn't violate the NPT), though by your logic the party who gave them the nukes shouldn't be responsible for how they're used.

Re:Someone who knows the Truth!

[D.McGuiggin]

And we're smart enough to realize that if you sell someone a knife knowing full well that they're going to skin a child alive, you are responsible in part for that attack.

Please provide a citation proving your assumption in order to further an already disproven argument is anything other than an assumption made to further an already disproven point.

You making an assumption after the fact doesn't make your argument correct, intelligent, or anything other than disingenuous.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you would be upset if anyone provided Iran with nuclear technology (that doesn't violate the NPT),

You'd be wrong, so that's two faulty assumptions.

though by your logic the party who gave them the nukes shouldn't be responsible for how they're used.

No, not MY logic, JUST LOGIC. Giving someone a tool doesn't make you responsible for someone else using it.

Re:Someone who knows the Truth!

[copponex]

Saying 100 is equal to 7 doesn't make 100 equal to 7.

Congratulations. You're the new poster child for most ironic non-sequitur.

Pretending that Bush = Saddam doesn't make it so.

Who is pretending? For their own cynical reasons, Bush and Saddam kill people to maintain power and (successfully or not) to get access to more resources for their state.

And? Every time some tool with this argument pipes up, I always think "so fucking what?" Despite what you people think, making a weapon available doesn't require its use. Saddam is responsible for USING the weapons, if he hadn't, they'd be sitting in a fucking ammo dump somewhere. People like you seem to think providing a sovereign state with weapons is equivalent to using them ourselves.

So, under your definition, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. After all, if Saddam had any nerve gas, and gave some to a terrorist nutjob, it's not his fault if they use the device in Grand Central Station. Proving weapons to people with ill intent is morally reprehensible, but I'm sure you'll continue to find a way to rationalize it to protect your plastic patriotism.

But as I've already shown you, 100 does not equal 7.

I'm just repeating this to embarrass you a second time.

THAT is the part that matters, please explain why you think it makes one difference where they came from?

Because not only did he purchase them from us, he used them while we continued to support him with money and weapons. So he wasn't hung for his crimes until it became useful to the interests of the United States. We could have easily cut off material support in the early eighties and allowed the Kurds to successfully defend themselves to stop the atrocities, but we didn't, for one reason: he was doing a great job of killing Iranians, and we didn't care what happened to Iraqis, whether Kurds, anti-Baathists, or the repressed Shia majority.

Yes very. But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive. You don't appear to be that smart.

A more correct analogy would be giving a known sociopath automatic weapons and a room full of people, and telling him you wouldn't turn him in if he slaughtered them all.

And if you want to really know the truth, and know what your government does in order to keep it from you, you may remember the crying Kuwaiti girl on television, recounting the story of babies being taken out of incubators and left on the floor to die.

The girl was the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomat, and she was lying.

Re:Someone who knows the Truth!

[DeadCatX2]

Please provide a citation proving your assumption in order to further an already disproven argument is anything other than an assumption made to further an already disproven point.
 
...did you even read what you wrote?

Anyway, if you read this reprint of an article from the Washington Post (the original is only available in the physical paper, not online), you will note that George Schultz (Reagan's Secretary of State in 1983) knew that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on Iranians almost daily.

No, not MY logic, JUST LOGIC. Giving someone a tool doesn't make you responsible for someone else using it.

Do not try to pass off your logic as true logic. While I would contend that chemical weapons are not tools, you forget that we knew what they were going to do with those weapons.

Your "logic" (i.e. opinion) is that you can sell an illegal weapon to someone knowing full well that they will use that weapon to kill people, and that you can claim plausible deniability in order to avoid accountability.

Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention, almost 60 years before we sold chemical weapons to Iraq. Why would we sell illegal weapons to a dictator who has been using them almost daily?

Because it was more important for us to make sure Iran lost. That's like giving your wife's ex-husband (who has a history of spousal abuse) a loaded gun and dropping him off at your house before you went to get a cup of coffee, and then saying it's not your fault when he uses that gun to shoot her even though it was public knowledge that you wanted to get rid of her. No logic can justify that.

Hang on...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we're missing the big picture. Still-President Bush appointed a Judge who tried to uphold existing restrictions on government wire-tapping?

Well, we're still going to hell, just not as quick as I might have thought.

AUMF != Declaration of War

[SpaceLifeForm]

The US is not at War. You have been fooled, along with many others, that the Iraq invasion was a result of Congress declaring war. The US Congress did absolutely no such thing.

Just because the bush administration keeps saying 'War', does not change the reality of the fact that it is not a declared war.

Link

Re:AUMF != Declaration of War

[sumdumass]

The US is not at War. You have been fooled, along with many others, that the Iraq invasion was a result of Congress declaring war. The US Congress did absolutely no such thing.

Just because the bush administration keeps saying 'War', does not change the reality of the fact that it is not a declared war.

I guess this is just one more reason not to trust Wikkipedia and an example of how it can fool you. First, These guys seemto think we are at war, they said the AUMF does activate the president's war powers. "First, while we assume that the AUMF activated the President's war powers, see Hamdi v. Rums-feld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004) (plurality opinion), and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances,"

The Hamdi V rumsfield case decided by the district court said "There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use." and "In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of "necessary and appropriate force," Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here."

Again, the look like their saying we are at war. It should also be noted that the government lost their position in this case on the supreme court level and the court still maintained that the AUMF took us to war.

