Clue: Osama bin Laden only makes an "appearance" when the Bush administration is in trouble and needs a poll boost. See October 2004... see now...
Clue: we are to believe that a man whose kidneys stopped working years ago.. who lives connected to a dialysis machine.. has been living in the mountains of west Pakistan for four years with no electricity and this administration cannot kill or capture him, despite having the most powerful military apparatus in the history of human existence at his disposal.
Clue: bin Laden is probably already dead.. but this administration needs to bring out the "boogie-man" on occassion to rally the masses for support of their assault on civil liberties. That's why "stock" footage of a younger, healthier bin Laden always accompanies the "audio-only" tapes that the CIA tells us are authentic... really. Trust us. Boo!
You still have all your rights. Now, please tell us which of your rights are being violated when the NSA records without a warrant a telephone call that you receive from a known terrorist. Please be specific, and cite precedent when available.
Given the narrow (and probably fictional) scenario you outlined, none of my rights, or anyone else's, are being violated... which is why the administration should have no problem proving to me that they only recorded phone calls from/to known terrorists.
They could prove it by having some third party... I don't know.. some kind of court... say, the FISA court... verify that the calls they recorded were to/from known terrorists and were on the up and up.
Now... prove to me... Please be specific, and cite evidence when available... that they only tapped calls to/from known terrorists.
bonus points if your proof is not in the form of an administration official "telling you so".
I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic->international calls or domestic->domestic calls. That's the whole freaking point! You don't either... and the reason neither of us knows is because Bush bypassed FISA!
And if Bush hadn't "bypassed" FISA, would that have nay impact whatsoever on what you know? Of course not. This whole argument is about something which is supposed to happen in secret, so you aren't suppposed to know what's going on.
No.. I wouldn't know.. but another party, one not part of the administration, would have verified the appropriateness of the wiretapping. The check-and-balance would be there.
I'm sorry your family died in that terrorist attack. We could easily have found out about it and prevented it, but not without bypassing the system of checks and balances. We decided to work within the system. I'm sure your dead children would agree that we did the right thing.
Warmest regards,
President Russ Feingold
The point is.. they can easily do the same thing... the EXACT same thing.. working within the system.
It's a straw man argument... they can perform the exact same level of espionage without breaking the law.
Because warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact, there is no "speed" or "imminent threat" issue.
The only reason to bypass the FISA process is because they felt that FISA would reject some of their requests. The only reason FISA would reject some of their requests is if the requests were not just for spying on terrorists.
Nope, you still have each and every right outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's just that the governement is going to listen to the call if they have probable cause to think you might be a terrorist.
Fine. Please do so.
But get a warrant first! (or up to 72 hours afterward, as the FISA law permits).
That's all we're saying. Tap the phones.. but go through FISA so we know you're only tapping suspected terrorists and no one else. If they bypass FISA, then they're hiding something... most likely that they're tapping more than just terrorists.
What I hear has no more or less validity than what you hear.
EXACTLY!
Which is why the FISA court is set up... so that another party can review the reasons for the wiretapping and determine if they're kosher or not.
I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic->international calls or domestic->domestic calls. That's the whole freaking point! You don't either... and the reason neither of us knows is because Bush bypassed FISA!
Get it now? As one of your favorite Presidents (I'm sure) once said, "Trust, but verify". (Reagan, BTW).
All I'm saying is you do not have enough evidence of wrongdoing.
I have evidence of the President bypassing the FISA court and wiretapping without a warrant. My evidence of that is that the administration admitted it. He authorized wiretapping without FISA oversight... he admitted violating the 4th Amendment.
I'm not saying "don't impeach him", I'm saying that, until all the details come out, you have no evidence. Why do you think they haven't already tried impeachment? Because there's no evidence.
They "haven't tried impeachement" because impeachment starts in the House of Representatives and is tried in the Senate. Both bodies of congress are controlled by the Republican party. If there were a Democratically-controlled House, we would be immersed in the impeachment proceedings already.
If and when evidence shows up, I'll be behind you 100%
No.. I bet you won't. You have blind loyalty to the word of this President. The only evidence (of the nature of the wiretapping) you have is the word of this administration.. and you're going with that. You believe in him. I don't. What we need is a.. I don't know... unbiased third party to determine if he's telling the truth about the nature of the wiretapping. Hmmm... FISA court is such a party.. why don't we try them?
oh yeah....
