I thought I should offer something more substantive on this.
Every liberal I know is FOR many core American values like liberty, peace, and democracy. We're also for security,
Those aren't policies though. They're ideals. As in "I'm against the current policy because it falls short of these ideals".
but we don't believe that can be achieved by giving up liberty and feel that there's other ways to go about that.
Yes. In other words, national security is not your primary concern. And you have "other ways" to make us secure, but you can't be bothered to mention them.
We happen to be ok with religion... We don't hate the rich or corporations.
What would someone do differently if they DID hate religion, the rich, or corporations? No one believes the left would go out of their way to help (or even be fair to) religion, corporations, or the rich. Someone on the left who suggested fairness to Christians, corporations and the rich would be laughed at by the other lefties.
We just don't feel that it is right for money to have influence on politics.
Except when it's Holywood money or money from George Soros. Then it's the good kind of money.
Lobbying is bad for America.
Except when it's the unions lobbying. Or MADD. Or the gun controllers. Or the tax raisers. Or any other liberal groups.
You might want to look in the First amendment where it says that thing about "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That's what lobbying is.
-
I understand what you're saying. This is the press release stuff. It's the public face of the left. The reality can be understood by observing what the left actually does. It's a lot closer to what I wrote than what you did.
Until you do so, you have no right to claim you are at war with anyone.
Opinion noted. It doesn't seem to be related to reality.
"Stop shooting at us! We're not really at war! No, really! There's this technicality... Seriously, stop shooting, or we'll file a lawsuit in District Court. We'll do it..."
Oh and by the way, if you want to complain about terrorists hiding in the population, maybe you should go on a tour of Iran, whose current theocratic rulers were installed by the US government (and wasn't Saddam trained by the US?). And the rest of the meddling that resulted the conditions that lead to that whole plane/building incident. I mean, if a foreign government was to interfere in your government, wouldn't you be kinda pissed?
Still not to worry, the US is safe from that. Its not like the current dynasty of rulers of the US have close ties with oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, or have received massive funding from same, or they might want to buy out your ports or anything. Heheh.
Once again, what's the point here? That Carter screwed up in Iran? No kidding. This kind of thing gets brought up all the time. What's the point?
What does "person XYZ was once associated with the US in some way and turned out bad" mean? It's an argument that doesn't seem to argue for or against anything, but it's about the most common argument I hear on war subjects. And no one will ever explain what the point is.
A declaration of war means all sort of international treaties get invoked,
Actually, you may be right on that. That could explain why congress didn't do it. I don't think it's the treaties you're thinking of though.
including conventions about the treatment of enemy combatants.
Those are in effect anyway. They don't apply to terrorists, because terrorists don't meet the qualifications. Go and read them if you don't believe me. Google "uniform" and "Geneva convention".
One of the reasons for the treaties is to protect civilians from armies. The distinctions between civilians and armies is to be made clear, so the armies fight each other and spare the general population. Terrorists put the population at risk by hiding among them. They are not owed the benefit of those treaties. And to give it to them would encourge the behavior and ultimately harm the civilian populations.
But nevermind that. It's not in the talking points.
Thats why the US hasn't been officially at war with anyone since, what, Vietnam?
WW2 I think.
If you want to open concentration camps without breaking international treaties, just don't declare war. Simple really.
Still you can take a stagnant sort of comfort in the fact that governments around the world pull this sort of stunt all the time, so you're in good company. Things like not declaring certain situations in Africa "genocide", and therefore avoiding the protocols that kick in requiring intervention, and avoiding getting stuck in an unprofitable struggle. I mean, where's the profit in stopping slaughter?
You're trying to say something here, but it's all in the subtext. Why don't you just say it? Why dance on the edge of being a wacko? Just jump in.
The current trend is to justify ignoring Liberals by calling them "Anti-American" or "Traitors."
Nope. That's just the pretend stuff for the wackos. Everyone knows the left isn't traitorous in general. They just put winning elections ahead of national security. It's ok, national security is still in your top 10 priorities. Maybe 8th.