Regardless of whether or not congress actually use the words "declare war", the Supreme Court is willing to give the words used the same weight as a declaration of war. It is the supreme court that will be the final arbitrators on it and regardless of the impression that wikkipedia want to give you, the SCOTUS is the correct opinion to follow.

Dupe!

[Guppy06]

I can't think of how else to describe this. The title and the summary suggest that there's some new bill floating around Congress right now that's targeting this man specifically, maybe an impeachment or something. But TFA talks about the same bill that's already been covered before. We already knew there is a pending lawsuit or two and we already know the retroactive immunity is aimed to end it. There is nothing new for me to write to my members of Congress for them to promptly ignore.

Is this story so boring and uninteresting that we have to get sensational about it?

Congress is also a check on the courts

[unassimilatible]

The Constitution is clear, ""the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress decides what the jurisdiction of the courts is, and this is a check written into the Constitution - unlike FISA. Congress "stripping power," to use loaded, biased phrasing, is exactly what Article III empowers Congress to do.

One could make the argument that FISA itself is unconstitutional. After all, can, by mere act of law (as opposed to constitutional amendment), Congress actually limit presidential powers?

So by merely passing a law (FISA), Congress can "strip" the president of powers, but by constitutional power under Article III, it cannot "strip" a judge of jurisdiction? Not to mention, the whole power of judicial review, "stripping" congress and the executive of powers by the lone unelected branch, is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. Who is "stripping" whom again?

Furthermore, is it really the position of Slashdotters that, prior to FISA's passage, the president had no powers to monitor spies and terrorists? That seems to be the logical extension of the argument of this judge and those here hailing him.

Sheer lunacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's law is alive and well here on Slashdot, Baathist edition. What an idiot you are, sir. Saddam's horrors are well-documented and not propaganda. Long before Bush 43 was in office and 60 Minutes showed its anti-Bush bias, they did a huge expose on Saddam. The left wing Human Rights Watch documented Saddam's horrors as well. You can't just call any inconvenient truths "propaganda."

Please mod parent flamebait

[unassimilatible]

Americans are so f***ing scared of their own shadows that Bush only has to invent bogeymen.

How is this not flamebait? So now you can say anything in anyway so long as it agrees with the anti-Bush memes on Slashdot.

The mod system here is broken.

everyone seems to, it seems

[Trepidity]

It would be one thing if it were just Mr Bush promoting this: he can't actually pass laws. Or even just Mr Bush and his Republican allies: they control neither house of Congress. The actual situation seems to be much worse: the Democratic-led Congress is going to bring this to a vote and pass it, despite the fact that they could easily block it (or not have brought it up at all) if they wished to.

Article 3...

[RecycledElectrons]

Congress does have the power to create any federal courts below the level of the SCOUTS, that they may from time to time wish to create. They can abolish all federal courts below SCOTUS tomorrow, before breakfast.

Congress does have the power to set the jurisdiction of all federal courts. If they wanted to ban all abortion, overturn Roe v Wade, and revoke the power of the SCOTUS to decide any constitutional issue or any issue involving abortion, they could do that tomorrow between breakfast and lunch.

All these powers are in Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

I'm so sick of Congress stepping outside the Constitution, that I love to see them exercising their legitimate powers. That's true even when they illegally wire tap millions of us, and then object the legitimate use of lynch mobs to get revenge against the corporate wire tapping scum.

Andy Out!

The root flaw in the Administration argument

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>the president's inherent war time powers

You correctly point out the implications of a perpetual war. But wait, there's more.

Any statement about the President's "inherent" powers is deeply, critically wrong. The President has *enumerated* powers, by the most deliberate design. The Constitution explains in black and white that any powers not specifically called out belong to the individual states or to the people. Beyond that, the power to make regulations for the armed forces (NSA is part of DoD) is exclusively Congress's (Article I, Section 8).

Wait just a minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Congress's vote to authorize military force against Al Qaeda"

Excuse me? There was no such vote by congress. Bush never made a declaration of war. Therefore, this is an illegal war. They also never found evidence of WMD's in Iraq which means the war was based on fraud from the beginning. Listen to Dennis Kucinichs' articles of impeachment.

Bush can NOT exercise wartime powers

[Maestro485]

Bush can NOT exercise wartime powers. Or rather, he should not be able to exercise wartime powers. War requires a declaration by Congress. Military action at the behest of the President is not war, regardless of how it's spun. If the President is able to single-handedly declare war, then use his own declaration as reason to dismiss traditional Executive restraint, the whole goddam Constitution is worthless.

Yes, I'm well aware that this is essentially what's been going on for the last 8 years. It's been drawn out enough to make it less extreme. Just a signing statement here, an executive order there. Of course, until Congress realizes that it's own power has been hijacked by the Executive, there's really not much that can be done.

Regardless, it really is nice to see the Judiciary stepping up lately. Hopefully some of our elected leaders get the message.

Bush, Sr.

[mattwarden]

> Walker was appointed to the bench by President Bush

That'd be the first Bush, not the current Bush.

Wow, I remember the Rule of Law.

[LIGAFF]

Those were the good old days.

Yes, the point of the declare war clause

[unassimilatible]

Is so Congress can check the president's war powers, not so some nitpickers can hear the phrase "declare war." I doubt there is any constitutional scholarship that says otherwise.

It is a check and balance clause, not a Slashdot nit-and-pick clause.