I'm arguing that Bush could skip down the street handing out candy to children, and you'd be mad him for it, you'd find something in it to complain about.
But in Bush's case, he'd be handing out the candy and charging it to me and you (a la Medicare reform). Or worse yet.. he'd be running up the deficit to do it so those kids would end up paying for the candy themselves someday... with interest.;-)
No, it's strategic listening to incoming calls from suspected terrorists. Whom they're calling is irrelevant, we need to know what those people (al Qaeda) are up to.
Please site your sources for:
A) proof that they are listening to only incoming calls.
B) proof that they are listening to only suspected terrorists.
and no.. because Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity said so.. is not good enough.
You see... we would HAVE this proof, if the President wasn't bypassing FISA review. If all the calls were of the nature you describe, then the President should have no qualms with getting FISA warrants up to 72 hours after the fact since the warrants would be granted in every case if the calls are of the nature you describe.
The only possible reason I can think of for the President to bypass FISA is because the calls were NOT just "incoming calls from Al Qaeda".
But, from what I hear, the specific numbers targetted were to and from terrorist's cell phones found in caves in Afganistan and the numbers that they had stored in them. Is that really so bad?
from what you hear. From whom are you hearing this? From the administration...
..and we know they are telling the truth because:
A. They have never lied to us before
B. George Bush is a good Christian man who would never mislead us.
C. The thought of our government lying to us is unfathomable.
From what you hear!?!?
Giving me a fucking break... what you hear on Fox News, or on Limbaugh's show, or in a Presidential news conference... is not good enough.
He has 72 hours after the fact to get the warrant from FISA and assure the country that everything is on the up and up. There is no justifiable reason to bypass FISA unless the calls were NOT of the nature that you heard.
This "Bush is violating my civil rights" nonsense is getting pretty damn old. Any lib would be very hard pressed to name a single "civil right" that they have lost since Bush was elected. You can still have any religion you want, you can still say anything you want, you can own a gun, you don't have to testify against yourself, you can own land, you can vote for whoever you like, you can hang out with whoever you like, you can talk crap about the govt everyday...and you can do all this without fear of retaliation from the govt.
So please, stop promoting the left wing dogma that your rights are somehow being violated...unless you have some kind of proof that specifally YOUR rights have been violated.
I can be arrested and detained without cause, indefinitely, if the government decides to label me a "terrorist".
Due process is gone.... if the government decides that by posting this message, I am indeed a "terrorist", I can be locked up... without due process, without being allowed to contact my lawyer, without access to my family, and without the ability to post bail... indefinitely.
There's one civil right gone. 5th Amendment... blown to bits.
How about this one: My phone can be tapped, without probably cause, simply because the other end of the phone call is overseas (or not, we don't know for sure since Bush/NSA isn't letting the FISA court see what calls they're tapping). 4th Amendment.. ripped to shreds.
Quit drinking the Limbaugh koolaid. If this was happening under a Democrat President, you and your buddies in the Michigan militia would be storming Washington. You got impeachment proceedings started for far less.
Because you're framing the question incorrectly. You think it is about wiretapping.. it is not. It is about the executive branch bypassing the system of checks and balances.
We have a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, which has repeatedly stated they want to kill lots and lots of american civilians. One day about 4 years ago, they killed 3000 in a few minutes. This proves they're not just all talk, not just an imaginary threat.
Absolutely. No argument. Also... not related to the discussion.
They have operatives working inside of the US. When they get phone calls from places like Morocco, Algeria, Syria, well.... I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing.
Me too. So would most of us. Still not related to the discussion.
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
You have no idea if it is only Domestic->International calls. Since they bypassed the FISA court, nobody knows but them. The difference is that you, mostly for partisan reasons, trust them when they say the wiretaps weren't for Domestic->Domestic calls. And make no mistake, all you have is blind trust, because since they bypassed the FISA review process there is no way for us to tell for sure. You trust this administration implicitly, I do not. But let me ask you this, and please be honest in your answers.... would you implicitly trust a Democrat President in the same circumstances? Would you have trusted Clinton?