The current trend is to say you're not FOR anything and you have no ideas. And it'll work too, unless there's a bunch of good counter-examples. (Try saying you want to raise taxes again. It's the truth, and it worked so good the last time.)
I think the left's priorities go like this:
1. I hate Bush 2. Money 3. Win elections 4. I hate corporations 5. I hate religious people 6. I hate the rich 7. Make the earth feel our love 8. Lookout for terrorists 9. I hate SUV drivers 10. I hate the military 11. I hate smokers, fast food restuarants, cell phone talkers, wal-mart, oil companies, meat eaters, fur wearers, snowmobilers, farmers, managers, electricity generation, homeschoolers, zoos, etc., etc., etc. . . 999. Are you going to eat that? (Yes? I hate you.) 1000. Privacy. 1001. I hate light pollution from the reflections off of orbiting satellites.
Of course, no Democrat has received a majority of the vote for president for almost 30 years, but anything can happen.
That's a complete fabrication, and you know it.
Kerry got 48.27% Al Gore got 48.38% Clinton got 49.23% in 1996 Clinton got 43.01% in 1992 Dukakis got 45.65% Mondale got 40.56% Carter got 41.01% in 1980 Carter got 50.08% in 1976 (A majority. Almost 30 years ago.)
Karl Rove fabricates my data for me and sticks it on this website. Thanks, Karl.
Are you saying there's no privacy implications to telling (and requiring everyone you're worked for to tell) them everying about your financial dealings? Because they promise to keep it under their hat?
They don't care about privacy. They care about the complaining. And they want to think of themselves as victims. For that "I'm a victim, empower me and give me goodies" benefit. Privacy is a pretense.
The pro-privacy pretenders on Slashdot don't. They don't really care about privacy. It's just the latest stick to fight their hateful partisan battles.
Likewise one would think any mention of a subject by KSM would get an automatic FISA warrant.
What's the process for getting a warrant to wiretap someone when you don't know who they are (because they're on the other end of a phone call)? Can it be done instantaneously so you can listen to the conversation?
My reading of the 4th amendment says that it can't be done at all.
His analysis seems sound. He doesn't just mention a case, like you did. Actually, he mentions several, and goes on to explain what they say and how it applies to the NSA operation.
So what you are saying is people's lives are more important that freedom?
I'm saying it's reasonable to listen to both sides of cross-border conversations in wartime (or even "Authorization for Use of Military Force"-time).
Congratulations - you've just defined a totalitarian society, because the most safety you can get is from a system where the government controls and monitors the movements of every citizen.
How about just the ones talking to terrorist suspects? How about temporarily, just until the terror threat is eliminated, even though that might be a long time?
I think we should win the war. I think we should prevent the terrorist attacks from succeeding. I think that the duty to win the war is the number one principle when you're in a war. Because you owe it to the people on your side who'll be killed otherwise.
I asked it in another thread: If the terrorists succeed again in another large-scale attack, do you think you'll end up with more civil liberties or fewer? How did it work the last time?
It isn't, so getting the required judicial approval should be no problem.
Now YOU read the 4th amendment.
Say a terrorist calls a guy in the US. Let's just say his name is Khalid. But who is Khalid? You don't have a warrant to listen to his part of the conversation. And you can't get a warrant without knowing who he is (see 4th amendment). So you never hear what he says, and he goes on to help kill 3000 Americans.
And you can never get a warrant to listen to Khalid unless you know who he is (see 4th amendment).
In 1999, the NSA began monitoring a cell phone number in Yemen that served as a switchboard for al-Qaida. Among the callers who connected to this switchboard was a 'Khalid" in the United States. The NSA dropped surveillance of the caller for fear of violating FISA provisions on domestic spying. Khalid turned out to be Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the 9-11 hijackers who took over American Airlines Flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon. -- Salt Lake tribune
Oh, I guess we know who he was after his attack succeeded. Maybe we should try to get that warrant now.