Required Reading ... for balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Since no serious intellectual exclusively considers one side of an issue or debate. I strongly recommend reading Andrew McCarthy's excellent NRO article: Getting FISA Wrong ... Again. McCarthy, a long time critic of FISA law, takes issue with Chief Judge Walker's recent conclusion. Here's a small teaser:

It is on this score that Chief Judge Walker's opinion is weakest. He is very long on demonstrating the obvious, undeniable and unremarkable: In FISA, Congress intended to remove all residual presidential authority to conduct electronic surveillance outside statutory restrictions. The judge is woefully short, though, on the only issue that really matters: whether, regardless of their intentions, our lawmakers had the power to do that.

No, there are other reasons

[unassimilatible]

Such as, the FISA process is slow, and actionable intelligence might require real-time speed. What if bin Laden is on the phone right now, with a throw-away cell? By the time you can get a FISA warrant, he's hung up and thrown the phone away. Opportunity lost.

Of course, this is silly anyway, since we didn't need warrants for the Nazis or the North Koreans or the NVA.

Re:No, there are other reasons

[OzoneLad]

Such as, the FISA process is slow, and actionable intelligence might require real-time speed. What if bin Laden is on the phone right now, with a throw-away cell? By the time you can get a FISA warrant, he's hung up and thrown the phone away. Opportunity lost.

Considering that you can apply for a FISA warrant retroactively, I don't see how it can ever be called "slow". Time-traveling warrants are never late.

Re:No, there are other reasons

[mabhatter654]

They have up to 72 hours of "free" spying before they have to ASK permission of the court... that's only turned down 1 warrant of 4000+.... it's just ASKING so the citizens can know it's not abused, and the Prez can't even abide that much?

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Zinn continues on to describe a Homestead Act that allowed people with means to buy up land in the west for a low price (if you had means), and the government's gift of tens of millions of acres of public land to railroads.

That's funny, because I remember the Homestead Act being what allowed "the West" to get settled, and the railroads as being what allowed people to live out there, especially when you factor in Sears-Roebuck catalogs.

While America's expansion came with negatives the Native Americans no doubt remember, I would've thought that you would go for Abe's suspension of habeas corpus or something like that...

War time eh...

[mmyrfield]

This is war time people! This judge is clearly a terrorist collaborator, and is in league with people like the guy who thought it would be funny to sell his vote. Anyone that is against the government having the power to do what needs to be done, including warrentless wire-tapping, is a potential terrorist and should be treated as such.

We have lists of people who write letters to congress and their positions. We know who has been naughty and nice. Do you know if your son is a terrorist collaborator Mrs. McIntyre? How about your sister Bob? There is a RED^H^H^H terrorist collaborator under every bed.

Only a terrorist needs privacy. You're not a terrorist, are you?


disclaimer: for those who did not pick up on it, the above comment was not serious, nor sarcastic.

satire: n. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices
-Oxford English Dictionary

I will

[D.McGuiggin]

Yeah, take pride the next time you need to fly and are told at the airport you can't cause you're on the watch list.

I absolutely will, a little inconvenience doesn't scare me.

They are

[D.McGuiggin]

And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers.

Well, I am suggesting such provisions already exist in the law, so I'm not sure what you want.

We are acting like this is somethign new

[gubers33]

We are acting like this is some new thing, we all think that when we were young politicians were honest. They having been messing things up for years, and for years no one has done anything about it. Despite the fact that the government gets its power from the people, we are all too lazy and afraid to take a stand against them. I mean just think of the fact of Charlie Wilson he asked for a million dollars to build a school in Afghanistan so they knew we helped them, but we didn't and it has cost thousands of American lives. The only way the corruption is going to stop is if there is some kind of miracle like the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Where so regular moral guy stumbles into office believing in nothing more than the Constitution and helping people and gets the people in his corner. Because right now as long as the corrupt are in power we will only see corruption.

Speaking of ignorant

[D.McGuiggin]

Anyone who supports perpetual budget defecits we're going to leave to our grandkids to pay back is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who uses the term "budget deficit" to describe the "national debt" is ignorant.

Anyone who thinks it's a bad idea to use our stellar credit to our benefit is too ignorant of economics to forward an intelligent opinion.

Anyone who genuinely has the opinion you have on this subject isn't worth listening to, because of overwhelming ignorance.

Stick to war bating, economics are out of your bailiwick.

Re:Speaking of ignorant

[BrianGKUAC]

Ah, ok. So as long as it's called the National Debt (which is caused by repeated budget deficits) and not "perpetual budget deficits", it's ok. The United States is owned by other nations, but we have good credit, so it doesn't matter. We just have to make sure that none of those other nations call in those debts, though, because if they do, we don't actually have enough economy PERIOD to pay them back. Maybe we'll just use our stellar credit again to pay them off with money from someone else which we can in turn owe far more to.

You work for HSBC, don't you? Well, stick to counting your dollar bills, because negative numbers are clearly beyond your grasp.

Re:Speaking of ignorant

[Sj0]

Actually, you're the ignorant one, assuming from a single phrase that you understand what I do or don't understand.

The debt itself wouldn't be a problem if Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to surpluses. If they didn't mind surpluses and payin back the debts we incur, then running in defecit once in a while would be perfectly acceptable, just as I ran in defecit while I went to college for a couple years, then I ran in defecit for about a year while I ran up debts buying a vehicle and buying furniture for my first apartment, but with my school properly financed, I was in a position to easily pay back that debt by cutting spending and achieving some surpluses.

Hmmm

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Outrageous! The government twisting the judicial branch's nuts to get a desired outcome.

Horrible!

"But FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with extra judges, since Congress can increase the size past 9, in order to get approval of the creation of massive welfare redistribution of wealth programs."