If a practice requires that we trust the government, without oversight, then we rely on it only working well if someone trustworthy is running the government. Regardless of what you think of George Bush... even if you think he is the most trustworthy President in history... he won't always be President. That's where you have to put your partisanship aside and think about whether you would be ok with a practice if it were being done by a President you don't trust.
meh. whether its legal or not, every administration since the telephone was invented would be guilty of this to some degree, if it should even be considered a crime.
"Everyone does it" is the weakest possible defense. Past Presidents breaking the law in no way excuses current Presidents breaking the law.
I obviously don't think it should be considering where the world is at to day, but as always, ymmv.
There is always a major threat to our way of life... where the "world is at today" is no scarier a place than when we all feared nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviets. There is always a threat.. there is always pressures that make some, like yourself (who don't have the insight to look at the bigger picture), willing to give up everything that actually makes us Americans.. makes us "this grand experiment".. just so you won't have to worry about the boogie-man anymore.
Freedom is more important than security. Some of our states have mottos like "Live Free or Die" and "Freedom First"... these aren't just hollow words. They speak to us today, if you'd only listen.
Our founding fathers said things like "Give me liberty or give me death" and "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" (not exact quote, paraphrasing). Those aren't just lofty ideals... they are what makes America unique.
You're willing to let those ideals become empty slogans, just so you won't have to watch another terrorist attack like 9/11. The Osama bin Ladens of the world have already defeated you... you're cowering in fear and willing to let your country change in order to better "protect" you.... but they haven't defeated some of us yet.
One more... "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." You have succumbed to the fear, my friend.
...and your President is taking full advantage of you in that respect.
Even when the question is framed in the most positive manner for the President (relating wiretaps to fighting terrorism), nearly half of the population still is against it?
This is a very encouraging sign.
What would the numbers have been if the poll was worded this way:
Are you for or against wiretapping suspected terrorists without a FISA court warrant, even though a warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact?
I'm guessing that 47% would grow to at least 2/3.
The American people are starting to "get it" about this current President. The terrorists would be winning if the public was falling for our fascist government's bullshit... but the people are, surprisingly, showing that they aren't all willing to part with their cherished civil liberties just because Dubya & Dick flash the boogie-man before our faces every 14 months or so (or whenever they need a poll boost).
The public is starting to build up immunities to the old "whip them into a frenzy by showing stock footage of Osama and playing an audiotape" routine.
There is no such thing as "Macro Evolution" or "Micro Evolution". Those are terms invented by ID proponents.
There is simply "Evolution". Small changes over time. Given enough time, the accumulation of change is great. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys evolved independently from the same ancient ancestor. You won't find, and wouldn't expect to find, an "intermediate" species between humans and monkeys... that's like saying there's an intermediate race between caucasoid and mongoloid (i.e. "Why haven't we found a race of people that are in between caucasian and oriental?") Common ancestry does not imply an intermediate species.
I just wish this whole "rapture" thingy would get here already... the rest of us would like to advance as a species without the fundamentalists christians holding us back.
If I remember right, the scientists invesigating evolution still haven't found any concrete evidence of an interim species that was between a monkey and a human.
sigh... evolutionary theory does NOT state that humans evolved from monkeys. Say it 100 times until you get it into your head.
Evolutionary theory says that monkeys and humans evolved from the same ancestor. There is no "in-between". You and your sister come from the same parents... you didn't evolve from your sister.
Modern day chimpanzees and modern day humans share a common ancient ancestor.. there isn't, and never was, some species between humans and chimps.
ID is about the creation of life by an intelligence which could be anything from the God of the Bible to slimy tentacled aliens from a planet orbiting Betelgeuse.
Sorry..no.. you can't stop there. Because then you have to explain the origin of the slimy tentacled aliens.... and then the origin of their "designers".. and so on, ad infinitum.
ID proponents know where that exercise eventually leads... an alpha point... some original designer. Their "god".
ID is creationism in stealth. It's intellectually dishonest for an ID-er to state "we're not saying the designer is 'God', it could be any intelligent being" because then that begs the question about the origin of the designer.
Life on earth may have been designed... but then you've got to explain the origin of the designer.
Say I believed the earth is flat. Does that add to or detract from YOUR well being?
It does when you and your friends get elected to my daughter's school district board and have it taught to her in science class as if it was equivalent to "believing" that the world is a sphere.
Believe what you want... but don't put in my kid's science curriculum.
I'm teaching my kid to be rational and reasoned. I don't need her being confused by "junk science" being taught to her as if it were real science.