After 9/11, I'd say it's reasonable to listen to this kind of conversation, even though you couldn't get a warrant.
What I am saying is that the military may not spy on US Citizens without judicial review, not that they can't spy at all.
That's an OK opinion. But the courts haven't ruled that way.
If the military is spying on US Citizens without judicial supervision then they are breaking the law.
What law? I don't think there's any such law. I can understand the opinion that it's unconstitutional. I don't think the congress has the power to pass a law governing it though.
The military is not above the constitution and are certainly not above the Supreme Court. The President is not above the constitution and is also not above the Supreme Court.
The executive and the judicial are co-equal branches of government. Neither is above or beneath the other.
The United States has a concept of "checks and balances" which are somewhat alien to those people who do not understand the concept of "freedom" and like to run at the first sign of trouble.
That's a fine talking point. Yes. Checks and balances are good. We all like checks and balances. There's no "checks and balances" article, clause, or section in the constitution though. You might (pretend to) be against this policy on the grounds of "checks and balances". But that doesn't change the legality.
Which part of the fourth amendment was unclear to you that made you think it said "except if the military is doing the spying"?
Which part of it says anything about spying at all? Which part of it makes it clear that it applies to conversations that cross borders? Which part of it makes it clear that this listening is "unreasonable"?
The case law supports the NSA policy, though there hasn't been a ruling on this precise question.
Just because you (pretend to) see an unconstitutional practice doesn't mean you're right.
You're on crack or a neocon if you think a "Authorization for Use of Military Force" gives the government rights to spy on it's own citizens.
First of all, the government doesn't have rights. The government has powers.
The jury is still out on that
In other words, there's no controlling legal authority that it's against any law or rule. There are court decisions that tend to support it, but none incontrovertably rule on this precise issue. And the president is responsible (and don't forget authorized) to protect the USA from terrorists. So he has this NSA operation to fulfill that duty.
but if it were true, why are there pending bills to make what they are doing now legal?
Because the legislative branch of government always tries to take power from the executive branch.
Your lack of foresight is astonishing.
Terrorism is a real threat. I'm supposed to forsee a time when government spying is more of a threat than terrorism? Guess what, I do. When that time comes, I'll be for the repeal (or modification) of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". But that time has not yet come and it's extremely irresponsible to pretend when the US is at risk.
But I suppose you can always just change your mind about all this when a Democrat is elected president, no harm done.
Indeed. When times change, the responsible policy changes. Of course, no Democrat has received a majority of the vote for president for almost 30 years, but anything can happen.
Yeay. Hooray for the NY Times. They stole top secret information and gave it to terrorists Now terrorists know how to avoid getting caught. Way to go.
But at least out rights are protected. Until the terrorists use their new knowledge to succeed in an attack again.
Do you really think that "your rights online" will be safer after that happens (presuming you're still alive after the attack)? How did it work out last time?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Are you saying that this clearly puts the courts in charge of each action in military signals intelligence operations? There are no court decisions that state that.
It is also worthwile to note that we are not officially in a time of war. Congress authorized the use of force and is happily signing the checks, but they stopped short of actually declaring war.
Please explain the practical difference.
I know there's a lot of people who wish there was a difference so they can pretend to be outraged about the NSA signal intelligence activity.
I didn't get the memo that we we're at war with anyone
That's because you're not a serious person. There was an Authorization for Use of Military Force. There's no practical difference. (There might be some petty debating points on the difference, but those are best left to people who aren't serious about US national security. You can post them in a reply if you want.)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought I should offer something more substantive on this.
... We don't hate the rich or corporations.
Every liberal I know is FOR many core American values like liberty, peace, and democracy. We're also for security,
Those aren't policies though. They're ideals. As in "I'm against the current policy because it falls short of these ideals".
but we don't believe that can be achieved by giving up liberty and feel that there's other ways to go about that.
Yes. In other words, national security is not your primary concern. And you have "other ways" to make us secure, but you can't be bothered to mention them.