Well, that was Ok, I guess, part and parcel of moving to the modern state. :rollseyes

Oh, have a look at my .sig before you flamemod me.

DAT

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets give the terrorists civil rights because they certainly respect ours.

Backwards politics?

[rilian4]

What I find interesting here is that this is a democratic congress that supposedly won their majority by campaigning on, amongst other things, the current administration's warrantless wiretap policies. That and even more interesting is that this judge was appointed by the current administration. This seems very backwards to me. What is going on?

So no citation then?

[D.McGuiggin]

Read you own link genius, it's not what you claim it is, and it definitely doesn't say what you claim it does.

While I would contend that chemical weapons are not tools,

Contending does not make it so, and in this case, you are wrong.

you forget that we knew what they were going to do with those weapons.

No we don't, and you have no evidence to show otherwise. Your "proof" certainly doesn't show that.

Your "logic" (i.e. opinion) is that you can sell an illegal weapon to someone knowing full well that they will use that weapon to kill people, and that you can claim plausible deniability in order to avoid accountability.

No it isn't, save your stupid fucking straw men for someone who'll let you get away with them. If you're going to lie about my positions, then there's no reason for me to refrain from telling you to fuck off.

Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention

NO actually, it wasn't. Do you intend to lie at every opportunity in order to support your already disproven point?

You have yet to demonstrate a single thing apart from the fact that you'll openly lie to support your point.

Re:So no citation then?

[DeadCatX2]

Read you own link genius, it's not what you claim it is, and it definitely doesn't say what you claim it does.

This is from the 15th paragraph.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians.

You can't deny the truth. We knew they were using chemical weapons on the Iranians before we sold them the weapons. And it is in the "proof" that I linked.

I'm sure if you would actually do your own research, you could find further supporting evidence, but I doubt you're actually interested in the truth. Like the Washington Post describing how the CIA provided information on how to use mustard gas to the Iraqis. Or how the US was the sole veto at the UN Security Council in 1986, preventing a statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Contending does not make it so, and in this case, you are wrong.

You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". What non-military purpose can a chemical weapon serve?

No it isn't, save your stupid fucking straw men for someone who'll let you get away with them. If you're going to lie about my positions, then there's no reason for me to refrain from telling you to fuck off.

I'm not making any straw men or putting any words in your mouth. It is a simple fact that we knew Iraq was using chemical weapons on the Iranians. It is a simple fact that chemical weapons are weapons and their sole purpose is to kill people. It is a simple fact that the US wanted Iran to lose.

By defending the US distribution of chemical weapons to Iraq, you are defending the Reagan Administration's idea that you can sell chemical weapons to people so they can kill your enemies for you. If you do not like the moral position that your opinion puts you in, perhaps you should change your opinion. Being upset that your opinion makes you look bad doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention

NO actually, it wasn't. Do you intend to lie at every opportunity in order to support your already disproven point?

First, my point hasn't been disproven. You only say it's been disproven, but you provide no proof. I can agree with the argument that a manufacturer of bullets is not responsible for what those bullets are used for, but that is not a proper analogy for the Iraq-Iran war.

Second, what planet are you from? The proper term for the Geneva Protocol is "the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare". Look it up on wikipedia, for heaven's sake. I'm not lying here - chemical weapons have been illegal for decades. You're simply wrong on this point, and there's nothing else to it.

Re:So no citation then?

[D.McGuiggin]

"We knew they were using chemical weapons on the Iranians before we sold them the weapons. And it is in the "proof" that I linked."

NO YOU FUCKING MORON, IT IS NOT.

What YOU have is a piece by a third party discussing the secret meetings of two OTHER parties. That's not proof to anyone but an idiot. As to "CW", do you know what qualifies as "CW"? If you DID, you wouldn't be dumb enough to forward that as proof.

"You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". "

You use them to do a job, that makes thEm tools, and makes you an idiot for asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who isn't retarded. If you want a SPECIFIC example, DEFOLIANT YOU FUCKING MORON.

I'm not making any straw men or putting any words in your mouth

Yes you are and now you're lying about THAT too.

By defending the US distribution of chemical weapons to Iraq, you are defending the Reagan Administration's idea that you can sell chemical weapons to people so they can kill your enemies for you.

I'm doing NONE OF THE ABOVE, and THAT is a perfect example of the straw men you're lying about not using.

Look it up on wikipedia, for heaven's sake

I don't have to asshole, I'm familiar with it, your post makes it clear you're not. It certainly DOES NOT say what you claim it does, for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?

I'm not lying here - chemical weapons have been illegal for decades

No, you ARE lying, they HAVE NOT been illegal for decades. Many countries have agreed not to use them, which is the correct characterization of the Geneva Protocol your crowing about, but THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL. YOU are wrong.

Try actually reading the text you're linking to, that way you can avoid saying shit that is demonstrably false IN YOUR OWN LINKS.

Re:So no citation then?

[DeadCatX2]

Judging by other posts you've made recently in other topics, I would venture to say that you have an anger problem. Regardless, it's still amusing to watch you squirm in fury, so I'll keep this thread going.

What YOU have is a piece by a third party discussing the secret meetings of two OTHER parties.

By your "logic" (*giggle*), all of journalism is suspect. I figured something that was printed in a physical newspaper as reputable as the Washington Post would satisfy you, but it appears nothing short of a video or audio tape can meet your burden of proof.

I guess, then, the CIA never really had black site prisons, that the US does not torture, that we're not monitoring international communications without warrants, that Hans Reiser really didn't do it, that Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman...