Yes.. your beliefs detract from my well-being (and my families) when you legislate them into law and into school curriculums.
That's where the Christian fundies crossed the line.
By "earth-like" they meant that it is terrestrial, not a gas giant (a la Jupiter or Saturn).
Until now.. they hadn't found a planet in another star system that was
A) terrestrial (solid, with a rocky surface)
B) farther than 0.15 AU from its star.
This planet is 2.5 AU from it's star and it is not a gas giant. That's what makes it "earth-like".. in the way that mercury, venus, mars, and pluto are "earth-like".
Until now.. no such planet had been observed in another star system.
Wrong. Connecticut gave you Dubya. His poppa brought him to Texas 'cuz there was a load of money to be made in the oil fields. Where did poppa go to retire: Maine. These folks aren't Texans. Never were, aren't, never will be.
Yeah... well.. you were the ones that put him in office.. twice... before sicking him on the rest of the world.
If you would've defeated him in Texas, he probably never would've run for President.
While Connecticut is where Dubya was born... it was Texas that foisted him on the American public.
Actually, most weather systems take 4 to 5 days to move through a region, so if you simply predict "Tomorrow will be about the same as today", you will be right 80% of the time.
I experienced a guy pointing a revolver at my head and pulling the trigger twice. Thankfully it was not loaded, and I was able to beat the shit out of him. Still, in the ensuing months, my mind, seemingly on it's own, would replay the events over and over. I can still remember every little detail now, 5 years later, but it's at my own discretion.
I feel the same way about Bettis' fumble with 1:20 remaining this past Sunday. I have a feeling I will be seeing that ball popping out and imagining what would have happened had Big Ben not made that arm-tackle.
It was traumatic enough for this man to cause a heart attack.
Steeler fans need to get ahold of this pill before Sunday.
Your entire post is one long stream of unsubstantiated bullshit.
- Rove was going to be taken down, and Bush impeached over revealing a covert CIA agent? [Who wasn't covert, and hadn't been for 6 years]
There was never a possibility of impeachment, what with both houses of congress being solidly in Bush's pocket.
BUT! Had the exact same situation occured when Clinton was in office, impeachment proceedings would be well underway.. and you know it.
- How the Conservatives were "cracking up", by wanting to withdraw Harriet Myers, yet it was actually a strengthening of the party's convictions (See also: Sam Alito)?
Hmmm.. Bush shows an utter and complete failure of judgement in selecting a nominee, is forced by public outrage (mostly on the right) to perfom a "do-over", and this somehow makes Bush a strong leader we should rally around? We hear all the time about him being a "man of his convictions" and "not interested in what the polls say, only what is right" and all that bullshit.. but when he shows that he is ONLY interested in his public approval and not willing to stand up for his choice on principle... that makes him a good leader?
- About 20 lawsuits against Halliburton, Clinton's favorite tool and the only non-French company that makes CITIES, came to nothing?
Investigating and prosecuting these lawsuits was the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. Hmmm... wonder which person and party is at the top of that branch?
- Rush Limbaugh was going to be jailed for taking prescription drugs, but the court found there was no evidence whatsoever, and the prosecutor was trying to take a fishing expedition?
Uh... the court did NOT find there was no evidence "whatsoever". In fact, Limbaugh admitted to becoming addicted to prescription pain medicine. How can that be construed as "no evidence whatsoever"? True, he was not prosecuted... but to claim there was no evidence of his addiction to pain medication? You really have to have drunk the koolaid to go there...
- How tax cuts would "bankrupt the country", but it's growing at the safest, strongest rate without being in a boom? [Also done by JFK, Ronald Regan, George Bush 41- NOT done by Jimmy Carter who *raised* taxes, and we were miserable.]
Check the deficit and debt numbers lately? Tax cuts were supposed to increase the revenue and lower the deficit, eventually leading to surplus and a lowering of the debt. Did that happen? Or has the deficit increased and the debt balooned under this President and his "smaller government" congress? Did you believe the lies that the Republicans were for "smaller government"? The largest NON-MILITARY increase in spending in the country's history has occured under a GOP President and GOP-controlled congress. Never again should a Republican be allowed to say that his party is the party of "small government".
- How almost every democratic congress-geezer moans about low military morale, but people are re-enlisting in numbers rivaled only by the second world war?