We happen to be ok with religion
What would someone do differently if they DID hate religion, the rich, or corporations? No one believes the left would go out of their way to help (or even be fair to) religion, corporations, or the rich. Someone on the left who suggested fairness to Christians, corporations and the rich would be laughed at by the other lefties.
We just don't feel that it is right for money to have influence on politics.
Except when it's Holywood money or money from George Soros. Then it's the good kind of money.
Lobbying is bad for America.
Except when it's the unions lobbying. Or MADD. Or the gun controllers. Or the tax raisers. Or any other liberal groups.
You might want to look in the First amendment where it says that thing about "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That's what lobbying is.
-
I understand what you're saying. This is the press release stuff. It's the public face of the left. The reality can be understood by observing what the left actually does. It's a lot closer to what I wrote than what you did.
I won't deny the legal issues are far from settled,
That's what I was saying.
but to say that they are all in favor of the NSA is ridiculous.
It looks good to me.
Until you do so, you have no right to claim you are at war with anyone.
Opinion noted. It doesn't seem to be related to reality.
"Stop shooting at us! We're not really at war! No, really! There's this technicality... Seriously, stop shooting, or we'll file a lawsuit in District Court. We'll do it..."
Oh and by the way, if you want to complain about terrorists hiding in the population, maybe you should go on a tour of Iran, whose current theocratic rulers were installed by the US government (and wasn't Saddam trained by the US?). And the rest of the meddling that resulted the conditions that lead to that whole plane/building incident. I mean, if a foreign government was to interfere in your government, wouldn't you be kinda pissed?
Still not to worry, the US is safe from that. Its not like the current dynasty of rulers of the US have close ties with oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, or have received massive funding from same, or they might want to buy out your ports or anything. Heheh.
Once again, what's the point here? That Carter screwed up in Iran? No kidding. This kind of thing gets brought up all the time. What's the point?
What does "person XYZ was once associated with the US in some way and turned out bad" mean? It's an argument that doesn't seem to argue for or against anything, but it's about the most common argument I hear on war subjects. And no one will ever explain what the point is.
And finally, we don't hate Bush.
I was with you there for a while. But this just proves you aren't paying attention. Or you're "spinning".
A declaration of war means all sort of international treaties get invoked,
Actually, you may be right on that. That could explain why congress didn't do it. I don't think it's the treaties you're thinking of though.
including conventions about the treatment of enemy combatants.
Those are in effect anyway. They don't apply to terrorists, because terrorists don't meet the qualifications. Go and read them if you don't believe me. Google "uniform" and "Geneva convention".
One of the reasons for the treaties is to protect civilians from armies. The distinctions between civilians and armies is to be made clear, so the armies fight each other and spare the general population. Terrorists put the population at risk by hiding among them. They are not owed the benefit of those treaties. And to give it to them would encourge the behavior and ultimately harm the civilian populations.
But nevermind that. It's not in the talking points.
Thats why the US hasn't been officially at war with anyone since, what, Vietnam?
WW2 I think.
If you want to open concentration camps without breaking international treaties, just don't declare war. Simple really.
Still you can take a stagnant sort of comfort in the fact that governments around the world pull this sort of stunt all the time, so you're in good company. Things like not declaring certain situations in Africa "genocide", and therefore avoiding the protocols that kick in requiring intervention, and avoiding getting stuck in an unprofitable struggle. I mean, where's the profit in stopping slaughter?
You're trying to say something here, but it's all in the subtext. Why don't you just say it? Why dance on the edge of being a wacko? Just jump in.
Stereotypes are the oldest form a deception in the world of politics. You have been sucked into it like a ray of light get sucked into a black hole.
Don't you just hate it when that happens?
Also, I suggest more swear words. Use more swear words. Then people will really know I'm wrong and you're the thoughtful idea-party.
The current trend is to justify ignoring Liberals by calling them "Anti-American" or "Traitors."
Nope. That's just the pretend stuff for the wackos. Everyone knows the left isn't traitorous in general. They just put winning elections ahead of national security. It's ok, national security is still in your top 10 priorities. Maybe 8th.