As to "CW", do you know what qualifies as "CW"? If you DID, you wouldn't be dumb enough to forward that as proof.

Given the context, CW means chemical weapons. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to figure that out, despite your abundance of ad-homs.

"You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". "

You use them to do a job

A job...like killing people you don't like.

If you want a SPECIFIC example, DEFOLIANT YOU FUCKING MORON.

That is convenient, isn't it? I'm sure the Reagan administration thought this all through carefully so as to keep their hands as clean as possible.

By your reasoning, then, why do we have laws restricting the sale of dual-use technology?

I'm doing NONE OF THE ABOVE, and THAT is a perfect example of the straw men you're lying about not using.

Consider that you said making weapons available does not amount to using them. Disregard the fact that this is complete bullshit (try making a gun available to someone in a mental institution and see if you can escape accountability).

My argument is that if you are aware of intended purpose of the tool you're selling at the time of sale, then you share accountability for that use. Further, if you sell a tool to someone so that they may do something that you would like to see done, you are even more accountable than in the example above.

Ignoring for a moment whether or not this actually happened, do you seriously disagree with the general principle of the preceding paragraph?

The reason I am not using a straw man argument against you is because the chemical-weapons-sold-to-Iraq thing (regardless of "citations" or "proof") essentially boils down to the argument above.

Let me rephrase it just in case your anger-clouded thought processes didn't quite get it. I'm not saying that you believe the Reagan administration knew what those chemicals would be used for. I believe that they did regardless of whether you did or not, so you can't say that I'm attributing that viewpoint to you.

However, prior knowledge of the intended purpose makes them an accomplice, in this case to a conspiracy to commit war crimes. Your "defense" is just a clever way to game the system and avoid accountability or any legal repercussions.

I don't have to asshole, I'm familiar with it, your post makes it clear you're not. It certainly DOES NOT say what you claim it does, for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?

Ah, a sliver of intelligence amid otherwise incoherent ranting. Pay close attention here, though, because I'm going to show you what a straw man argument really is, and with any hope you will actually learn something truthful today.

If you look back to my original reply to you, I said the Geneva Protocol outlawed chemical warfare. I didn't say anything about manufacture or storage.

Try actually reading the te

Re:So no citation then?

[Anonymous Coward]

:) I'm afraid Mr D.McGuiggin (1317705) does this all the time. His big trick is building a straw man and then accusing his "opponent" of doing so. When that fails, he's quite sure that he can still win just by using enough abuse, CAPS, exclamation points, and expletives. It's probably best to ignore Mr D.McGuiggin (1317705).

Re:So no citation then?

[D.McGuiggin]

"his big trick is building a straw man and then accusing his "opponent" of doing so. "

So post an example you lying piece of garbage. It's easy to follow me around after I've proven you wrong and whine like the bitch you are, but linking to my comment page doesn't prove your point, and in fact, demonstrates how I shut you the fuck up the first time, because you can't even accurately cite your argument's points.

Fuck, it must have been pretty traumatic for you to be proven wrong in public like I did, that's the only excuse I can see for you making a fool of yourself by posting AC as your admission that you couldn't successfully debate me.

Re:So no citation then?

[DeadCatX2]

How about this example?

Above, I said chemical warfare is illegal.

You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong.

But I never once made any mention of manufacture or storage.

That is called a straw man. You pretend I made a point that I did not make ("chemical weapons are illegal to manufacture or store" - not something I ever said) and then you attack that point instead of what I really said (chemical warfare is illegal).

I guess nobody read 1984...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1984, George Orwell states that the way to maintain total, permanent control over a populace is to maintain a permanent state of war.

By doing this, the government gets to treat everyone who disagrees as at best a threat ("dissent is unpatriotic when we're at war!") and at worst a traitor (anyone remember when a Republican said that journalists critical of the Iraq war were giving "aid and comfort" to America's enemies? "Aid and comfort" is a specific phrase that's used to describe treason).

Historically, we Americans have been very skeptical of government authority. That's why we're a nation (supposedly) ruled by law, not men. The idea is that the ultimate arbiter of action in America is the law; the law might be wrong, in which case it needs to be changed. But ultimately, nobody is above the law.

However, there are some loopholes. The President's Article 2 powers are not specifically limited, as long as we're at war (note: this is why Bush and co. have tried to keep this a "war" on terror, rather than framing it as a police action in response to 9/11 -- in fact, the wiretapping and most of the other frightening changes to the federal government were initiated BEFORE 9/11). This is one reason that some members of congress are revisiting the War Powers Act enacted in the 70's to limit Nixon's authority in Vietnam -- to try to prevent future Presidents to do what Bush has done and essentially unilaterally declare war (without actually declaring war), and so grab almost unlimited power.

The United States of America is teetering dangerously, dangerously close to a dictatorship, and we're all too busy saying that "it can't happen here" or just distracting ourselves with the circus of a presidential election (when in reality, these changes to the rule of law and our checks and balances are far more important than the simple matter of whether it's President Obama or President McCain).

"Bread and circuses" is right. I suspect that we, as a nation, won't be roused to action to protest this until it's too late, and all that's left is violent resistance. What we need, today, is a million people marching in the streets of Washington D.C. We need a billion dollars in political action money fighting anti-Constitution legislators.

I sure hope we wake up before it's too late. But I'm hedging my bets; my passport is up-to-date (and I'm careful to keep myself off watch lists).

Don't like his ruling, get rid of him

[OmegaWolf747]

Bush and his cronies are so corrupt. They don't like when the judge rules for the Constitution and against them, so attempt to railroad him out of his power over this case. They just want to play by their own rules instead of the supreme law of the land. No wonder other countries think the US is a joke.