Man.. you just make up stuff as you go along, don't you? There is a current recruitment crisis going on, as another poster already pointed out and provided a link. All four branches are well below their recruitment goals. You need to read more.
- How "no WMDs" were in Iraq, but the New York Times reported (5/22/04) that Bush was harming the Iraqis by hauling out 500T of yellowcake uranium, and 2T of enriched uranium from the streets of Baghdad?
Your president and your party leaders, who have admitted that WMDs weren't found, disagree with you. Are you calling Bush a liar when he admitted that intelligence mistakes were made and that no WMDs were found?
- How Bush "went AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties in the vietnam era, but the papers were using Microsoft's font face?
Whether he went AWOL is immaterial... until morons like yourself compare
You can perform religious rituals on public property.. as long as you're not acting as an agent of the government.
For example... you and you family can sit down at a picnic table in Yellowstone National Park and say a pre-meal prayer. However.. if you are a park ranger at Yellowstone, employed by the U.S. Government and acting as an agent of the U.S. Government, you cannot erect a manger scene at the same picnic table.
That would be you.. as a proxy of the government... endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. This violates the first amendment.
and if you can't see the difference between those two situations, you're not smart enough to continue in this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Clue: we are to believe that a man whose kidneys stopped working years ago.. who lives connected to a dialysis machine.. has been living in the mountains of west Pakistan for four years with no electricity and this administration cannot kill or capture him, despite having the most powerful military apparatus in the history of human existence at his disposal.
Clue: bin Laden is probably already dead.. but this administration needs to bring out the "boogie-man" on occassion to rally the masses for support of their assault on civil liberties. That's why "stock" footage of a younger, healthier bin Laden always accompanies the "audio-only" tapes that the CIA tells us are authentic... really. Trust us. Boo!
Clue: You are being played.
Given the narrow (and probably fictional) scenario you outlined, none of my rights, or anyone else's, are being violated ... which is why the administration should have no problem proving to me that they only recorded phone calls from/to known terrorists.
They could prove it by having some third party... I don't know.. some kind of court... say, the FISA court... verify that the calls they recorded were to/from known terrorists and were on the up and up.
Now... prove to me... Please be specific, and cite evidence when available... that they only tapped calls to/from known terrorists.
bonus points if your proof is not in the form of an administration official "telling you so".
And if Bush hadn't "bypassed" FISA, would that have nay impact whatsoever on what you know? Of course not. This whole argument is about something which is supposed to happen in secret, so you aren't suppposed to know what's going on.
No.. I wouldn't know.. but another party, one not part of the administration, would have verified the appropriateness of the wiretapping. The check-and-balance would be there.
I'm sorry your family died in that terrorist attack. We could easily have found out about it and prevented it, but not without bypassing the system of checks and balances. We decided to work within the system. I'm sure your dead children would agree that we did the right thing.
Warmest regards,
President Russ Feingold
The point is.. they can easily do the same thing... the EXACT same thing.. working within the system.
It's a straw man argument... they can perform the exact same level of espionage without breaking the law.
Because warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact, there is no "speed" or "imminent threat" issue.
The only reason to bypass the FISA process is because they felt that FISA would reject some of their requests. The only reason FISA would reject some of their requests is if the requests were not just for spying on terrorists.
Fine. Please do so.
But get a warrant first! (or up to 72 hours afterward, as the FISA law permits).
That's all we're saying. Tap the phones.. but go through FISA so we know you're only tapping suspected terrorists and no one else. If they bypass FISA, then they're hiding something... most likely that they're tapping more than just terrorists.
EXACTLY!
Which is why the FISA court is set up... so that another party can review the reasons for the wiretapping and determine if they're kosher or not.
I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic->international calls or domestic->domestic calls. That's the whole freaking point! You don't either... and the reason neither of us knows is because Bush bypassed FISA!
Get it now? As one of your favorite Presidents (I'm sure) once said, "Trust, but verify". (Reagan, BTW).
All I'm saying is you do not have enough evidence of wrongdoing.
I have evidence of the President bypassing the FISA court and wiretapping without a warrant. My evidence of that is that the administration admitted it. He authorized wiretapping without FISA oversight... he admitted violating the 4th Amendment.
I'm not saying "don't impeach him", I'm saying that, until all the details come out, you have no evidence. Why do you think they haven't already tried impeachment? Because there's no evidence.