The current trend is to say you're not FOR anything and you have no ideas. And it'll work too, unless there's a bunch of good counter-examples. (Try saying you want to raise taxes again. It's the truth, and it worked so good the last time.)
I think the left's priorities go like this:
1. I hate Bush
2. Money
3. Win elections
4. I hate corporations
5. I hate religious people
6. I hate the rich
7. Make the earth feel our love
8. Lookout for terrorists
9. I hate SUV drivers
10. I hate the military
11. I hate smokers, fast food restuarants, cell phone talkers, wal-mart, oil companies, meat eaters, fur wearers, snowmobilers, farmers, managers, electricity generation, homeschoolers, zoos, etc., etc., etc.
.
.
999. Are you going to eat that? (Yes? I hate you.)
1000. Privacy.
1001. I hate light pollution from the reflections off of orbiting satellites.
and so on.
Of course, no Democrat has received a majority of the vote for president for almost 30 years, but anything can happen.
That's a complete fabrication, and you know it.
Kerry got 48.27%
Al Gore got 48.38%
Clinton got 49.23% in 1996
Clinton got 43.01% in 1992
Dukakis got 45.65%
Mondale got 40.56%
Carter got 41.01% in 1980
Carter got 50.08% in 1976 (A majority. Almost 30 years ago.)
Karl Rove fabricates my data for me and sticks it on this website. Thanks, Karl.
Gambling losses are on there. Medical expenses. Not to mention everything about your employment and your finances. Try reading the real form.
If it's not private, then post it on a blog and send us the link.
Are you saying there's no privacy implications to telling (and requiring everyone you're worked for to tell) them everying about your financial dealings? Because they promise to keep it under their hat?
Clearly only socialists complain about privacy
They don't care about privacy. They care about the complaining. And they want to think of themselves as victims. For that "I'm a victim, empower me and give me goodies" benefit. Privacy is a pretense.
Seriously though, Chuck Schumer's staff illegally obtained a credit report on Michael Steele. Where were Slashdot's pretend privacy advocates then? No crocodile tears for Mr. Steele?
So do I.
The pro-privacy pretenders on Slashdot don't. They don't really care about privacy. It's just the latest stick to fight their hateful partisan battles.
You people who pretend to care about privacy should look at your tax forms some time. Do you support a repeal of the income tax for privacy reasons?
(No. Without income taxes, you wouldn't get to spend money you didn't earn.)
Likewise one would think any mention of a subject by KSM would get an automatic FISA warrant.
What's the process for getting a warrant to wiretap someone when you don't know who they are (because they're on the other end of a phone call)? Can it be done instantaneously so you can listen to the conversation?
My reading of the 4th amendment says that it can't be done at all.
I don't pretend to be a lawyer. This guy is though.
His analysis seems sound. He doesn't just mention a case, like you did. Actually, he mentions several, and goes on to explain what they say and how it applies to the NSA operation.
What is that supposed to mean?
Actually, I mistook you for someone else. Sorry.
So what you are saying is people's lives are more important that freedom?
I'm saying it's reasonable to listen to both sides of cross-border conversations in wartime (or even "Authorization for Use of Military Force"-time).
Congratulations - you've just defined a totalitarian society, because the most safety you can get is from a system where the government controls and monitors the movements of every citizen.
How about just the ones talking to terrorist suspects? How about temporarily, just until the terror threat is eliminated, even though that might be a long time?
I think we should win the war. I think we should prevent the terrorist attacks from succeeding. I think that the duty to win the war is the number one principle when you're in a war. Because you owe it to the people on your side who'll be killed otherwise.
I asked it in another thread: If the terrorists succeed again in another large-scale attack, do you think you'll end up with more civil liberties or fewer? How did it work the last time?
Now YOU read the 4th amendment.
Say a terrorist calls a guy in the US. Let's just say his name is Khalid. But who is Khalid? You don't have a warrant to listen to his part of the conversation. And you can't get a warrant without knowing who he is (see 4th amendment). So you never hear what he says, and he goes on to help kill 3000 Americans.