Opportunity

[iiiears]

This just made me mad enough to write. Humorously i hope but may have missed it by a country mile. You may recognize these mottoes from an army recruiting advert. - enjoy.

"Not for ourselves alone"
"No task too tough"
"Speed courage power"
"Always ready"
"The will to succeed"
"Led by love of country"
"Honor and courage"
"Vigilant and swift"
"Can and will"
"We will always win"

We the people with speed, courage, power, led by by love of country can and will conquer the enemies of America. We must be vigilant and swift, and always ready to claim our birthright. The shining city on the hill is run by fossilised dinosaurs.
We will always win because we must win and we have won in the past. There is no task too tough, the middle east has OUR oil and is Manifest Destiny.
Liberty is earned and pays quarterly dividends. Remember, the riches of democracy are granted to us with the consent of our leaders.
We will not falter in purpose to our children and their future SUV. They will be given all that is in our power to grant them after taxes.
In these halcyon days an aging document constitutes an impediment to their entitlements and clogs the hall in the Smithsonian with T-shirted gawkers from June to September. These words must be a mantra Sacrifice is valor, privacy is shared for common reasons: safety and guaranteed Re-election. Noun verb 9/11. There too equal representation requires equal knowledge and we don't know as much as the president do we? He will lead us in our best interests and those of stockholders from from the deserts of McCanaan to new land wars.
Our recent wars have begun with miscomunication Gulf of Tonkin, Imagined Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border, T.S.A. WMD cavity searches prior to boarding flights to Duluth. FOX news polemics should tell us we own the world it is The American Way.
We are fellow travelers sharing a common goal and a strong army on the bright path to a newly ordered world. Other nations will be compliant or fear us. There can be no weak compromise or discussion. Our economy invincible we will print dollars until they submit, or until a movie ticket costs as much as movie popcorn.
We have succeeded in toppling Iraq's Qassim and Saddam. We will always win.
Sacrifice is valor citizens. Rise each morning and heed the call of our leaders.Oil production is in decline. Drive less or not at all? Using non traditional energy for travel would mean we lost and the terrorists won.

(about that tradition soon @ $200 bbl)

Sacrifice will be easy for the ends justify the means. Even if we upset those generous chinese that purchase U.S. debt. They will still send us shoes if not. Resole your holed shoes with a "McPaper" the "USA Today" will do just fine as the graph colors change with the seasons matching any outfit.
Collect and contribute all aluminum, iron, glass and rubbers The trojan horse of waste is hiding in all of our actions. Recycle! Reduce consumption! Lose a few pounds, invite neighbors to share in a pot luck freedom party. Give a prize to anyone using all local reduced FDA inspection salmonella free ingredients. Sing Bomb bomb Iran around the grill and have a drink to McCain's health. Plan for a strong future by planting a victory garden. If you are weak and fearful. Purchase plastic and duct tape for your windows it will insulate from terrurist WMD newklear fallout Victory Curtains. It will also ensure privacy in your home (though not online or on the phone). Good relations would require changed policy cost less but be seen as Wimpy. pfft. 'besides what would happen to our army.
So-oo, Maintain several gallons of water and gasoline at hand should your budget fall short or are required to volunteer somewhere like New Orleans.
Ask your employer to retool. Take a class to improve yourself - learn to weld/weild a tom

I agree, you are a liar and wrong

[D.McGuiggin]

"This is further ironic because you attacked me for using a straw man argument when it was actually you who used the straw man argument."

No, I did not. You have demonstrated that you don't know what one is, so your opinion on the subject is useless.

You have also demonstrated that despite being told why you are wrong, your response is to continue to misunderstand your own sources and continue the same flawed argument that has already been refuted.

For example, YOU asked how chemical weapons are tools, I gave you an exmple and your response was

"That is convenient, isn't it? I'm sure the Reagan administration thought this all through carefully so as to keep their hands as clean as possible."

Which is just moronic. YOU asked for a use for the TOOLS that chemicals are, and when given one, you try to pretend it's a plot by Reagan? That alone proves just how dogmatic and zealous your belief in your failed thinking is.

How does it feel to know you're wrong and not be able to me down because I've proved it?

 

Re:I agree, you are a liar and wrong

[DeadCatX2]

No, I did not [use a strawman on you].

*sigh*. I guess you weren't paying attention.

You have also demonstrated that despite being told why you are wrong, your response is to continue to misunderstand your own sources and continue the same flawed argument that has already been refuted.

Actually, my argument is that if you give someone a weapon knowing what they're going to do with it, you are partially responsible. I don't need any source for this. You haven't given convincing evidence that this stance is flawed.

Nor did you refute my argument. First you said I didn't read my source, then I copied and pasted the appropriate paragraph, then you turn around and say that the source isn't credible...is that how you refute arguments these days?

YOU asked for a use for the TOOLS that chemicals are, and when given one, you try to pretend it's a plot by Reagan?

You are correct that there are legal uses for the chemicals, but you conveniently ignored my point regarding dual-use technology. The fact of the matter is that the Reagan administration sold dual-use technology to the Iraqis, knowing they were going to make chemical weapons to use on the Iranians. In fact, the administration wanted the Iraqis to take out the Iranians. Part of my argument as mentioned above is that if you not only know, but want someone to use a "tool" in a certain way, and they do, you are even more culpable than before.

How does it feel to know you're wrong and not be able to me down because I've proved it?