They "haven't tried impeachement" because impeachment starts in the House of Representatives and is tried in the Senate. Both bodies of congress are controlled by the Republican party. If there were a Democratically-controlled House, we would be immersed in the impeachment proceedings already.
If and when evidence shows up, I'll be behind you 100%
No.. I bet you won't. You have blind loyalty to the word of this President. The only evidence (of the nature of the wiretapping) you have is the word of this administration.. and you're going with that. You believe in him. I don't. What we need is a .. I don't know... unbiased third party to determine if he's telling the truth about the nature of the wiretapping. Hmmm... FISA court is such a party.. why don't we try them?
oh yeah....
I'm arguing that Bush could skip down the street handing out candy to children, and you'd be mad him for it, you'd find something in it to complain about.
But in Bush's case, he'd be handing out the candy and charging it to me and you (a la Medicare reform). Or worse yet.. he'd be running up the deficit to do it so those kids would end up paying for the candy themselves someday... with interest. ;-)
Please site your sources for:
A) proof that they are listening to only incoming calls.
B) proof that they are listening to only suspected terrorists.
and no.. because Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity said so.. is not good enough.
You see... we would HAVE this proof, if the President wasn't bypassing FISA review. If all the calls were of the nature you describe, then the President should have no qualms with getting FISA warrants up to 72 hours after the fact since the warrants would be granted in every case if the calls are of the nature you describe .
The only possible reason I can think of for the President to bypass FISA is because the calls were NOT just "incoming calls from Al Qaeda".
from what you hear . From whom are you hearing this? From the administration...
A. They have never lied to us before
B. George Bush is a good Christian man who would never mislead us.
C. The thought of our government lying to us is unfathomable.
From what you hear!?!?
Giving me a fucking break... what you hear on Fox News, or on Limbaugh's show, or in a Presidential news conference... is not good enough.
He has 72 hours after the fact to get the warrant from FISA and assure the country that everything is on the up and up. There is no justifiable reason to bypass FISA unless the calls were NOT of the nature that you heard.
So please, stop promoting the left wing dogma that your rights are somehow being violated...unless you have some kind of proof that specifally YOUR rights have been violated.
I can be arrested and detained without cause, indefinitely, if the government decides to label me a "terrorist".
Due process is gone.... if the government decides that by posting this message, I am indeed a "terrorist", I can be locked up... without due process, without being allowed to contact my lawyer, without access to my family, and without the ability to post bail... indefinitely.
There's one civil right gone. 5th Amendment... blown to bits.
How about this one: My phone can be tapped, without probably cause, simply because the other end of the phone call is overseas (or not, we don't know for sure since Bush/NSA isn't letting the FISA court see what calls they're tapping). 4th Amendment.. ripped to shreds.
Quit drinking the Limbaugh koolaid. If this was happening under a Democrat President, you and your buddies in the Michigan militia would be storming Washington. You got impeachment proceedings started for far less.
Because you're framing the question incorrectly. You think it is about wiretapping.. it is not. It is about the executive branch bypassing the system of checks and balances.
We have a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, which has repeatedly stated they want to kill lots and lots of american civilians. One day about 4 years ago, they killed 3000 in a few minutes. This proves they're not just all talk, not just an imaginary threat.
Absolutely. No argument. Also... not related to the discussion.
They have operatives working inside of the US. When they get phone calls from places like Morocco, Algeria, Syria, well.... I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing.
Me too. So would most of us. Still not related to the discussion.
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
You have no idea if it is only Domestic->International calls. Since they bypassed the FISA court, nobody knows but them. The difference is that you, mostly for partisan reasons, trust them when they say the wiretaps weren't for Domestic->Domestic calls. And make no mistake, all you have is blind trust, because since they bypassed the FISA review process there is no way for us to tell for sure. You trust this administration implicitly, I do not. But let me ask you this, and please be honest in your answers.... would you implicitly trust a Democrat President in the same circumstances? Would you have trusted Clinton?
If a practice requires that we trust the government, without oversight, then we rely on it only working well if someone trustworthy is running the government. Regardless of what you think of George Bush... even if you think he is the most trustworthy President in history... he won't always be President. That's where you have to put your partisanship aside and think about whether you would be ok with a practice if it were being done by a President you don't trust.
meh. whether its legal or not, every administration since the telephone was invented would be guilty of this to some degree, if it should even be considered a crime.