And you can never get a warrant to listen to Khalid unless you know who he is (see 4th amendment).
Oh, I guess we know who he was after his attack succeeded. Maybe we should try to get that warrant now.
After 9/11, I'd say it's reasonable to listen to this kind of conversation, even though you couldn't get a warrant.
What I am saying is that the military may not spy on US Citizens without judicial review, not that they can't spy at all.
That's an OK opinion. But the courts haven't ruled that way.
If the military is spying on US Citizens without judicial supervision then they are breaking the law.
What law? I don't think there's any such law. I can understand the opinion that it's unconstitutional. I don't think the congress has the power to pass a law governing it though.
The military is not above the constitution and are certainly not above the Supreme Court. The President is not above the constitution and is also not above the Supreme Court.
The executive and the judicial are co-equal branches of government. Neither is above or beneath the other.
The United States has a concept of "checks and balances" which are somewhat alien to those people who do not understand the concept of "freedom" and like to run at the first sign of trouble.
That's a fine talking point. Yes. Checks and balances are good. We all like checks and balances. There's no "checks and balances" article, clause, or section in the constitution though. You might (pretend to) be against this policy on the grounds of "checks and balances". But that doesn't change the legality.
Which part of the fourth amendment was unclear to you that made you think it said "except if the military is doing the spying"?
Which part of it says anything about spying at all? Which part of it makes it clear that it applies to conversations that cross borders? Which part of it makes it clear that this listening is "unreasonable"?
The case law supports the NSA policy, though there hasn't been a ruling on this precise question.
Just because you (pretend to) see an unconstitutional practice doesn't mean you're right.
I was right then. You're not a serious person.
any terrorist that is capable of doing harm (ie has enough of a clue) knows to assume any and all communications are monitored
Only because the NSA caught the other ones.
You're on crack or a neocon if you think a "Authorization for Use of Military Force" gives the government rights to spy on it's own citizens.
First of all, the government doesn't have rights. The government has powers.
The jury is still out on that
In other words, there's no controlling legal authority that it's against any law or rule. There are court decisions that tend to support it, but none incontrovertably rule on this precise issue. And the president is responsible (and don't forget authorized) to protect the USA from terrorists. So he has this NSA operation to fulfill that duty.
but if it were true, why are there pending bills to make what they are doing now legal?
Because the legislative branch of government always tries to take power from the executive branch.
Your lack of foresight is astonishing.
Terrorism is a real threat. I'm supposed to forsee a time when government spying is more of a threat than terrorism? Guess what, I do. When that time comes, I'll be for the repeal (or modification) of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". But that time has not yet come and it's extremely irresponsible to pretend when the US is at risk.
But I suppose you can always just change your mind about all this when a Democrat is elected president, no harm done.
Indeed. When times change, the responsible policy changes. Of course, no Democrat has received a majority of the vote for president for almost 30 years, but anything can happen.
Yeay. Hooray for the NY Times. They stole top secret information and gave it to terrorists Now terrorists know how to avoid getting caught. Way to go.
But at least out rights are protected. Until the terrorists use their new knowledge to succeed in an attack again.
Do you really think that "your rights online" will be safer after that happens (presuming you're still alive after the attack)? How did it work out last time?
Are you saying that this clearly puts the courts in charge of each action in military signals intelligence operations? There are no court decisions that state that.
It is also worthwile to note that we are not officially in a time of war. Congress authorized the use of force and is happily signing the checks, but they stopped short of actually declaring war.
Please explain the practical difference.
I know there's a lot of people who wish there was a difference so they can pretend to be outraged about the NSA signal intelligence activity.
I didn't get the memo that we we're at war with anyone
That's because you're not a serious person. There was an Authorization for Use of Military Force. There's no practical difference. (There might be some petty debating points on the difference, but those are best left to people who aren't serious about US national security. You can post them in a reply if you want.)