The only thing you proved is that you use capital letters, poor grammar, ad-homs, and straw men when someone makes a point you don't like.

Still lying, and getting dumber

[D.McGuiggin]

"You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong."

No, imbecile, I didn't. READ what you're trying to pass off as a "straw man"

The exact quote is

"for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?"

Please show where in there I claimed you "said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal"?

OH RIGHT YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT, I DIDN'T.

You fail at life, and are still wrong loser.

Re:Still lying, and getting dumber

[DeadCatX2]

Are you seriously going to contend that your statement does not make the implicit assumption that I said anything about manufacture or storage?

I said chemical warfare was illegal. You said no it wasn't. You're wrong, and you didn't want to admit it, so you pretended I was talking about manufacture or storage, and tried saying that's legal. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said (and, hence, it is a straw man).

Here, let me quote your comment for you, just in case you forgot what you said.

Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention

NO actually, it wasn't.

Not that I expect any kind of proof (even a link to your own comment) to satisfy you.

Re:Still lying, and getting dumber

[DeadCatX2]

It proves that you are too stupid to know the difference between "The Geneva convention outlawed" which is what that quote was regarding and "Chemical weapons ARE NOT illegal" which is something I never said.

I can only assume that you didn't even read the quote. I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't. It's plain as day, right there.

Why don't you just let go of the straw man and own up to the fact that you said chemical warfare was not outlawed and you are wrong.

Oh, I know why. Because when you're so obviously wrong, it's easier to call me names twelve times in a single post and include an attack on my family for good measure.

Look at you, so big and strong and superior to me. I bow before the power of the awful names you call me. *snicker*

NO, you're still lying.

[D.McGuiggin]

"The only thing you proved is that you use capital letters, poor grammar, ad-homs, and straw men when someone makes a point you don't like."

And the only thing you've proved is that when caught lying, you'll continue to do so.

I didn't use any straw men, you attempted to prove I did but instead proved you have no idea what the fuck a straw man is, but will lie about it anyway.

As to my "poor grammar", don't pretend your shitty reading skills are a result of my grammar. I find it humorous that you're so self assured that you attack my grammar when your posts are both incoherent logically and grammatically. Hell, I hope English isn't your first language, at least then you'd just be ignorant, not moronic. It's painful to watch you try so hard to find SOMETHING to attack me over since everything you've tried has been refuted and you look like an idiot as a result.

As to the "ad-homs" which isn't even a fucking word, are you saying because I call names you can dismiss me? YOUR IDIOT ASS DID TOO, so are you just stupid, a hypocrite, or both?

I own you and you know it, which is why you keep lying. At least you can continue to misuse the language, fail to read correctly, and demonstrate your obvious retardation. At this point, no one would expect anything else from you.

So go ahead, demonstrate your stupidity again. I insist.

Re:NO, you're still lying.

[DeadCatX2]

I didn't use any straw men, you attempted to prove I did but instead proved you have no idea what the fuck a straw man is, but will lie about it anyway.

Check this reply if you still don't understand how you misrepresented my view in order to attack it.

Oh, by the way, check out this New York Times article. That Shultz guy I quoted before pops up again...of course, you're likely to just believe the deniers like Powell or Armitage.

It's painful to watch you try so hard to find SOMETHING to attack me over since everything you've tried has been refuted and you look like an idiot as a result.

On the contrary, it's quite pleasurable to watch you freak out and constantly ignore the entire point of my debate. I will repeat it again.

If you give someone a tool while you know what their intention for the tool is, you are partially responsible.

Further, if it is your desire for their intention to occur, then you share even more responsibility than above. In essence, you are getting someone else to do your job.

At the barest essence, that is my point. You still have yet to address it. You're unlikely to start now.

are you saying because I call names you can dismiss me? YOUR IDIOT ASS DID TOO, so are you just stupid, a hypocrite, or both?

Yes, I am saying that because you call me names, your argument loses strength. It's a distraction and adds nothing to the discussion; it only takes away from any point you are trying to make. I can only hypothesize that you were raised in a family where disrespecting people was considered acceptable.

It wasn't until my fourth reply to you that I started to get cheeky, and only then because it was clear you are irrational, and I still never once called you any names (However, in reaction to your accusations of lying or stupidity, I did begin to call into question exactly how intelligent you may or may not be; and yet even still I did acknowledge your very lucid point that the Geneva Protocol doesn't ban storage or manufacture of chemical weapons [though moot, since it was a straw man])

I'd like you to note that, before I even replied to you, you were already attacking me (calling me stupid). I invite you to read over my replies again, and please cite for me any one time I called you a moron, a liar, an idiot, or any other name. For fun, keep track of how many different names you call me, and how many times you call me those names, just to compare the relative order of magnitude.

I own you and you know it, which is why you keep lying.

Ah, is this one of those times when you call someone a liar because you're the one doing the lying? Do you know how much I enjoy watching you squirm, trying to avoid discussing my actual point and instead throwing names at me and baseless assertions of invalidity while falsely claiming that I'm lying?

I looked at some more of your other posts. All you do is go around, trying to rip on people so you can feel better about yourself. Honestly, a small part of me feels sad that you feel the need to boost your ego by throwing shit at strangers over the Internet.

What you said changes nothing, you still lied.

[D.McGuiggin]

"is this one of those times when you call someone a liar because you're the one doing the lying? "

Not really, seeing as I didn't lie, I'd have to say this is one of those times when you know you're wrong and can't find an out.

I told you to demonstrate your stupidity, and you did. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

"Honestly, a small part of me feels sad that you feel the need to boost your ego by throwing shit at strangers over the Internet."