"Everyone does it" is the weakest possible defense. Past Presidents breaking the law in no way excuses current Presidents breaking the law.
I obviously don't think it should be considering where the world is at to day, but as always, ymmv.
There is always a major threat to our way of life... where the "world is at today" is no scarier a place than when we all feared nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviets. There is always a threat.. there is always pressures that make some, like yourself (who don't have the insight to look at the bigger picture), willing to give up everything that actually makes us Americans.. makes us "this grand experiment".. just so you won't have to worry about the boogie-man anymore.
Freedom is more important than security . Some of our states have mottos like "Live Free or Die" and "Freedom First"... these aren't just hollow words. They speak to us today, if you'd only listen.
Our founding fathers said things like "Give me liberty or give me death" and "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" (not exact quote, paraphrasing). Those aren't just lofty ideals... they are what makes America unique.
You're willing to let those ideals become empty slogans, just so you won't have to watch another terrorist attack like 9/11. The Osama bin Ladens of the world have already defeated you... you're cowering in fear and willing to let your country change in order to better "protect" you.... but they haven't defeated some of us yet.
One more... "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." You have succumbed to the fear, my friend.
This is a very encouraging sign.
What would the numbers have been if the poll was worded this way:
Are you for or against wiretapping suspected terrorists without a FISA court warrant, even though a warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact?
I'm guessing that 47% would grow to at least 2/3.
The American people are starting to "get it" about this current President. The terrorists would be winning if the public was falling for our fascist government's bullshit ... but the people are, surprisingly, showing that they aren't all willing to part with their cherished civil liberties just because Dubya & Dick flash the boogie-man before our faces every 14 months or so (or whenever they need a poll boost).
The public is starting to build up immunities to the old "whip them into a frenzy by showing stock footage of Osama and playing an audiotape" routine.
Good for us.
There is simply "Evolution". Small changes over time. Given enough time, the accumulation of change is great. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys evolved independently from the same ancient ancestor. You won't find, and wouldn't expect to find, an "intermediate" species between humans and monkeys... that's like saying there's an intermediate race between caucasoid and mongoloid (i.e. "Why haven't we found a race of people that are in between caucasian and oriental?") Common ancestry does not imply an intermediate species.
I just wish this whole "rapture" thingy would get here already... the rest of us would like to advance as a species without the fundamentalists christians holding us back.
sigh... evolutionary theory does NOT state that humans evolved from monkeys. Say it 100 times until you get it into your head.
Evolutionary theory says that monkeys and humans evolved from the same ancestor. There is no "in-between". You and your sister come from the same parents... you didn't evolve from your sister.
Modern day chimpanzees and modern day humans share a common ancient ancestor.. there isn't, and never was, some species between humans and chimps.
Sorry..no.. you can't stop there. Because then you have to explain the origin of the slimy tentacled aliens.... and then the origin of their "designers".. and so on, ad infinitum.
ID proponents know where that exercise eventually leads... an alpha point... some original designer. Their "god".
ID is creationism in stealth. It's intellectually dishonest for an ID-er to state "we're not saying the designer is 'God', it could be any intelligent being" because then that begs the question about the origin of the designer.
Life on earth may have been designed... but then you've got to explain the origin of the designer.
It does when you and your friends get elected to my daughter's school district board and have it taught to her in science class as if it was equivalent to "believing" that the world is a sphere.
Believe what you want... but don't put in my kid's science curriculum.
I'm teaching my kid to be rational and reasoned. I don't need her being confused by "junk science" being taught to her as if it were real science.
Yes.. your beliefs detract from my well-being (and my families) when you legislate them into law and into school curriculums.
That's where the Christian fundies crossed the line.
Until now.. they hadn't found a planet in another star system that was
A) terrestrial (solid, with a rocky surface) B) farther than 0.15 AU from its star.
This planet is 2.5 AU from it's star and it is not a gas giant. That's what makes it "earth-like".. in the way that mercury, venus, mars, and pluto are "earth-like".
Until now.. no such planet had been observed in another star system.
All of this is in TFA.
Yeah... well.. you were the ones that put him in office.. twice... before sicking him on the rest of the world.
If you would've defeated him in Texas, he probably never would've run for President.
While Connecticut is where Dubya was born... it was Texas that foisted him on the American public.
if you think Australian elections can't be rigged, you're pretty naive.
Given enough resources, anything can (and likely will) be rigged.
Why is that? In 2003 Diebold bought a Canadian company called Global Election Systems, the #1 supplier in Canada of electronic voting machines.
hmmmm....
Diebold: We don't just rig U.S. elections anymore!
You must be new here...
I feel the same way about Bettis' fumble with 1:20 remaining this past Sunday. I have a feeling I will be seeing that ball popping out and imagining what would have happened had Big Ben not made that arm-tackle.
It was traumatic enough for this man to cause a heart attack.
Steeler fans need to get ahold of this pill before Sunday.
Your entire post is one long stream of unsubstantiated bullshit.
- Rove was going to be taken down, and Bush impeached over revealing a covert CIA agent? [Who wasn't covert, and hadn't been for 6 years]
There was never a possibility of impeachment, what with both houses of congress being solidly in Bush's pocket.
BUT! Had the exact same situation occured when Clinton was in office, impeachment proceedings would be well underway.. and you know it.
- How the Conservatives were "cracking up", by wanting to withdraw Harriet Myers, yet it was actually a strengthening of the party's convictions (See also: Sam Alito)?
Hmmm.. Bush shows an utter and complete failure of judgement in selecting a nominee, is forced by public outrage (mostly on the right) to perfom a "do-over", and this somehow makes Bush a strong leader we should rally around? We hear all the time about him being a "man of his convictions" and "not interested in what the polls say, only what is right" and all that bullshit.. but when he shows that he is ONLY interested in his public approval and not willing to stand up for his choice on principle... that makes him a good leader?
- About 20 lawsuits against Halliburton, Clinton's favorite tool and the only non-French company that makes CITIES, came to nothing?
Investigating and prosecuting these lawsuits was the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. Hmmm... wonder which person and party is at the top of that branch?
- Rush Limbaugh was going to be jailed for taking prescription drugs, but the court found there was no evidence whatsoever, and the prosecutor was trying to take a fishing expedition?
Uh... the court did NOT find there was no evidence "whatsoever". In fact, Limbaugh admitted to becoming addicted to prescription pain medicine. How can that be construed as "no evidence whatsoever"? True, he was not prosecuted... but to claim there was no evidence of his addiction to pain medication? You really have to have drunk the koolaid to go there...
- How tax cuts would "bankrupt the country", but it's growing at the safest, strongest rate without being in a boom? [Also done by JFK, Ronald Regan, George Bush 41- NOT done by Jimmy Carter who *raised* taxes, and we were miserable.]
Check the deficit and debt numbers lately? Tax cuts were supposed to increase the revenue and lower the deficit, eventually leading to surplus and a lowering of the debt. Did that happen? Or has the deficit increased and the debt balooned under this President and his "smaller government" congress? Did you believe the lies that the Republicans were for "smaller government"? The largest NON-MILITARY increase in spending in the country's history has occured under a GOP President and GOP-controlled congress. Never again should a Republican be allowed to say that his party is the party of "small government".
- How almost every democratic congress-geezer moans about low military morale, but people are re-enlisting in numbers rivaled only by the second world war?
Man.. you just make up stuff as you go along, don't you? There is a current recruitment crisis going on, as another poster already pointed out and provided a link. All four branches are well below their recruitment goals. You need to read more.
- How "no WMDs" were in Iraq, but the New York Times reported (5/22/04) that Bush was harming the Iraqis by hauling out 500T of yellowcake uranium, and 2T of enriched uranium from the streets of Baghdad?
Your president and your party leaders, who have admitted that WMDs weren't found, disagree with you. Are you calling Bush a liar when he admitted that intelligence mistakes were made and that no WMDs were found?
- How Bush "went AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties in the vietnam era, but the papers were using Microsoft's font face?
Whether he went AWOL is immaterial... until morons like yourself compare
For example... you and you family can sit down at a picnic table in Yellowstone National Park and say a pre-meal prayer. However.. if you are a park ranger at Yellowstone, employed by the U.S. Government and acting as an agent of the U.S. Government, you cannot erect a manger scene at the same picnic table.
That would be you.. as a proxy of the government... endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. This violates the first amendment.
and if you can't see the difference between those two situations, you're not smart enough to continue in this discussion.