HEY RETARD, HOW THE FUCK DOES AN ANONYMOUS SCREEN NAME THAT NO ONE PAY A SINGLE BIT OF ATTENTION TO boost my ego?

Right, it doesn't, you're just caught lying and need a way to attack me, so that was the best you could do.

You lied. I caught you. Nothing you say will ever change that, and you know it, which is why you keep replying.

Only now you're replying because I told you to. And you will again.

Re:What you said changes nothing, you still lied.

[DeadCatX2]

Besides for ego-boosting, for what other reason would you throw around names so rampantly? Do you honestly believe that name calling gives your argument any sort of strength? Perhaps that's why you never get any positive moderation to your comments.

You can accuse me of lying all you want, but 100 does not equal 7. In fact, I would wager that your final paragraph is quite possibly an attempt to make me stop, because you can't of your own volition stop digging your own hole. Or maybe you want to pretend that you have some sort of power over me to once again boost your ego.

Note how you continue to ignore my point in favor of calling me a liar, over and over again. I guess you have no other defense.

Still lying, and getting dumber

[D.McGuiggin]

"Are you seriously going to contend that your statement does not make the implicit assumption that I said anything about manufacture or storage?"

No, I'm going to contend that waht your idiot ass assumes IS NOT what I said. My contention is irrefutably correct.

"I said chemical warfare was illegal. You said no it wasn't. "

No, you're a liar.

Here, let me quote your comment for you, just in case you forgot what you said.

                Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention

        NO actually, it wasn't.

I'm waiting for you to do what you said, fuckstick. That quote doesn't prove what you said, you fucking moron. It proves that you are too stupid to know the difference between "The Geneva convention outlawed" which is what that quote was regarding and "Chemical weapons ARE NOT illegal" which is something I never said. YOUR inability to read worth a fuck doesn't make you right, it makes you a shitty reader.

"Not that I expect any kind of proof (even a link to your own comment) to satisfy you."

Why would you think YOU assuming something because your reading skills suck ass is proof of anything other than the fact that you're too stupid to comment before someone else reads what you're commenting about and explains it to you?

Now, tool, I requested you follow up your lie with a quote that show I said what you claimed, not that you inferred from my comment but that I actually SAID IT.

You didn't, which is an obvious admission that you know you're a liar.

It must suck knowing you're caught lying and can't screech your idiot ass out of it, but you're not helping yourself by making moronic assumptions and pretending they're points I made. That shit might work on the brain damaged imbeciles you normally converse with, but I'm not your family, and I have no intention of letting you get away with it.

You have yet to prove anything

[D.McGuiggin]

"I can only assume that you didn't even read the quote"

You need to stop doing that retard, you've been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

"I'm going to contend that what your idiot ass assumes IS NOT what I said. My contention is irrefutably correct."

Until you stop "assuming" what you want to see from my posts, you can't do much to avoid looking like an idiot.

"I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't. "

And it wasn't moron. But that's not your follow on contention which was SPECIFICALLY ""You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong." and ids irrefutably a lie. I never SAID that or IN ANY WAY claimed it, you are a lair. Only NOW you're losing track of what you were lying about.

"Why don't you just let go of the straw man "

Because I didn't use one you fucking ignoramus you're just possessed with shitty reading comprehension. You have yet to prove I did, you just quote me then assume what you inferred is accurate. That doesn't make it a straw man, it makes you a dumbass.

"Oh, I know why."

You do, I never used one. That's why.

"Look at you, so big and strong and superior to me. "

And look at you responding because you're wrong, know it, and can't avoid doing so.

Re:You have yet to prove anything

[DeadCatX2]

"I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't."

And it wasn't

Here you are again displaying the traits of someone who is trying to lawyer their way out of a pinch. Go ahead and continue to get picky over naturally implicit details like "the people who signed the treaty" etc. However, minus some rather minor caveats, you can't argue that the spirit of the Geneva protocol was to prevent the use of things like mustard gas during war. You can sum that up by saying "Geneva banned chemical weapons" or "Geneva made chemical warfare illegal".

But that's not your follow on contention which was SPECIFICALLY ""[sic]You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong." and ids [sic] irrefutably a lie. I never SAID that or IN ANY WAY claimed it, you are a lair [sic].

Wow, three typos in one sentence. You must have been furious.

Okay, let's walk through this very slowly one step at a time, and hopefully you will finally see through your own rage long enough to notice how full of shit you are.

1) I said chemical warfare is illegal since Geneva.

2) You replied (with English that rivals that of an inner-city bully) nuh uh!!!

3) I said duh, look at the name. Prohibition of poisonous gases. What part of prohibition don't you understand?

4) You say but it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage!!!

So, I said chemical warfare is illegal, and you said I'm wrong because you can store or manufacture such weapons (which has absolutely nothing to do with my point). In order for your statement to have any merit, I would have had to say "you can't make or store chemical weapons"...but I never said that, which is why this is a straw man. You pretend I said something that I didn't say, and proceed to respond to it as if that was my argument, because you can't defeat my actual argument.

And look at you responding because you're wrong, know it, and can't avoid doing so.

And here, you try to convince yourself that I'm under your control, again, when really it's the other way around.

By the way, I remain amused that you consistently avoid addressing my generalized argument. I'll repeat it again, just to taunt you.

My argument is that if you are aware of intended purpose of the tool you're selling at the time of sale, then you share accountability for that use. Further, if you sell a tool to someone so that they may do something that you would like to see done, you are even more accountable than in the example above.